No Evidence. Really?

[ScottBarger]

Heya folks. As most of you know I run in all kinds of different circles. One of which is the six-day creationist circle. Not that I myself am a literal six day creation kind of guy, but I know a bunch. Anyway, here is an article that has shown up all over my facebook feed. I read it and thought to myself, " Wow, some of the folks over at ACA3 would enjoy interacting with THIS guy!" I don't know the author, so I didn't invite him to the forum, but I'll post the link.

I am not super interested in evolution, myself, but I know some of you are. Let me know your thoughts.

http://www.ittybittycomputers.com/Essays/Evolution.htm

[Dr Mundo]

I received a logical, scientific, mathematical education, and scientists believed in common descent, so it must be true.

Stopped reading there. I have to get ready for work anyways, I may look this over when I get back. I love talking about evolution, but if that was his reason for "buying into" evolution then its no wonder he no longer buys into it and I see no point in having someone like that one the show. Or perhaps if we had someone with formal scientific training talk to him and help address some issues with him personally he may learn what are good reason for accepting the theory of evolution.

[mitchellmckain]

Let me tackle just one little aspect of this in regards to the mention of perpetual motion machines.

When physicist tell you that perpetual motion machines are impossible they are refering to a closed system (one that does not interact with the environment and which cycles through some kind of motion or process to return to exactly the same state it was in before. In the simplest case it is impossible because there is always a non zero friction but mostly what is being referred to is some process that transforms energy from one form to another and that cannot produce a perpetual cycle because such a process always involves an increase in entropy (that is from a less probable state to a more probable state). To put it another way, energy isn't always usable. Everything is made of energy and so just because energy is there doesn't mean that it can be used for anything. Energy is only usable when it is in a metastable state and its usefulness comes from a process that brings energy to a more stable state.

Living organisms are NOT an example of perpetual motion of any kind. They not only require interaction with an evironment but they require an evironment that is far from equillibrium. In other words, they require an environment where there is a constant flow of energy to a more stable state and thus an environment where there is a constant large increase of entropy. In such an environment there can be all kinds of processes where there is a local decrease of entropy without there being any violation of the second law of thermodynamics.


In any case, this essay is of the typical pseudo-scientific pattern where in looking for evidence to support a conclusion one can usually find it.

[DickDawk]

He's wrong about radiometric dating. A very small percentage of it is incorrect; the vast majority of it radiometric dating checks out with other forms of dating and is accurate. Additionally, radiometric dating correctly placed the geologic table into it's correct order which would have a very low probability of happening by accident. The earth is very, very old and radiometric dating is highly accurate.

[ScottBarger]

That's one of the things I hear a lot on the Christian side of it...radiometric dating is unreliable. On the other side I hear that it is "highly accurate." So is one side confused/lying? Or is it a matter of terms? What is "highly accurate" when you are talking about geological ages?

[Keep The Reason]

Good jumping off site.. The Links cited at the end of the intro are what's important in his website.

[mitchellmckain]

That's one of the things I hear a lot on the Christian side of it...radiometric dating is unreliable. On the other side I hear that it is "highly accurate." So is one side confused/lying? Or is it a matter of terms? What is "highly accurate" when you are talking about geological ages?

The accuracy has been demonstrated by using it on samples where the date is known by other methods. Just like DNA testing the result can be wrong if the samples are contaminated. But while that might work for a defense attourney arguing for reasonable doubt, this doesn't work for evidence of evolution because in that case we would be asked to believe that the vast majority of samples are all consistenly contaminated in just the right way to support evolution. LOL It is a basic assumption of science that the evidence has not all been arranged by invisible demons to intentially deceive us. I guess that might work for theists with a mafia boss like God who wants those he rules to be craven cowards, just made more grateful that they at least are not among the damned. But for those who believe in a loving parental God who wants us to achieve great things, that just doesn't work at all.