by Seeker4 178 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Seeker,
In your opinion, was there a first cause or not? If so, how can you be sure if it was intelligent or not?
If not, isn't an infinite digression of cause and effect events the default? If that's true, how do you account for the future since we'd be stuck in the present..... to my mind, one moment present for each moment in infinite past ?
Closed system or not the 2nd law is functioning on earth as is entropy.
Someone once actually stated that the Second Law of thermodynamics was not a physical law at all and the law of entropy does not apply to evolution. I disagree.
I'm afraid you have entirely misunderstood how the second law works, there is a huge difference between a closed and an open system. The sun is a constant source of energy if you include the sun within the system then our entire system is indeed winding down and entropy is increasing because the sun is burning it's nuclear fuel. One day that fuel will run out and our localised entropy decrease will disappear.
Let me spell this out loud and clear, it is entirely permissable for a system to have entropy decrease, all you need to do is input energy into the system. It is as simple as that, it's how your car works and it's why perpetual motion machines don't exist.
The laws of thermodynamics can be applied to evolution as long as don't forget to include the energy input from the sun.
If your assertion that entropy can only increase is true then perhaps you can explain to me how you manage to light and heat your home? how is it possible for you to boil water? I presume that since you also assert that it apparently doesn't matter if a system is closed or not then you no longer put fuel in your car?
I think perhaps you should get your findings published as they could get you a nobel prize (I'm assuming your assertions are backed by hard empirical evidence) because I seem to remember some very boring days recording Carnot cycles from an old engine that I hope were not entirely wasted.
1. I've been reading through the "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" (Thanks for the link).
2. You know, I was sitting on my chair moving ever forward in anticipation of seeing these 29+ evidences as I read. By the end the article I was balancing on the end of my vestigial tail.
3. Here is a sample argument from Section 1 of Mr Theobald's article and its supposed evidence for macroevolution: Because all lifeforms share the basic attribute of "DNA or RNA", this is evidence that they developed from one original form of life. Using the same type of reasoning it could be asserted that: Because all programs running on a given computer system share the basic attribute of binary coding, this is evidence that they developed from one original program. This is the sort of argument used in the first part of the article. They all hinge on the same view that because all living things share a set of attributes this gives evidence of common descent. Now I know why the author used the word 'evidences' instead of proof, as you can interpret this sort of evidence how you like. To me, the evidence proves only one thing: All living things share a basic set of defining attributes.
4. Categorising organisms on a phylogenic tree is no proof of common descent either. The evidence may suggest a possibility in theory, but the probability in fact is open to question. One of the ways macroevolution could occur for sure is if, like a compressed and encrypted file, all the necessary data were preprogrammed within, but then that would require a programmer. While it is a fact that changes can be made to genetic material via external means, to believe that such chains of mutations as evolutionists claim were responsible for such diversity of life, to my mind, requires a huge faith in the ability of random changes to shape such an outcome. I don't have that faith.
5. Apparently evolutionists can wash their hands of the need to account for abiogenesis as a prerequisite for their theory. However, some members here have implied that intelligent design theory cannot be taken seriously because it does not account for the maker of the designer (ad infinitum). It reminds me of a certain saying: "Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others."
6. Even if you don't agree with their religious beliefs (I certainly don't), those who have a sense of fair play should go and read a critique of Mr Theobald's article by Ashby Camp over at www.trueorigin.org.
7. This is my final post in this thread. Although its been an interesting topic to read and contribute to, I've been surprised at the insults thrown about. I was not impressed by those who essentially implied that other members must be thick. For me, such insinuations put me off reading anything those persons might post.
BTW: I've read "The Dawkins Delusion" and will be commenting on it sometime in the appropriate thread.
Glad to see this thread still chugging along. Just wanted to make a couple of comments.
Primate Dave: Your experience and mine as far as the Witnesses and evolution are VERY similar. I was a stuanch defender of the JW view, but I would hear science stories on public radio or the television, or read articles, and I realized, as you did, that there are two huge weaknesses in both the Bible and in the foundation for religions that take the Bible literally - the creation account and the flood of Noah.
What makes these two accounts so vulnerable is that they are so easily attacked. For instance, I knew that if you could prove that there were humans around more than 6,032 years ago, that animals ate animals prior to the flood, that there was snow and rain prior to the flood, that the entire world was not deluged with water four-some-odd-thousand years ago - any one of those things would disprove Genesis and destroy the foundation for the need for a Messiah, the resurrection, etc. And if Genesis is NOT literal, than the whole Bible is suspect.
Well, it doesn't take much effort to disprove all of those points in Genesis - and a hell of a lot more. When Genesis collapsed, so did my belief in the Witnesses, followed very shortly by my belief in a god.
Perry: I'm not sure what you are asking. If by 'first cause' you mean something that started matter and later life, yes, I believe something started them. But if you're saying an intelligent first cause, I have problems with that. First cause means first cause - something couldn't precede the "first" cause. An intelligent being preceding the 'first cause' makes no sense. What the first cause was - the Big Bang or whatever - I have no idea. But, this idea of an eternally existing intelligent god and designer that created all other things is much, much harder to accept or believe than is the concept of life evolving - especially when there is absolutely NO evidence for such a being, and evolution has overwhelming factual evidence supporting it.
But evolution doesn't really concern itself with the origin of life, just the development of life.
Your last paragraph I was unable to understand.
S4
Primate Dave: Your experience and mine as far as the Witnesses and evolution are VERY similar. I was a stuanch defender of the JW view, but I would hear science stories on public radio or the television, or read articles, and I realized, as you did, that there are two huge weaknesses in both the Bible and in the foundation for religions that take the Bible literally - the creation account and the flood of Noah.
What makes these two accounts so vulnerable is that they are so easily attacked. For instance, I knew that if you could prove that there were humans around more than 6,032 years ago, that animals ate animals prior to the flood, that there was snow and rain prior to the flood, that the entire world was not deluged with water four-some-odd-thousand years ago - any one of those things would disprove Genesis and destroy the foundation for the need for a Messiah, the resurrection, etc. And if Genesis is NOT literal, than the whole Bible is suspect.
Well, it doesn't take much effort to disprove all of those points in Genesis - and a hell of a lot more. When Genesis collapsed, so did my belief in the Witnesses, followed very shortly by my belief in a god.
My exact experience as well. For me the most damaging thing for my faith was the History Channel. Then a few books that wouldn't have been borg approved. It all came down like a house of cards.
I guess it all depends what your faith rests on.
The theory of evolution is so pragmatic I had little difficulty in accepting it once the WTS blinkers were off. Meanwhile it didn't even shuggle my faith.
any one of those things would disprove Genesis and destroy the foundation for the need for a Messiah, the resurrection, etc. And if Genesis is NOT literal, than the whole Bible is suspect.
While I stand by my statement above as quoted by LDB, Little Toe wrote: "Meanwhile it didn't even shuggle my faith."
Little Toe, you are awesome, dude. I love how you left the JWs, and Zena is awesome as well.
I just can't come even close to being a believer at this point. Evolution sure did shuggle my faith. My hats off to you, though I think you're deluding yourselves.
LDB: That's where I am as well.
S4
I guess that in a couple of hundred years from now when they debunk the "big bang theory" folk should be prewarned not to have their faith shaken in the scientific method. It would be a shame if those who held onto it were classed as deluded, just because one ancient teaching that had been supplied by it had laterly proven inadequate by modern standards...
