Reading Politics

--time to explain one last time why they theory holds water and creation "science" does not.

Im my last post I didnt mention creation once. Im not proving creation as much as just debunking the ill-logical explanations of evolution. But I am implying an alternative.

For such a change to occur, DNA must mutate. This means that genes have changed and we have observed them change--and this isn't the only such case.

A mutational change is not a normal variation reshufling of the DNA code, but an actual change in one tiny item in the codes information. So, yeah.

Gregor Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin, genius.

Noo. Mendel was a creationist. Go back and look that one up.

This "DNA barrier" has not been discovered, because it does not exist.

Genetics scientists tell us that all variation occur4s in living things only within each type, and never from one type to another. It is the complicated DNA code within each plant and animal type that erects the great wall, which cannot be crossed. There is no evidence that any time, in all the history of the world, even one new true species has formed form another species. Yet evolutionary teachings require that such dramatic changes would have had to occur thousands upon thousands of times.

What do you think causes this variation? Obviously, a change in DNA. Are you claiming there's some sort of invisible line that disallows such changes over time to result in a new species entirely? If so, then again, the burden of proof is on you.

What I am saying is that whenever we may try to do w/i a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exisits on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it but no exit through the wall.

Carbon-14 dating is reliable to within less than a century's standard deviation up to 50,000 years.

To begin with, most carbon-14 datings are tossed out. It is anything but reliable. It was invented by William Libby. From the beginning-and constantly thereafter- he and his associates procceded on the assumption that 1) the way everything is now, so it has always been, and 20 no cpntaminating factor has ever disturbed any object testes with radiodasting techniques. The result is nica, tidy little theory that is applied to samples, w/o regard for the immense uncertanties of how the past may of affected them individually and collectively. Many ignorant assumptions are based in every testing that have never been proven that the c-14 sample goes along with Each One of the assumptions applied to it. Accuracy? No!

And Im glad you found all the quotes ammussing. I can get many more if you would like. Ones said w/i the last centruy at that. ;-)

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

This post was edited by Hardballkid on Apr 12, 2005.

Im my last post I didnt mention creation once. Im not proving creation as much as just debunking the ill-logical explanations of evolution. But I am implying an alternative.

Um, what about this?

Believing in creation or not (or a Supreme Being or not), I still dont see how evolution is taught in public schools and taken in by the public in large as an ultimate "truth" when one shred of good evidence has been proven.

Every single piece of disinformation you cited in that post is directly traceable to creation "scientist" Ken Ham and his propaganda machine called Answers in Genesis. No one else but that organization and its adherents is delusional enough to make or support such ridiculous claims.

You didn't have to specifically mention creation in light of this fact--it's clear where your information comes from.

You can call evolution illogical all you want. But to me, the arguments you have presented (such as invisible DNA barriers and a complete misunderstanding of vestigial organs and geological and astronomical time) are illogical.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

directly traceable to creation "scientist" Ken Ham and his propaganda machine called Answers in Genesis.

Ohh really. Propaganda? What do you think public schools are then? Ken Ham (who is quite interesting just for the fact that he is a creationist who resembles a monkey himself) isnt forcing it down anyones throat as the public schools are with evolution.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

The difference is evolution is fact and creation "science" is fiction. It is the job of schools to educate children in factual science, therefore, it is their job to teach them the theory of evolution.

You cannot call dissemination of the truth sans agenda propaganda. You can call the dissemination of disinformation with an agenda (creation "science") propaganda--in fact, there's no better word for it.

Christianity has a long history of forged artifacts and other forms of disinformation, and this is just the latest fad in that hallowed tradition.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Well, I must congratulate you for writing several hundred words of complete bollocks.

Aside from anything else,as Mclain pointed out, Isaac Asimov is hardly credible as a source since although he had degrees in Chemistry, he spent much of his life writing science fiction novels. Chemistry. Not a biologist, zooologist or the like.

Also as somewhat of a scientist myself, dont try and pull the crap that our own second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. It applies to closed systems only, and the Earth is not a closed system; its powered by the sun.

One of the underpinning ideas in science that you have to understand is that a theory is not so much what proves to be true, but a model that appears to fit what appears to happen.

As far as a reasonably solid proof of evolution is concerned, there is the case at hand of the mosquitoes in the london underground that have become their own totally new species, genetically seperate from any other.

Quote: "Thus, if evolution where true, there ought to bed large numbers of useless organs in our bodu. But scientific research discloses that there is not one."

Why the bloody hell would the body keep an organ that takes up valuable nutrients sitting around doing bugger all?

I also seem to recall that a bundle of cells with certain inhibitors removed from its genes (frog, i think) started to grow structures that have not been seen in reptiles for millions of years, indicative that if the structures are not present in physical form, then they are at least present in code form.

Sir Deimos, Beater of Ass.

dont try and pull the crap that our own second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.

The Scond Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy)says that the universe had to be perfect when it started, otherwise it would totally run donw today. It repudiates the possibility that either matter or lufe could evolve into greater complexity.
Albert Einstein declared that, of all the laws of physics, the two laws of thermodynamics would never be negated or replaced.

Basically, the Second Law states that all systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized. To put it in the vernacular, apart from a Higher Power, everything left to itself will ultimately go to pieces.

And your argument- Ohh- its an open system ehh.

The evolutionist argument goes this way- Energy from the sun flows to our world and makes it an open system. As long as the sun sends this energy, it will fuel evolutionary development here. In contrast, a closed system is one that neither gains nor gives up energy to its surroundings. Therefore, sunshine negates the Second Law,—in spite of what Einstein and all the other physicists say.

They argument effctively nullifies Second Law everywhere in the universe, except in the cold of outer space and on planets distant from stars. Evolution is apparently progressing even on our moon, for it is receiving as much energy from the sun as we are. In addition, there ought to be a lot of evolution going on inside stars, for they have the best "open systems" of all.

An mass entrance of heat energy into a so-called "open system" (in this case, solar heat entering our planet) would not decrease entropy. The entropy continues apace, just as the scientists said it would.

"Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."—*John Ross, Chemical Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 4 [Harvard University researcher].

"If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it [your theory] but to collapse in deepest humiliation."—*Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74

It is a striking fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics points mankind to its Creator.

As far as a reasonably solid proof of evolution is concerned, there is the case at hand of the mosquitoes in the london underground that have become their own totally new species, genetically seperate from any other.

As far as that goes...Do you have some solid evidence for that. A credible website maybe or soemthing? I would like to read/see it for myself. I tend not to base my facts on hersay.

Now are ye undeceived! Welcome, again, my children, to the communion of your race!

The Scond Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy)says that the universe had to be perfect when it started, otherwise it would totally run donw today.

Since the entropy of the universe never decreases with time, and since friction increases entropy, the universe has less entropy the farther back in time you venture. Sooner or later, you will have a universe with no entropy -- that is, total order -- and infinite temperature. Total order cannot be achieved on a large scale, so the universe must also have been extremely small at that point.

The Scond Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy)says that the universe had to be perfect when it started, otherwise it would totally run donw today. It repudiates the possibility that either matter or lufe could evolve into greater complexity.
Albert Einstein declared that, of all the laws of physics, the two laws of thermodynamics would never be negated or replaced.

Inaccurate. In the short term your view does indeed appear to be so, but in the long term it holds true.

Basically, the Second Law states that all systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized. To put it in the vernacular, apart from a Higher Power, everything left to itself will ultimately go to pieces.

And your argument- Ohh- its an open system ehh.

The evolutionist argument goes this way- Energy from the sun flows to our world and makes it an open system. As long as the sun sends this energy, it will fuel evolutionary development here. In contrast, a closed system is one that neither gains nor gives up energy to its surroundings. Therefore, sunshine negates the Second Law,—in spite of what Einstein and all the other physicists say.

They argument effctively nullifies Second Law everywhere in the universe, except in the cold of outer space and on planets distant from stars. Evolution is apparently progressing even on our moon, for it is receiving as much energy from the sun as we are. In addition, there ought to be a lot of evolution going on inside stars, for they have the best "open systems" of all.

Where did you get that evolution on the moon/sun jazz from? Dont you dare try and put words in my mouth or I'll stick my fist in yours.

Im putting to you that in a closed system there would be an exponential increase in entropy. Without an outside source such as the sun, there would be an extremely short lifespan before the energy in that system dissipated to such a degree that it is practically useless. The evolution of life on the moon/in the sun is not the issue at hand.

Hence, with energy constantly flowing downhill in the one particular system, it would not have the order to form itself into higher complex structures unless it had a source (such as the sun) that offsets that loss. Eventually, of course, the sun will cease to exist in a form that produces heat (since the sun itself is an open system, dissipating heat and energy to the rest of the universe), and will eventually form a dead body in space of particles that simply do not vibrate. Hence, the solar system will continue to trade energy between itself and the rest of the universe for the next few billion years until that too is as close as can be to absolute zero. (bearing in mind the third law, of course, since an infinitely low temperature divided across the infinity of space yields a temperrature "density" of sorts that although is as close to nothing as makes no odds, is never actually quite nothing.)

QED.

Hence, to quote, there is no windchill at absolute zero, ha ha.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Sir Deimos, Beater of Ass.

This post was edited by Deimos on Apr 12, 2005.

Basically, the Second Law states that all systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized. To put it in the vernacular, apart from a Higher Power, everything left to itself will ultimately go to pieces.

Nope. You've shown a complete misunderstanding of biology, astronomy, and geology heretofore. Time to jump into another couple of fields you know nothing about: physics and chemistry.

Again, let me help you out.

Let's look at the 2nd law from the position of chemistry first. The 2nd law doesn't dictate increasing disorder. It predicts a diffusion of energy in all processes.

Consider this: there are chemical compounds that contain less energy than the sum of their parts (such as DNA). This means that the 2nd law supports the spontaneous formation of complex compounds from atoms, not the other way around.

I remember reading of an experiment conducted at the University of Chicago (you know, the place where they first split the atom) in which they recreated the atmosphere of the primordial earth based on our best estimates of what it would have been like, and then ran an arc through it to simulate lightning. Amino acids formed as a result. Amino acids are the building blocks of all proteins, and hece life itself.

As long as the sun sends this energy, it will fuel evolutionary development her

While UV radiation does increase the rate of mutation of DNA, that is not really a good way to put it. The sun's energy is the source of almost life on the earth, aside from a few organisms that survive on geothermal energy. To call it the fuel for evolution is too narrow--it is the fuel for life itself. Evolution is simply a fact of life, so as long as life exists, so too does evolution.

Anyway, to continue tearing your pseudoscience apart:

The 2nd law says that in a closed system, the average disorder will rise with time. The 3rd law says that energy is order, and that disorder exhibits itself as a release of energy--known as heat. We are constantly being bombarded by energy from the sun. Hence, the earth, and life itself are not closed systems. Since you apparently don't understand this distinction, let me explain: a closed system does not transact energy with any other system. Since we transact gravitational and electromagnetic energy with the sun and the other planets, the earth cannot be called a closed system. Since the species of the eearth transact energy with one another, neither can life be called a closed system--there are external forces, such as the sun and natural selection.

If your interpretation of the 2nd Law were correct, procreation would be impossible--starting with two humans and winding up with three is an increase in order. It would also be impossible to freeze things, since cold is a form of order (absolute zero being the theoretical zero-entropy state). When you chill or freeze something, you are imposing order on it, which requires that heat be taken from it, and released as entropy elsewhere--a transaction that would be impossible with the creation "scientist" laughable misinterpretation of thermodynamics.

The universe is a closed system--but that doesn't mean that constituent parts of it (galaxies, solar systems, planets) are closed systems. The 2nd law says that disorder as an average is increasing in the universe. This doesn't mean that order cannot increase in the constituent open systems within the universe. It does mean that as order increases within these open systems, they must release disorder into the universe, thus fueling overall entropy in the closed system.

To summarize, nothing about the 2nd law says that the open, constituent components of a closed system cannot become more (or less) ordered over time--just that the overall average of the closed system becomes more disordered. Order arises from disorder not just in life, but in such things as crystal formations and snowflakes.

"Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."—*John Ross, Chemical Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 4 [Harvard University researcher].

All that would mean, if true, and if applicable to the 2nd law in the physical and not chemical context (a chemist and not a physicist said it, though after your last set of quotes I don't trust any of your documentation) is that the overall chaos in the open systems on earth is increasing as an average with time. Considering how we have global warming (entropy always releases heat) and increasing political chaos, it appears the 2nd law does apply to our planet--but that doesn't mean that order cannot still arise from chaos, it just means that as an average, chaos is increasing.

It is a striking fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics points mankind to its Creator.

It is a striking fact that the 2nd law does no such thing. You don't understand it, or any other scientific principle. That's why you should leave the sciences to the educated and just go back to blind faith.

As far as that goes...Do you have some solid evidence for that. A credible website maybe or soemthing? I would like to read/see it for myself. I tend not to base my facts on hersay.

Yes, you prefer outright disinformation...

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Thanks Hardballkid. I was on track towards a similar post, but from a different perspective.

I've been homeschooled my whole life (Although I don't really qualify as completely "home" schooled, since especially now most classes/activities take place elsewhere). As a result, I've met hundreds of homeschoolers, kids and parents... and I have to say, you're both right in some ways. Such a large group of people can never be classified as one way or another.

Homeschooling is based on an informed choice that is becoming ever more apparent because of the lack of education pertruding in America's public school's.

In many cases, yes it is. In fact, at the time that I began homeschooling, we were living in Georgia, where the public schools were ranked 48th out of 51 states. Needless to say, it was a factor.

However, many homeschool their kids because of the lack of religious education in schools, and the percieved "immorality" of the public environment. They tend to be strict, withdrawn, and terribly overprotective. Given that kind of closed environment, Mac's anaysis is unfortunatly often correct. I've met many. It's kind of sad, but then again the public school system doesn't exactly have a perfect track record either when it comes to preparing kids for life in the world.

Even among myself and my closest home-schooled friends, I won't deny a certain oddness. But frankly, it's the kind of oddness I like. On top of being the nicest and most creative people I know, they are undoubtably unique, all qualities which I think public education has a tendency to hammer out of people.

They perform better in every area such as reading, language & math.

If someone wants to learn something, and is given the resources to learn the way they want to, then they will naturally excel. Makes a hell of a lot more sense then cramming information into a person just to have then regurgitate it for a test and forget it five minutes later on their way to the next station. One funny thing about home-schoolers is that we tend to be good at teaching others. Not through school, but things like Taekwon-do, swimming, snowboarding, skiing, and so forth. I guess the deal is, if you want to learn teaching, don't go to a school...

In many ways, schools are no longer remaining in the domain of knowlege and ideas, but being made to raise your kids for you. Parents who send their kids away the minute they're old enough for daycare will turn around and blame the school when it's grade three and their kids are getting F's and "need Ritalin". Going to school should involve learning to live, not being instructed on how to live. But that's the new expectation. The entire structure is set up so that from day one, "The facts of life" are being not so subtly programmed in. 'Do this right or you're a failure.' 'Nice drawing, but you used the wrong color, you get an F' (true story). 'This is how things are, and if you have a problem with it there's something wrong with you.'

And as a result, not only is the enthusiasm for learning crushed pretty fast, but the social structure of the school becomes molded to the ideals of fitting with the norm, in-crowds, exclusionism and degradation.

I can't honestly say that home-schooling is a cure-all. I think public education has merit, but it is going in the wrong direction, towards more cramming of knowlege and rabid testing and less allowances for children to explore what they want to learn and the world around them without being constantly being subjected to other people's cookie cutter standards.

EDIT: (Mac posted while I was typing)

I've also seen plenty of home schooled students that appeared to be pretty strange on television

I've seen a lot of murderers on television who went to school. I guess people who go to school are mostly murderers.

Honestly, why would they be on TV if they weren't wierdos?

I also can't imagine how unprepared for life I would have been if I hadn't attended a school.

You seem to assume that the average homeschooler does nothing but sit around on his ass all day developing fanciful ideas about life beyond the fence, and is blown away by the deep dark world out there. We've got jobs, attend university, have friends, etc.
None of my friends are idiots, zealots, perverts, or drug addicts. You may have met some loons, but you can be just as fucked up going to school as not.

Unless a parent is a trained educator, they are unqualified to teach their children anything

You'd be surprised how many qualified teachers are homeschooling parents, and how often they end up saying say that anyone can teach anything to their children if they are willing to learn. Of course, once a certain level is reached, you do need help.

Look, the term "Home"schooling is in many cases decieving.

Kids are already homeschooled inasmuch as most of what they learn with regard to language and character is learned from their parents. For the rest, we need proper schools.

I don't disagree. But for some people, putting their kids through the school system the way it is now is not worth it. There are other ways to impart knowlege, including private classes, study groups, learning activities and just plain personal interest investigation. I've done em' all.

By refusing to participate in the school system, you weaken the school system--and the student.

I guess you weren't the one calling for smaller class sizes. :p

Every advanced society in the world places the onus of education on their government.

I just don't see how forcing everyone to educate their kids the same way is beneficial to society. People aren't all the same.

If a perfect public education system existed, there would be no need for homeschooling. But it doesn't.

...tired, going to bed. I've probably left a loophole or two in my logic. Feel free to expose it.

You're here, aren't you? You're talking to me, aren't you?

This post was edited by Bunk on Apr 06, 2005.

Some good points made.

I guess I'm arguing against homeschooling as a replacement for public education, not as an alternative. There are certain rural situations, and certain handicap situations, and even some situations in which the school system is SO bad, that you don't want to send your kid there. I understand that. I still think that unless there is physical danger, having your kid participate in the system is good not just for the kid, but for the system. You could supplement the education if you didn't feel it was good enough. Regardless, even though I disagree with homeschooling in these cases, I can understand it and think it should be allowed, but regulated.

One other thing to consider as an argument against homeschooling is that abuse cannot be detected if a kid never leaves the house--and this is a situation that can only happen in a homeschooling environment (not the abuse, but the isolation). Many times, abused children are only helped because a teacher notices bruises, or a child confides in a teacher.

What I have a problem with is parents who refuse to send their kids to school out of a fear, not for their physical well-being, but that their kid might wind up being their own person--not a clone of their parents. Parents who have control issues as the motivating factor for homeschooling are doing their child a tremendous disservice, as are parents who are afraid of their children learning science that is in conflict with their religious beliefs. They can force their children to attend Sunday school, after all. This is the wrong reason to homeschool a kid, and frankly I think it results in people that are not well-adjusted. I live in the Bible belt, so the homeschooled kids I've come into contact with have been of that ilk. And homeschooling based on that type of motivation is wrong.

One other point I would make is against giving tax breaks to homeschooled students. If parents want to homeschool their children, they should go ahead and pay the same taxes. The public schools are underfunded already, and the revenue they would lose from homeschooling wouldn't help. Education, infrastructure, and other public services are funded by tax money, and all private citizens must bear the burden for these things, because they make our society better--whether or not we directly use each of these services.

Ewige Blumenkraft!