The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

[Qchan]

Qchan. You are a persistent one aren't you?  Before we go any further, can you tell us what you believe?  One of your posts, and I fail to remember which one because they are numerous and I want to shoot myself every time I read one, states that we can take a clue as to what you believe by you referring to both atheists and theists in the third person.  So what is it you believe?  Are you a Buddhist?  Scientoligist?  Bat-Shit Crazyist?

Let me counter your question with another question. How is that relevant to this topic?

And it's not that I'm being persistent. I'm clarifying my position in opposition to what appears to be believed by the OP. I could simply agree with everything being stated. In fact, one notable topic of reference: I'm a big Nintendo fan and I joined an all-Nintendo forum. I couldn't stay there for long because it was an echo chamber. We all agreed on everything. So, topics just fell flat. However, here, not everyone is a traditional atheists. Most people here are classified as "neo-atheists". These new types of atheists are interesting, because they do not believe in traditional atheistic beliefs. These new beliefs appear to be logically unstable. It's these new beliefs I'm voicing opposition to.

You're right in that i don't understand where you are going with this.  That is why i asked for claryfication rather than a repetition of your views on the matter. What most people coin as micro- and macroevolution is the same concept governed by the same processes. It's simply so that more time allows for more mutations over more generations and thus leads to more and further changes over a longer timeperiod. If you are going to insist that proof of micro-evolution doesnt prove macroevolution then that means you must think they are two different phenomena governed by different processes.
However 'macroevolution' is governed by The same processes. It is simply what 'micro-evolution' leads to over a vastly longer timeperiod. It doesn't rely on anything microevolution doesnt rely on and relies on the same processes that microevolution relies. It does not suggest anything but random mutations and thus very small changes, in a nonrandom environment. So what is the reason you think proof of The same concept, The same theory, the same underlying concepts and processes is correct in one instance and invalid in The next?

Apart from that i'd like to point out that we can, did and do test evolution. Even if you dismiss testing in bacteria for no good, or at least no clear, reason. Through DNA and The fossil record, naming two. On the basis of these we can make solid predictions.

Here's a question for you. How does one observe the evolutionary chain of microevolution over a period of millions of years?

[Desdinova]

Let me counter your question with another question. How is that relevant to this topic?

I don't know, maybe it would help me understand why you annoy me so much.

[Desdinova]

However, here, not everyone is a traditional atheists. Most people here are classified as "neo-atheists". These new types of atheists are interesting, because they do not believe in traditional atheistic beliefs. These new beliefs appear to be logically unstable. It's these new beliefs I'm voicing opposition to.

Neo-Atheists?  Do you care to explain what specific beliefs you find to be "logically unstable"?

[GSOgymrat]

Let me counter your question with another question. How is that relevant to this topic?

And it's not that I'm being persistent. I'm clarifying my position in opposition to what appears to be believed by the OP. I could simply agree with everything being stated. In fact, one notable topic of reference: I'm a big Nintendo fan and I joined an all-Nintendo forum. I couldn't stay there for long because it was an echo chamber. We all agreed on everything. So, topics just fell flat. However, here, not everyone is a traditional atheists. Most people here are classified as "neo-atheists". These new types of atheists are interesting, because they do not believe in traditional atheistic beliefs. These new beliefs appear to be logically unstable. It's these new beliefs I'm voicing opposition to.

I searched "neo-atheist" and found "Neo-atheism is the acerbic, shrill polemics of writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens who disparage and refute the truth of the Bible." What is a traditional atheist?

I'm also curious if you have an alternative theory of how humans came to be.

[SGOS]

Qchan. You are a persistent one aren't you?  Before we go any further, can you tell us what you believe?  One of your posts, and I fail to remember which one because they are numerous and I want to shoot myself every time I read one, states that we can take a clue as to what you believe by you referring to both atheists and theists in the third person.  So what is it you believe?  Are you a Buddhist?  Scientoligist?  Bat-Shit Crazyist?

Let me counter your question with another question. How is that relevant to this topic?

Why do you make a big deal about others staying relevant to the topic (The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), when you yourself switched the topic to micro/macro evolution?  OK, we are versatile, let's go with that.  You state that micro is true, but macro is not true (in other words, evolution is not true).  OK, Desdinova is asking if you believe evolution is not true, then what do you believe is true?  It is a logical response, but you seem to be resisting any attempt to actually engage in discussion.

[Mike Cl]

Why do you make a big deal about others staying relevant to the topic (The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), when you yourself switched the topic to micro/macro evolution?  OK, we are versatile, let's go with that.  You state that micro is true, but macro is not true (in other words, evolution is not true).  OK, Desdinova is asking if you believe evolution is not true, then what do you believe is true?  It is a logical response, but you seem to be resisting any attempt to actually engage in discussion.

I agree--Little Q and discussion seems to be avoiding each other.  She/he seems to love the socratic method--follow every statement with a question; little commentary.  She/he seems to like the idea of staying behind the curtain and pulling the puppet strings with questions.  So, could the Grand and Glorious Oz please come out from behind the curtain and reveal her/him self????

[Qchan]

I searched "neo-atheist" and found "Neo-atheism is the acerbic, shrill polemics of writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens who disparage and refute the truth of the Bible." What is a traditional atheist?

I'm also curious if you have an alternative theory of how humans came to be.

Traditional atheists, for example, believed that the universe is eternal and did not have a beginning. Traditional atheists do not believe that morality exists since there's no scientific basis for it. Traditional atheists do not believe in self-causation (http://www.rationalargumentator.com/index/blog/tag/self-causation/) nor in the law of causality. Traditional atheists do not believe in the concept of free will either.

Why do you make a big deal about others staying relevant to the topic (The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), when you yourself switched the topic to micro/macro evolution?  OK, we are versatile, let's go with that.  You state that micro is true, but macro is not true (in other words, evolution is not true).  OK, Desdinova is asking if you believe evolution is not true, then what do you believe is true?  It is a logical response, but you seem to be resisting any attempt to actually engage in discussion.

But I'm not resisting. I'm making it as obviously clear as I can.

Scientifically speaking, there's no single theory that exhibits empirical data showing, without a shadow of a doubt, how the earth was formed or how humans have came into existence. Not a single one. Many of the theories proposed lack empirical evidence to form any conclusive report. Basically what I'm saying is that, we're all just guessing right now. We have clues that point to many different things, but we have nothing conclusive. Many of these theories totally violate the scientific method, yet they're being thrown around as if they do not.

In regards to the original topic. Remember, you're the one who said:

In wondering about what happened over there in Wonderland, it occurs to me that the gay marriage thing might be usurping all the energy of the Christian Right for now.  We haven't had many creationists around wanting to dump on evolution for a while.

My response to you was:

Now, I must inform you that not every atheist or agnostic believes in evolution. I don't even know how evolution became such a heated discussion. I was taught evolution in school. I regarded it exactly how it was taught to me. As a theory and nothing more.

You're the one who brought it up in your original post.

[aitm]

The SLoT has no bearing on evolution as mentioned previously. As we know it applys to the dissipation of heat energy, more specifically in a "closed" system as an engine. In a larger closed system such as a kitchen, if the heat element on the range remains at 200 degrees eventually, (in a truly closed system) the entire room will become 200 degrees.

The argument of entropy using a bastardized version of the SLoT cannot be used for evolution either because not being a closed system we are bombarded with 4 billions tons of energy a day, and entropy cannot overcome the process that that entails in the growth of life forms, nor does it take into consideration other equally powerful quantities such as gravity and friction and cohesion, all of which stymie entropy. That wood rots is entropy is a poor use of the idea as other systems are at work as it is a life form. But for instance a ceramic cup will not fall prey to entropy in a closed system.

Now when the sun dies, then eventually entropy will slowly start to work, but as seen already it will take billions and billions of years to get back to the "box of scattered marbles".

[GSOgymrat]

So Qchan, just to be clear, you are a traditional atheist who doesn't believe in evolution because it lacks empirical evidence.

[aitm]

 

So Qchan, just to be clear, you are a traditional atheist who doesn't believe in evolution because it lacks empirical evidence.

No, I think he is one of those who thinks evolution is a monkey fucking a horse and we get a squid.

[Qchan]

No, I think he is one of those who thinks evolution is a monkey fucking a horse and we get a squid.

Not at all.

I'm also not polar in my opinions. Many of you guys feel as though if a person isn't on one side then they're on the other. I.E. If a person doesn't believe in evolution, then they are a creationist, or vice versa. You also associate those polar views to one's belief. You guys appear to only see two shades of black, and that's theist or atheist. However, you completely and utterly ignore agnostics, which is pretty interesting in and of itself.

What I found out, after speaking to many of you, is that many of you are on attack mode. The moment a new person shows up, you attack them and attempt to force them to choose a side so you can be friends with them. If they are theists, you quickly label them as trolls and you ban them. If they do not identify with either side (which is what many agnostics do), you pressure them.

I've also found out that the atheists here are not true atheists, but rather apostates that are now self-proclaimed atheists. None of the people I spoke to here knew the views of neo-atheism. None of the people here understand what traditional atheism is. Heck, many of the people here oppose theism so badly that they refuse to listen to data contrary to their own - and as a result, make total logical fallacies. To top it off, they don't even understand why they're fallacies.

On top of the insults, mocking and overall ignorance of several individuals I've met here, I can see why many atheists are labeled as a "herds of cats". How can a community grow when new members are treated with such disdain? If you truly want me to leave, I will leave happily. Then perhaps you can add me to your invisible list of "trolls" many of you seem so eager to do.

[SGOS]

You're the one who brought it up in your original post.

Fair enough, although you're reaching pretty hard for wriggle room.  But let's go with that.  If the door is open to new areas of discussion (it always is by the way), why did you deflect Desdinova's question by noting that it wasn't relevant to the OP when he was addressing your objections to evolution?  His question was very relevant to your objections, and you know that.  Have you got an answer or not?

[aitm]

Heck, many of the people here oppose theism so badly that they refuse to listen to data contrary to their own

well to be fair, there is absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zeeeerrroooo data that points to "theism". So it is not being an "apostate" when one refuses to listen to gibberish.

And most of here understand evolution to know that when someone comes in trying to make a case that we have seen several hundred times and nothing new has been presented, yeah, we don't care for stupid shit.

Your objective it seems is to just ask questions trying to pin something down to an agenda. Why not just state what you're thinking and let the gang bang it around. Saves a lot of time and aggravation.

[missingnocchi]

1) Observe. You first need to SEE and observe the *thing* you're establishing a theory on.

2) Develop a hypothesis. Essentially, make a guess as to what you are actually observing.

Hypothesis: Modern Equus evolved from Eohippus through the listed intermediate forms.

3) Establish a prediction of how if your theory was put into practice, what the end result would be.

If Equus evolved from Eohippus, the fossils of Eohippus, Equus, and the intermediate forms should be found in geological layers correlating to the relationship between their DNA.

4) Experiment. Experiment implies that your results need to be repeatable.

Weinstock J, Willerslev E, Cooper A, et al. Evolution, Systematics, and Phylogeography of Pleistocene Horses in the New World: A Molecular Perspective. Plos Biology [serial online]. August 2005;3(8):1373-1379. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed March 18, 2015.

If you have access to EBSCOhost's Academic Search Complete you can find this by simply plugging in the title.

5) Analyze your data and draw a conclusion. Based on everything you've just done, you should have measurable results.

I'm a biochemistry student, not an evolutionary biologist. But from my perspective it seems like horses evolved from Eohippus. I could put together similar profiles for any number of species, including humans, and with many overlaps where we find common ancestry. Are you satisfied?

[SGOS]

I'm also not polar in my opinions. Many of you guys feel as though if a person isn't on one side then they're on the other. I.E. If a person doesn't believe in evolution, then they are a creationist, or vice versa. You also associate those polar views to one's belief. You guys appear to only see two shades of black, and that's theist or atheist. However, you completely and utterly ignore agnostics, which is pretty interesting in and of itself.

Most here are agnostic atheists.  We welcome atheists and agnostics.  We welcome theists if they don't act like jerks.  If you are here to protest atheism, while not understanding what it is, and offer incorrect knowledge about evolution (like there are no links between humans and older hominids), or if you make irrelevant claims (like Lucy had fingers like a chimp), and if all you claim to be doing is not having answers, while you put all your energy into sniping, someone is going to ask you to put up or shut up.

Just because you don't understand science, doesn't mean that science doesn't provide answers.  You just haven't learned enough to actually know what the answers are or even what the data is that the answers come from.

But most of all, you need to quit playing games, and either participate in honest debate, or shut up.