Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-19 at 17:58:43
Yea, you two have shown that evolution is wrong. I guess God did create us then 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Stealth on 2005-08-19 at 17:59:59
idk about that .....could be but highly doubt it
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-19 at 18:01:57
I guess anything wikipedia has to say about laws and theories is wrong as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_%28principle%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theories
As well as this site
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_%28principle%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theories
As well as this site
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Report, edit, etc...Posted by l)ark_13 on 2005-08-19 at 18:02:24
A law can have flaws!
Why cant it? Laws have nothing to do with flaws! Our system of justice is based on the fact that the law sometimes has flaws in it which allow you to get away with breaking them! Laws dont need to be perfect. Evolution is a law because we know it happened. It is real life, it is occuring right now as I type this. That is law.
Law: ( science ) a statement of a scientific fact or phenomenon that is invariable under given conditions
It says nothing about being perfect. It says it is a fact (we know evolution occured and still is occuring) and it cant be changed (thats right!
we cant change evolution, thats impossible)
Why cant it? Laws have nothing to do with flaws! Our system of justice is based on the fact that the law sometimes has flaws in it which allow you to get away with breaking them! Laws dont need to be perfect. Evolution is a law because we know it happened. It is real life, it is occuring right now as I type this. That is law.
Law: ( science ) a statement of a scientific fact or phenomenon that is invariable under given conditions
It says nothing about being perfect. It says it is a fact (we know evolution occured and still is occuring) and it cant be changed (thats right!
we cant change evolution, thats impossible)Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-08-19 at 18:02:45
QUOTE(the_man103 @ Aug 19 2005, 04:57 PM)
A law becomes a law when it has been proven that there are no flaws and as doodan stated evolution (a theory) goes against the LAW of the universe
[right][snapback]292963[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]292963[/snapback][/right]
Similarly, we shouldn't take antibiotics because the germ theory is just a theory.
Likewise, by logic, we should float into space because the gravity theory is just a theory.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by l)ark_13 on 2005-08-19 at 18:09:14
yes.
The theory about gravity is proven. It is law. Yet, it is still not perfect.
Read any book about the universe (in general) and one questio would be:
How come all the galaxies and clusters aren't flying apart from eachother? Whats holding them together? Dark matter? Porbably... we still dont know for a fact yet.
The theory about gravity is proven. It is law. Yet, it is still not perfect.
Read any book about the universe (in general) and one questio would be:
How come all the galaxies and clusters aren't flying apart from eachother? Whats holding them together? Dark matter? Porbably... we still dont know for a fact yet.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-08-19 at 18:11:02
No. You cannot prove gravity exists by science. You only have evidence. Likewise, there is evidence supporting evolution.
However...
Since evolution must have flaws, it must be thrown out because of other possiblities. Therefore, gravity must be thrown out because of other possiblities.
However...
Since evolution must have flaws, it must be thrown out because of other possiblities. Therefore, gravity must be thrown out because of other possiblities.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-19 at 18:22:15
... wow people are wrong on both sides of the argument, my god
Report, edit, etc...Posted by l)ark_13 on 2005-08-19 at 18:28:04
So CheeZe, you're saying most of our laws aren't really laws at all because we only have evidence of them exsisting? Isn't that all we need?
"We aren't flying into space right now... so there must be something keeping us on the ground. Hmm... gravity? Yes, that seems like a good idea. It even holds everything else together, from the stars in galaxies to the electrons in an atom."
How did we distort the word "law" so drastically, or are you guys just making up your own definitions?
"We aren't flying into space right now... so there must be something keeping us on the ground. Hmm... gravity? Yes, that seems like a good idea. It even holds everything else together, from the stars in galaxies to the electrons in an atom."
How did we distort the word "law" so drastically, or are you guys just making up your own definitions?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-19 at 18:29:32
QUOTE
How did we distort the word "law" to drastically, or are you guys just making up your own definitions?
All of you are distorting the definitions of law and theory, go read the wikipedia links I posted.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by l)ark_13 on 2005-08-19 at 18:31:41
I did. I even got a definition of the word law and posted it. No where in the links you posted or in the definition did it say law had to be perfect. It just had to be fact, and couldn't be changed. Gravity... cant really change that, can you? And yes, it is a fact.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-08-19 at 18:35:20
Anyone who thinks "Theory" means imperfection and "Law" means perfection needs to change their definition.
The two are almost identical in the fact that both ideas that are stated as theories are laws can be used to predict future events. The only difference, I think, is that Laws tend to be more "efficient" or more widely accepted.
Phew, good thing you said "might". Otherwise, I'd be having a panic attack!
Now, I ask, do you even know what the three Laws of Thermodynamics are? Yes, one of them states that it is natural for something to go toward chaos rather than organization. But this is only true in a closed system. We are not a closed system. We get energy. From the sun.
The two are almost identical in the fact that both ideas that are stated as theories are laws can be used to predict future events. The only difference, I think, is that Laws tend to be more "efficient" or more widely accepted.
QUOTE
Here's a little something that might be a flaw:
Is everyone aware of the Law of Thermodynamics (I can't remember which one) that states that the universe is moving into a gradual state of chaos? In other words, ENTROPY. The forms of matter and energy that currently exist will degrade overtime into less and less "useful" forms.
Now, the theory of evolution states that things change from simple to complex, i.e. single celled organisms to multicell organisms. Does the THEORY not go against the LAW of the universe? Learn a little about each and let your brain sizzle on that one for awhile. I lost some sleep over that question when I was in biology class.
Is everyone aware of the Law of Thermodynamics (I can't remember which one) that states that the universe is moving into a gradual state of chaos? In other words, ENTROPY. The forms of matter and energy that currently exist will degrade overtime into less and less "useful" forms.
Now, the theory of evolution states that things change from simple to complex, i.e. single celled organisms to multicell organisms. Does the THEORY not go against the LAW of the universe? Learn a little about each and let your brain sizzle on that one for awhile. I lost some sleep over that question when I was in biology class.
Phew, good thing you said "might". Otherwise, I'd be having a panic attack!
Now, I ask, do you even know what the three Laws of Thermodynamics are? Yes, one of them states that it is natural for something to go toward chaos rather than organization. But this is only true in a closed system. We are not a closed system. We get energy. From the sun.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-19 at 18:36:49
Dark you're right, gravity is a law. I was confusing with the actual force of gravity with general relativity.
Laws also tend to be more simpler and "elegant". Theories are more complex.
Take newton's three laws of motion for example.
Laws also tend to be more simpler and "elegant". Theories are more complex.
Take newton's three laws of motion for example.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by l)ark_13 on 2005-08-19 at 18:37:52
I agree with your "theory", "law" statement CheeZe, its just your definition of a law that I dont agree with.
Also devilesk, yes... the Theory of general relativity. thats a poopy term
Some of it is right and some isn't, mostly right on small scales and harder to prove on larger ones. But yes, gravity is real. Maybe not the theory of it.
And theres where the two "definations" mess eachother up. Theories can be wrong, but realism, such as us not floating off into space cant be proven wrong. Its just there; it works. We may not know exactly all about gravity because its just a theory, but it is real and it does work.
Also devilesk, yes... the Theory of general relativity. thats a poopy term
Some of it is right and some isn't, mostly right on small scales and harder to prove on larger ones. But yes, gravity is real. Maybe not the theory of it. And theres where the two "definations" mess eachother up. Theories can be wrong, but realism, such as us not floating off into space cant be proven wrong. Its just there; it works. We may not know exactly all about gravity because its just a theory, but it is real and it does work.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-19 at 18:40:43
Okay here's wikipedia's definition:
Ah! And it goes on to say the difference:
QUOTE
Several general properties of physical laws have been identified (see Davies (1992) and Feynman (1965) as noted, although each of the characterizations is not necessarily original to them). Physical laws are:
true. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies)
simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies)
eternal. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below), they appear to be unchanged since the beginning of the universe. It is thus presumed that they will remain unchanged in the future. (Davies)
omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them. (Davies)
"omniscient" (loosely speaking). The behavior of everything in the universe is automatically and immediately "known" to the laws. (Davies)
generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman)
often examples of symmetry. (Feynman)
typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)
true. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies)
simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies)
eternal. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below), they appear to be unchanged since the beginning of the universe. It is thus presumed that they will remain unchanged in the future. (Davies)
omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them. (Davies)
"omniscient" (loosely speaking). The behavior of everything in the universe is automatically and immediately "known" to the laws. (Davies)
generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman)
often examples of symmetry. (Feynman)
typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)
Ah! And it goes on to say the difference:
QUOTE
Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is strictly empirical. It is a summary observation of things as they are. A theory is model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory attempts to deal with why or how it happens.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by l)ark_13 on 2005-08-19 at 18:45:06
Ah ha! I didn't read that last bit. That pretty much sums it all up
Evolution IS a law, but it is also a theory, with some holes in it I might add
So each theory has a law and each law has a theory. We know gravity exsists (no doubt) but the theory may be wrong or right, who knows. Same with evolution. We know it took place and still is, we just dont exactly know how or why.
That also accounts for my reasoning of why laws dont have to be perfect. Gravity isn't perfect but it exsists. The theory on the other hand DOES have to be perfect.
Evolution IS a law, but it is also a theory, with some holes in it I might add
So each theory has a law and each law has a theory. We know gravity exsists (no doubt) but the theory may be wrong or right, who knows. Same with evolution. We know it took place and still is, we just dont exactly know how or why.
That also accounts for my reasoning of why laws dont have to be perfect. Gravity isn't perfect but it exsists. The theory on the other hand DOES have to be perfect.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-19 at 18:47:00
Yea, the way I see it, laws only explain observations. Theories try to explain how and why based on observations.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rhiom on 2005-08-22 at 03:59:27
[quote=devilesk,Aug 19 2005, 01:34 PM]
Has anyone here read that?
[right][snapback]292924[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I read it.... wow, i knew 99% of what they had to say already, amazing isnt it?
[quote=l)ark_13,Aug 19 2005, 02:02 PM]
A law can have flaws!
Why cant it? Laws have nothing to do with flaws! Our system of justice is based on the fact that the law sometimes has flaws in it which allow you to get away with breaking them! Laws dont need to be perfect. Evolution is a law because we know it happened. It is real life, it is occuring right now as I type this. That is law.
[right][snapback]292975[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The justice system misnamed what laws are, they arent laws for they dont know every occurens, they named it such to give people a more appropriate sense of justice, laws in legal systems aren't always just but are instead designed to use utiltrian ideals, basicly the most amount of god for the most amount of people. this means that the legal system isnt just 100% of the time but instead is shaped to try and be the best that it can humanly be. as to what persent it truely represents justice, no human can truely know.
[
quote=l)ark_13,Aug 19 2005, 02:02 PM]
Law: ( science ) a statement of a scientific fact or phenomenon that is invariable under given conditions
It says nothing about being perfect. It says it is a fact (we know evolution occured and still is occuring) and it cant be changed (thats right! we cant change evolution, thats impossible)
[right][snapback]292975[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
invariable... i.e. with out variables, or meaning without change, this means if a given circumstance occurs so will another if this law is in effect (can anyone say trigger with perserve trigger condition?) this is perfect becuase it always applys if the given conditions are met.i.e. perfect and unbroken cycle...
[quote=CheeZe,Aug 19 2005, 02:11 PM]
No. You cannot prove gravity exists by science. You only have evidence. Likewise, there is evidence supporting evolution.
However...
Since evolution must have flaws, it must be thrown out because of other possiblities. Therefore, gravity must be thrown out because of other possiblities.
[right][snapback]292994[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
please dont be stupid...i am going to choose to beleive that this was sarcasim... you dont throw the law or theory out but instead revise it so that it is true. for instance special relativety has problems when it deals witht eh gravity of smaller objects. quantum mechanics has problems when it deals with the gravity of larger objects. so neither is perfect but this doesnt mean we throw the entire system out becuase we have a few flaws, it means we plug ahead and attempt to find a way to join the two. until that time we use each for it's own respective fields.
[quote=devilesk,Aug 19 2005, 02:36 PM]
Dark you're right, gravity is a law. I was confusing with the actual force of gravity with general relativity.
Laws also tend to be more simpler and "elegant". Theories are more complex.
Take newton's three laws of motion for example.
[right][snapback]293040[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
true, but most laws that we currently have break apparat under certain conditions. i think what you people are really argueing over is sysmantics, what one person calls theory another person calls law. visa versa. i think that they are both vary similiar and that it's really a matter of word choice, someone would consider evolution to be law because they dont beleive that it is flawed in anyway or that it needs to be revised... ever...others take the catiouse choice of calling it a theory, and yes the best theory we have a the moment, but those who call it theory can accept it and use it for the practical purposes it servers today but can also accept that one day we might learn new things which have similiar charcteristic outcomes like evolution but work through different mechanisms. right now when we view laws or theories of the universe the most we can do is see the effects of these laws, most of the time we are left to guese at the mechanics of these laws. so when we observe evolution it may be evolution or it may be something with the same results but through different methods that we didnt see before.
but in the end it's really all just symantics.
ADDITION:
Note: I'm also not to far off from closing this topic becuase i feel that rantent gave a good answer in the second page... almost everything after seems to have been either confusion or spam.. unless people start making good points this topic is getting closed.
Has anyone here read that?
[right][snapback]292924[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I read it.... wow, i knew 99% of what they had to say already, amazing isnt it?
[quote=l)ark_13,Aug 19 2005, 02:02 PM]
A law can have flaws!
Why cant it? Laws have nothing to do with flaws! Our system of justice is based on the fact that the law sometimes has flaws in it which allow you to get away with breaking them! Laws dont need to be perfect. Evolution is a law because we know it happened. It is real life, it is occuring right now as I type this. That is law.
[right][snapback]292975[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The justice system misnamed what laws are, they arent laws for they dont know every occurens, they named it such to give people a more appropriate sense of justice, laws in legal systems aren't always just but are instead designed to use utiltrian ideals, basicly the most amount of god for the most amount of people. this means that the legal system isnt just 100% of the time but instead is shaped to try and be the best that it can humanly be. as to what persent it truely represents justice, no human can truely know.
[
quote=l)ark_13,Aug 19 2005, 02:02 PM]
Law: ( science ) a statement of a scientific fact or phenomenon that is invariable under given conditions
It says nothing about being perfect. It says it is a fact (we know evolution occured and still is occuring) and it cant be changed (thats right!
we cant change evolution, thats impossible)[right][snapback]292975[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
invariable... i.e. with out variables, or meaning without change, this means if a given circumstance occurs so will another if this law is in effect (can anyone say trigger with perserve trigger condition?) this is perfect becuase it always applys if the given conditions are met.i.e. perfect and unbroken cycle...
[quote=CheeZe,Aug 19 2005, 02:11 PM]
No. You cannot prove gravity exists by science. You only have evidence. Likewise, there is evidence supporting evolution.
However...
Since evolution must have flaws, it must be thrown out because of other possiblities. Therefore, gravity must be thrown out because of other possiblities.
[right][snapback]292994[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
please dont be stupid...i am going to choose to beleive that this was sarcasim... you dont throw the law or theory out but instead revise it so that it is true. for instance special relativety has problems when it deals witht eh gravity of smaller objects. quantum mechanics has problems when it deals with the gravity of larger objects. so neither is perfect but this doesnt mean we throw the entire system out becuase we have a few flaws, it means we plug ahead and attempt to find a way to join the two. until that time we use each for it's own respective fields.
[quote=devilesk,Aug 19 2005, 02:36 PM]
Dark you're right, gravity is a law. I was confusing with the actual force of gravity with general relativity.
Laws also tend to be more simpler and "elegant". Theories are more complex.
Take newton's three laws of motion for example.
[right][snapback]293040[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
true, but most laws that we currently have break apparat under certain conditions. i think what you people are really argueing over is sysmantics, what one person calls theory another person calls law. visa versa. i think that they are both vary similiar and that it's really a matter of word choice, someone would consider evolution to be law because they dont beleive that it is flawed in anyway or that it needs to be revised... ever...others take the catiouse choice of calling it a theory, and yes the best theory we have a the moment, but those who call it theory can accept it and use it for the practical purposes it servers today but can also accept that one day we might learn new things which have similiar charcteristic outcomes like evolution but work through different mechanisms. right now when we view laws or theories of the universe the most we can do is see the effects of these laws, most of the time we are left to guese at the mechanics of these laws. so when we observe evolution it may be evolution or it may be something with the same results but through different methods that we didnt see before.
but in the end it's really all just symantics.
ADDITION:
Note: I'm also not to far off from closing this topic becuase i feel that rantent gave a good answer in the second page... almost everything after seems to have been either confusion or spam.. unless people start making good points this topic is getting closed.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-22 at 13:11:30
QUOTE
I read it.... wow, i knew 99% of what they had to say already, amazing isnt it?
So what if you knew what about what it already said? I wasn't referring to you, nor is it amazing.
QUOTE
Why cant it? Laws have nothing to do with flaws! Our system of justice is based on the fact that the law sometimes has flaws in it which allow you to get away with breaking them! Laws dont need to be perfect. Evolution is a law because we know it happened. It is real life, it is occuring right now as I type this. That is law.
Dark was agreeing with you
QUOTE
The justice system misnamed what laws are, they arent laws for they dont know every occurens, they named it such to give people a more appropriate sense of justice, laws in legal systems aren't always just but are instead designed to use utiltrian ideals, basicly the most amount of god for the most amount of people. this means that the legal system isnt just 100% of the time but instead is shaped to try and be the best that it can humanly be. as to what persent it truely represents justice, no human can truely know.
Which is why on wikipedia there are many different articles about "laws" and it is divided into different categories.
QUOTE
please dont be stupid...i am going to choose to beleive that this was sarcasim... you dont throw the law or theory out but instead revise it so that it is true. for instance special relativety has problems when it deals witht eh gravity of smaller objects. quantum mechanics has problems when it deals with the gravity of larger objects. so neither is perfect but this doesnt mean we throw the entire system out becuase we have a few flaws, it means we plug ahead and attempt to find a way to join the two. until that time we use each for it's own respective fields.
Keep reading, CheeZe already realized he was wrong.
QUOTE
true, but most laws that we currently have break apparat under certain conditions. i think what you people are really argueing over is sysmantics, what one person calls theory another person calls law. visa versa. i think that they are both vary similiar and that it's really a matter of word choice, someone would consider evolution to be law because they dont beleive that it is flawed in anyway or that it needs to be revised... ever...others take the catiouse choice of calling it a theory, and yes the best theory we have a the moment, but those who call it theory can accept it and use it for the practical purposes it servers today but can also accept that one day we might learn new things which have similiar charcteristic outcomes like evolution but work through different mechanisms. right now when we view laws or theories of the universe the most we can do is see the effects of these laws, most of the time we are left to guese at the mechanics of these laws. so when we observe evolution it may be evolution or it may be something with the same results but through different methods that we didnt see before.
but in the end it's really all just symantics.
but in the end it's really all just symantics.
The only reason we are discussing the difference between laws and theories is because of the_man103. He claimed the only difference is that laws have NO flaws.
QUOTE
ADDITION:
Note: I'm also not to far off from closing this topic becuase i feel that rantent gave a good answer in the second page... almost everything after seems to have been either confusion or spam.. unless people start making good points this topic is getting closed.
Note: I'm also not to far off from closing this topic becuase i feel that rantent gave a good answer in the second page... almost everything after seems to have been either confusion or spam.. unless people start making good points this topic is getting closed.
I think the argument over laws/theories is over and the confusion has past.
ADDITION:
I love this post
QUOTE
A law becomes a law when it has been proven that there are no flaws and as doodan stated evolution (a theory) goes against the LAW of the universe
Also if I'm not mistaken Rantent's post concluded that the "flaw" presented by you isn't really a "flaw" right?
BTW: Fix your quotes please
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Doodan on 2005-08-22 at 16:05:47
Well... I'm not an athiest nor am I very religious. I just remember going back and forth in my head for a few weeks over that question while I was in biology. You argued that natural selection was logical, and yes it is! But I wasn't talking about natural selection. Evolution also means the PROGRESS of creatures beginning as simple organisms and changing over a few billion years into the complex creatures that exist today. In that manner, the THEORY goes against the LAW.
However... After a couple of weeks of thinking about it(and research, and advice), I learned what the answer was. It's kinda simple actually. And it's very logical. I just want you to think on it for awhile, cuz it sure was a fun puzzle for me to solve.
However... After a couple of weeks of thinking about it(and research, and advice), I learned what the answer was. It's kinda simple actually. And it's very logical. I just want you to think on it for awhile, cuz it sure was a fun puzzle for me to solve.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-22 at 16:13:32
CheeZe already answered that:
Wikipedia article about the laws of thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_laws_of_thermodynamics
I also did a search on google of "evolution goes against the laws of thermodynamics" and came up with this:
Taken from this website http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Also, now that it has been shown that the "flaws" proposed are not flaws, and that there haven't been any more known flaws mentioned, I think it invalidates a few of the_man103's post
Oh, that appears to be all of his posts where he states something, which is I believe all but one post here.
QUOTE
Now, I ask, do you even know what the three Laws of Thermodynamics are? Yes, one of them states that it is natural for something to go toward chaos rather than organization. But this is only true in a closed system. We are not a closed system. We get energy. From the sun.
Wikipedia article about the laws of thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_laws_of_thermodynamics
I also did a search on google of "evolution goes against the laws of thermodynamics" and came up with this:
QUOTE
"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.
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.
Taken from this website http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Also, now that it has been shown that the "flaws" proposed are not flaws, and that there haven't been any more known flaws mentioned, I think it invalidates a few of the_man103's post
QUOTE
'good argument but the reason why evolution isnt perfect is because of the fact that it is a theory not a law
not yet at least
not yet at least
QUOTE
Plz tell me wut kind of law is flawed a law is a law if it is proven beyond all doubt
QUOTE
Have u not read any of the other posts there r many flaws
QUOTE
if there are no known flaws then please explain why on that site it shows in big black letters SCIENTIFIC THEORY
QUOTE
A law becomes a law when it has been proven that there are no flaws and as doodan stated evolution (a theory) goes against the LAW of the universe
Oh, that appears to be all of his posts where he states something, which is I believe all but one post here.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Doodan on 2005-08-22 at 17:00:09
That's what I get for not reading all the pages
lol
That's also what I came to, by the way.
QUOTE
Phew, good thing you said "might". Otherwise, I'd be having a panic attack!
lol
That's also what I came to, by the way.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rhiom on 2005-08-24 at 00:44:43
QUOTE(devilesk @ Aug 22 2005, 09:11 AM)
So what if you knew what about what it already said? I wasn't referring to you, nor is it amazing.
Dark was agreeing with you
Which is why on wikipedia there are many different articles about "laws" and it is divided into different categories.
Keep reading, CheeZe already realized he was wrong.
The only reason we are discussing the difference between laws and theories is because of the_man103. He claimed the only difference is that laws have NO flaws.
I think the argument over laws/theories is over and the confusion has past.
ADDITION:
I love this post
Also if I'm not mistaken Rantent's post concluded that the "flaw" presented by you isn't really a "flaw" right?
BTW: Fix your quotes please
[right][snapback]295390[/snapback][/right]
Dark was agreeing with you
Which is why on wikipedia there are many different articles about "laws" and it is divided into different categories.
Keep reading, CheeZe already realized he was wrong.
The only reason we are discussing the difference between laws and theories is because of the_man103. He claimed the only difference is that laws have NO flaws.
I think the argument over laws/theories is over and the confusion has past.
ADDITION:
I love this post
Also if I'm not mistaken Rantent's post concluded that the "flaw" presented by you isn't really a "flaw" right?
BTW: Fix your quotes please
[right][snapback]295390[/snapback][/right]
*note*I am responding to the different parts of the quotes, ivve moved on to the next part when theres a space in paragraphs:
the amaizng part was sarcasim
dark was saying that laws can be imperfect, i disagree, i think laws need to be perfect but that the laws in the legal system are not such and are therefor missnamed, and are bad exampels of what laws should be. either that or we are using the word law imporperlly when we refer to evolution and thermodynamics.
if wiwkipidia devides the word law into many different categories and if we are to go by wikipedias defintions then we need to reform the way that we speak in this thread. this could take place in many ways, one being us agreeing which area of law/ definiton of law we are going ot use for the rest of the thread, or whenever we use the word law we give another word explaining to which type of law we are refering to, i.e. universal law. another solution would be us using another word other then law that more specifically describes what we are talking about.
I thought more needed to be said on the subject.
I agree witht that man the laws should have no flaws,but this is not always true, i also think that theorys allow for the possibilties of mistakes but dont necisarrilly mean that mistakes are present.
maybe... only time will tell
rantents post showed me that mthe flaw i saw could only have occured if evoltuion only happend one section at a time. when i originally made this thread i was only thinking about the evolution of sexual reproductiona nd not the other things evolving with the organisms at the time. if we widen are view to fit the whole evolution of the organism we can see that many things are evolving at one time and not all are necisarilly related. rantent's answer to my quandry works becuase it still uses evolution showing that its not flawed and views the whole organism, syaing that if another advantage that outway the disadvantage of having the inbetween asexual and sexual reproduction, then it was still possible to evolve these traits, it also shows just how lucky we are that another advantage came along at the same time, which allowed sexual reproduction to fall under the radar of natural slection.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-24 at 12:36:47
The problem is nothing is ever perfect. You can't make a law that accounts for EVERY possibility. Just like you can never reach the last number on the number line, or any of those number patterns.
The laws in a legal system have NOTHING to do with any laws mentioned here and shouldn't even be used to define a law. This is science.
Also Rhiom, I see your organization has improved, BUT that doesn't mean you can slack off on correct spelling/punctuation. It makes it just as hard to understand as if it were one giant paragraph. Mainly because I see more spelling mistakes than there should be and first letter of each word in a sentence not capitalized.
The laws in a legal system have NOTHING to do with any laws mentioned here and shouldn't even be used to define a law. This is science.
Also Rhiom, I see your organization has improved, BUT that doesn't mean you can slack off on correct spelling/punctuation. It makes it just as hard to understand as if it were one giant paragraph. Mainly because I see more spelling mistakes than there should be and first letter of each word in a sentence not capitalized.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rhiom on 2005-08-24 at 15:00:59
actually the eventual goal of physics is one big law that accounts for everything..they already ghavce a name for it...unified theory..obviously they dont have it made yet but thats one of the goals.
sorry about the spelling and punctuation, that was the third time i tried making that post so i was getting a little annoyed, the first time i wasnt thinking and accidentally hit the back button to view what someone had said instead of scrolling down. so i lost it that way. the second time i tried posting sen freaked out with this forum and gave an error page... so when i was finallly able to post it i had lost a good deal of patience, and didnt feel like making too many corrections to it.
sorry about the spelling and punctuation, that was the third time i tried making that post so i was getting a little annoyed, the first time i wasnt thinking and accidentally hit the back button to view what someone had said instead of scrolling down. so i lost it that way. the second time i tried posting sen freaked out with this forum and gave an error page... so when i was finallly able to post it i had lost a good deal of patience, and didnt feel like making too many corrections to it.