Moronic Georgia School Board Allows Creationism in School

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

microevolution, something small changing it's habbits to adapt to it's environment - that I can agree with
macroevolution, an entire organism making physiological changes into a better form - that I can't agree with, since I agree with the Laws of Thermodynamics saying that nothing gets better, everything just gets worse.

nik

Please, please, please understand what you're arguing against before you do so.


Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

Well, considering that I still believe in the laws of thermodynamics, I would say that your post didn't do much convincing... It's all based on someone's theory that has evidence for it and evidence against it. We're going around in circles, people...

nik

I much do not like the 2nd Law argument, I wish Creationists had never made that one up. The earth, a huge flying rock in space, with all of it's elements and solar input, can sustain an increase in complexity by the nature of fractal pattern hypertrophy within the system. By God's design the DNA resequencing allows for further propogation and natural selection picks appropriate DNA advantages. Now the real argument is in the microevolution, whereas mutations are supposed to improve survival rankings. But they hardly don't. In bacteria that change their membrane protein structures to couteract the immune system, or those that have decided "hey, Nylon tastes good", are simply doing what their dna code already was capable of allowing. The sequence just had to be selected. Microevolution is never benefical, whereas natural selection is. Microevolution is real because we make it real - we radiate some fruit flies and wow, they have legs coming out of their heads.

I guess that's how the 2nd law was intended to be used... to combat the notion that microevolution could benefit the system and progress organisms into more complex entities. On both sides of the argument it seems misleading.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

microevolution, something small changing it's habbits to adapt to it's environment - that I can agree with
macroevolution, an entire organism making physiological changes into a better form - that I can't agree with, since I agree with the Laws of Thermodynamics saying that nothing gets better, everything just gets worse.

nik

Please, please, please understand what you're arguing against before you do so.


Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

Well, considering that I still believe in the laws of thermodynamics, I would say that your post didn't do much convincing... It's all based on someone's theory that has evidence for it and evidence against it. We're going around in circles, people...

nik

tell me, how does an air conditioner work?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

How can you say that two cities strewn with hardened brimstone (sulfer) is just a city that is strewn with hardened brimstone even though it corresponds with stories in the Bible written thousands of years ago, but fish with different fins are more than just fish with different fins?

Oh, that's right... like I said before: Christians aren't the only hypocrites.

nik
P.S. Seriously, okay, I'm going to stop, really. I always get wrapped up in these debates.

 

[Stratum9]

Originally posted by: notfred

The Cobb County School District acknowledges that some scientific accounts of the origin of human species as taught in public schools are inconsistent with the family teachings of a significant number of Cobb County citizens. Therefore, the instructional program and curriculum of the school system shall be planned and organized with respect for these family teachings.

Based on this statement, Cobb County would begin teaching that Jews and Blacks were inferior races if enough nazis moved into town.

I'm surprised nobody else caught on to this either! This is a perfect example of what happens when the current members of a school board reword their existing bylaws to accomodate their preferred outcome to the issue at hand, rather than weighing the issue at hand against their existing bylaws. They got so caught up in their efforts that they, apparently, failed to see how their revised bylaws affected other social issues that previous school board members had to face and that future ones may have to face again.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

microevolution, something small changing it's habbits to adapt to it's environment - that I can agree with
macroevolution, an entire organism making physiological changes into a better form - that I can't agree with, since I agree with the Laws of Thermodynamics saying that nothing gets better, everything just gets worse.

nik

Please, please, please understand what you're arguing against before you do so.


Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

Well, considering that I still believe in the laws of thermodynamics, I would say that your post didn't do much convincing... It's all based on someone's theory that has evidence for it and evidence against it. We're going around in circles, people...

nik

tell me, how does an air conditioner work?

Tell me, why do you have to keep refilling or changing out the freon?

nik
P.S. Okay, I'm done now. Really.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

microevolution, something small changing it's habbits to adapt to it's environment - that I can agree with
macroevolution, an entire organism making physiological changes into a better form - that I can't agree with, since I agree with the Laws of Thermodynamics saying that nothing gets better, everything just gets worse.

nik

Please, please, please understand what you're arguing against before you do so.


Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

Well, considering that I still believe in the laws of thermodynamics, I would say that your post didn't do much convincing... It's all based on someone's theory that has evidence for it and evidence against it. We're going around in circles, people...

nik

Your fundemental misunderstanding of science is that it IS a belief. This is why you make statements like that above when confronted with the actual method of the science you fail to grasp even the meaning of what is being said. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to life. Period. That is what is being said. If it did snowflakes would never form (highly structured items created from thin air), and this planet would be the same temperature as the vastness of space. In other words the earth is not a closed system, the first requirement of thermodynamics for any of the laws to apply to a situation.

 

[kgraeme]

Want to know how old the earth is? Ask the earth, not the Bible.

- -God

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Okay, if I were able to completely debunk evolution, I wouldn't be pissing away my time with you people. Secondly, if you people could prove evolution (or even come up with some decent factual evidence instead of imaginative speculation, you probably wouldn't be wasting your time with people like me.

So just give it a rest. Anti-religious zealots are just as bad as the religious ones. I believe what I believe, and I haven't seen any evidence why I shouldn't.

nik

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: kgraeme
Want to know how old the earth is? Ask the earth, not the Bible.

- -God

It's "Want to know how old the earth is? Ask the One who created it, not the Bible."

nik

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

ACK ! STOP IT!!!

STOP POSTING!!!!

/me slaps my hand



I've GOT to find something else to do.

 

[EXman]

Nik,

Trying to make the religion bashers see the light is useless...

On the other hand I have not swayed a bit from what I think from the endless "proof" (LoL) atheists keep shovel'n.

EX

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Tell me, why do you have to keep refilling or changing out the freon?

nik
P.S. Okay, I'm done now. Really.

The reason you keep refilling or flushing the freon is because after a period, the air-conditioner, much like the earth, is not a closed system. It gets leaks and lets in impurities.

 

[Red Dawn]

nik it's ok to believe what you want to believe but it shouldn't be taught as science, just a belief.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: EXman
Nik,

Trying to make the religion bashers see the light is useless...

On the other hand I have not swayed a bit from what I think from the endless "proof" (LoL) atheists keep shovel'n.

EX

For the record, I am a practicing Christian. I don't believe that understanding of evolution belief in God are mutually exclusive.

I believe that some of the stories in the Bible are true. Some however are parables to teach about life.

I believe there was a flood of the Mediterranean area and that some guy probably built a big boat and put a bunch of animals on it. I don't believe that the flood destroyed all life on earth, and I don't see how the factualness of this story is evidence for or against creationism or evolution.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Okay, if I were able to completely debunk evolution, I wouldn't be pissing away my time with you people. Secondly, if you people could prove evolution (or even come up with some decent factual evidence instead of imaginative speculation, you probably wouldn't be wasting your time with people like me.

So just give it a rest. Anti-religious zealots are just as bad as the religious ones. I believe what I believe, and I haven't seen any evidence why I shouldn't.

nik

if it was proven it wouldn't be a theory it would be a law.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
nik it's ok to believe what you want to believe but it shouldn't be taught as science, just a belief.

Right. And neither should something that's not science be taught as such. If evolution is taught at all, it should be an elective or something taught as theory and not crammed down kids' throats as if it were fact. :frown:

nik

 

[Red Dawn]

Right. And neither should something that's not science be taught as such. If evolution is taught at all, it should be an elective or something taught as theory and not crammed down kids' throats as if it were fact.

Are you afraid that if it is taught in Science Class (where Scientific theories are discussed) that some might not end up believing as you do? I was taught that it was a theory and it had nothing to do with my Atheism.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: EXman
Nik,

Trying to make the religion bashers see the light is useless...

On the other hand I have not swayed a bit from what I think from the endless "proof" (LoL) atheists keep shovel'n.

EX

For the record, I am a practicing Christian. I don't believe that understanding of evolution belief in God are mutually exclusive.

I believe that some of the stories in the Bible are true. Some however are parables to teach about life.

I believe there was a flood of the Mediterranean area and that some guy probably built a big boat and put a bunch of animals on it. I don't believe that the flood destroyed all life on earth, and I don't see how the factualness of this story is evidence for or against creationism or evolution.

saw a robert ballard thing where they were in the black sea looking for the "perfect boat"... well, theres also this theory that the filling of the black sea could have been the flood mentioned in the bible (or gilgamesh or any of the other giant flood stories of the region). theory goes that the black sea had been landlocked, and was several tens of feet, if not more, below sea level (think dead sea). there was a narrow spit of land separating the mediterranean from the black sea, and after torrential rain erroded a bit more it collapsed and the med came rushing in, filling the basin to sea level, and killing most of the people living near the black sea. they found something but it proved too new to support the theory. they did find the perfect ship, though.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
nik it's ok to believe what you want to believe but it shouldn't be taught as science, just a belief.

Right. And neither should something that's not science be taught as such. If evolution is taught at all, it should be an elective or something taught as theory and not crammed down kids' throats as if it were fact. :frown:

nik

evolution is science. its a scientific theory. it should be presented as such but it shouldn't be presented the same way as a blind guess like the creation story.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Right. And neither should something that's not science be taught as such. If evolution is taught at all, it should be an elective or something taught as theory and not crammed down kids' throats as if it were fact.

Are you afraid that if it is taught in Science Class (where Scientific theories are discussed) that some might not end up believing as you do? I was taught that it was a theory and it had nothing to do with my Atheism.

Exactly. Science class is where theories are discussed. You cover the known laws, but you also discuss the theories. If you only discuss what you already know, there will be no discussion and learning.

Speaking of laws, some people here need to go back and understand the proven laws before they start attacking the theories.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Right. And neither should something that's not science be taught as such. If evolution is taught at all, it should be an elective or something taught as theory and not crammed down kids' throats as if it were fact.

Are you afraid that if it is taught in Science Class (where Scientific theories are discussed) that some might not end up believing as you do? I was taught that it was a theory and it had nothing to do with my Atheism.

I'm not afraid of it - I'm afraid that people won't be given the option. If you walk into a science class in college and refute evolution, you'll get kicked out most of the time instead of actually going through a logcal conversation about the differences - you know... that thing that never goes on here at AT when attempted? The thing that degrades by the second post into a flame-fest?

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
nik it's ok to believe what you want to believe but it shouldn't be taught as science, just a belief.

Right. And neither should something that's not science be taught as such. If evolution is taught at all, it should be an elective or something taught as theory and not crammed down kids' throats as if it were fact. :frown:

nik

evolution is science. its a scientific theory. it should be presented as such but it shouldn't be presented the same way as a blind guess like the creation story.

Creationism isn't blind.

If you would listen to me, you'd see that.

nik

 

[glenn1]

Ya know, if those who are so opposed to teaching creationism in the school took 1/1000th of the energy they're using arguing why that's such a bad idea (and turning this into what's sure to be a 1000 post thread), and applied it instead to something actually constructive, say, ummmm... mentoring a student in how to read and write, maybe the students in question would learn something besides what idiots adults are when it comes to subjects like whether creationism should be taught in schools or not.

 

[Red Dawn]

Ya know, if those who are so opposed to teaching creationism in the school took 1/1000th of the energy they're using arguing why that's such a bad idea (and turning this into what's sure to be a 1000 post thread), and applied it instead to something actually constructive, say, ummmm... mentoring a student in how to read and write, maybe the students in question would learn something besides what idiots adults are when it comes to subjects like whether creationism should be taught in schools or not.

Please explain why adults are idiots for debating whether Creationsim should be taught as science in schools.

 

[0roo0roo]

<---points at wisdom teeth, wtf did god put those there for eh?


ok..ok... maybe he's evil


anyways, over and over the creationists have used the same disproven arguements. Not just in this thread, but in their volumes of disinformation that gets published. Why do they tell bald faced lies over and over? Joe blow doesn't care, he just wants some peace of mind. He buys the book, see's these supposed refutations and thinks good enough for me! and thats how the horrific distortion of facts and plain science get played out everytime creationist pops up. You want kids to choose for themselves? I'm sure a high schooler would read the creationist thermodynamic arguement and be convinced. why? No grasp of thermodynamics in the first place. ignorance begats more ignorance, thats the way creationists like it. a few lies to save souls, oh thats fine. repeat them enough and they will become truth.

the US is falling behind in science and math, and now we want to corrupt the idea of science even further? just great.

 

[dolph]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Ya know, if those who are so opposed to teaching creationism in the school took 1/1000th of the energy they're using arguing why that's such a bad idea (and turning this into what's sure to be a 1000 post thread), and applied it instead to something actually constructive, say, ummmm... mentoring a student in how to read and write, maybe the students in question would learn something besides what idiots adults are when it comes to subjects like whether creationism should be taught in schools or not.

Please explain why adults are idiots for debating whether Creationsim should be taught as science in schools.

i believe the implication glenn1 made was that the idiots were those for teaching creationism, not all the ones involved with the debate.