Science Forums 2

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Nobody bothered calling Questor on that because it is the same thing he always....

Aha, I see....

Well let's see....
I did visit the site and picked a section to examine:

Originally Posted by refuter's dogmatic delusion

Darwinism Refuted.com
"This work rests solely upon scientific findings. Those advocating the theory of evolution on behalf of scientific truth should confront these findings and question the presumptions they have so far held. Refusal to do this would mean openly accepting that their adherence to the theory of evolution is dogmatic rather than scientific..."

===

Hahahahaha: It's too bad they can't connect those "scientific findings" into a coherent picture.
At least that's the impression left with me after choosing that section on Thermodynamics.

With enough discussion about several facets of entropy to be overwhelmingly confusing (to anyone not already familiar with the many more facets of entropy that exist), they seem to draw logical conclusions.

The thing that gets me laughing, is that they draw all their conclusions about the origin of life.

Darwin's theory deals with the "Origin of Species."
These are two very different theories, and yet these refuters seem to think that discounting one discounts the other.

As can be seen below, they go to a lot of rhetorical effort to address the origin of life (on pages 01-03), and then conclude (on page 04) that the same thing applies to evolution. Huh?

Jeremy Rifkin [notable environmental radical] is their best example of an "evolutionist?"
I think his "magical power" view more closely matches the advocates of this refuter's website.

Originally Posted by index

darwinismrefuted: "Evolution and Thermodynamics-" 01. The Misconception About Open Systems; 02. Ilya Prigogine and the Myth of the "Self-Organization of Matter;" 03. The Difference Between Organized and Ordered Systems; 04. Self-Organization: A Materialist Dogma.

Originally Posted by main page

Darwinism Refuted.com
"The second law of thermodynamics constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for the scenario of evolution, in terms of both science and logic."

"Unable to offer any scientific and consistent explanation to overcome this obstacle, evolutionists can only do so in their imagination. For instance, Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power":

The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth. 368- -[368: Jeremy Rifkin, Antropy: A New World View, Viking Press, New York, 1980, p. 55.]

These words well indicate that evolution is a dogmatic belief rather than a scientific thesis."

Thanks for that helpful explanation of entropy, Jeremy (and for inventing a new word!).
These refuter folks clearly got a lot out of it.
===

Originally Posted by page 01

Darwinism Refuted.com
"In fact, a large number of scientists openly state that this claim is invalid, and violates thermodynamics. One of these is the Harvard scientist John Ross, who also holds evolutionist views. He explains that these unrealistic claims contain an important scientific error in the following remarks in Chemical and Engineering News:

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. 369- -[369: John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 27 July, 1980, p.40.]"

"As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth."

"The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own."

...they're talking about the origin of life here, aren't they?
===

Originally Posted by page 02

Darwinism Refuted.com
"The law of entropy, as we know, definitively states that when any organized, and complex structure is left to natural conditions, then loss of organization, complexity and information will result. In opposition to this, the theory of evolution claims that unordered, scattered, and unconscious atoms and molecules came together and gave rise to living things with their organized systems."

Gee, I remember hearing that "the theory of evolution claims" something else. Are they confusing evolution with the origin of life?
===

Originally Posted by page 03

Darwinism Refuted.com
"If we look carefully at Prigogine and other evolutionists' claims...."
"In short, no chemical or physical effect can explain the origin of life, and the concept of "the self-organization of matter" will remain a fantasy."

Yep, this is all about how to "explain the origin of life."
===

Originally Posted by page 04

Darwinism Refuted.com
"So why do evolutionists continue to believe in scenarios such as the "self-organization of matter," which have no scientific foundation? Why are they so determined to reject the intelligence and planning that can so clearly be seen in living systems?

The answer to these questions lies hidden in the materialist philosophy that the theory of evolution is fundamentally constructed on. Materialist philosophy believes that only matter exists, for which reason living things need to be accounted for in a manner based on matter."

"A professor of chemistry from New York University and DNA expert, Robert Shapiro, explains this belief of evolutionists about the "self-organization of matter" and the materialist dogma lying at its heart as follows:

Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin. 383- -[383: Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books, New York, 1986, p. 207.]

The truths that we have been examining in this section clearly demonstrate the impossibility of evolution in the face of the second law of thermodynamics."

Oh, but now we're drawing conclusions about "the impossibility of evolution."
When did we switch tracks?
The "truths that we have been examining in this section" had to do with entropy and the origins of life, not evolution.

Questor, regardless of their mangled distortion of thermodynamics, do you see a problem with the logic of this thermodynamics page on the "refuters" website?

Thanks,
~