Evolution RIP

[EarthScienceguy]

From Zumdahl Chemistry Sixth edition

Gibbs free energy equation in Chemistry indicates whether a chemical reaction will occur spontaneously or not. It is derived out of the second law of thermodynamics and takes the form.

dG = dH - TdS

dG = the change in Gibbs free energy
dH = the change in enthalpy the flow of energy reaction.
T = Temperature
dS = Change in entropy Sfinal state - Sinitial state

For evolution to occur the dS is always going to be negative because the
final state will always have a lower entropy then the initial state.

dH of a dipeptide from amino acids = 5-8 kcal/mole ,(Hutchens, Handbook
of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

dh for a macromolecule in a living system = 16.4 cal/gm (Morowitz,
Energy flow in Biology.


Zumdauhl Chemistry sixth edition

When dS is negative and dH is positive the Process is not spontaneous at
any temperature. The reverse process is spontaneous at all temperatures.

The implications are that evolution could not have happen now or in the past. genes could not have been added to the cytoplasm of the cell along with producing any gene's in the first.

Production of information or complexity by any chemical process using a polymer of amino acids is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics. If any proteins were formed by chance they would immediately break apart.

Evolution Cannot Happen.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat]

His rules are who He is.

Interesting. I thought that this god was 'love', but apparently he is 'His rules'.

Love does not exist without rules. Love without rules is either tyranny or selfishness not love. For anyone to feel loved another person has to do what they like and desire. Otherwise love cannot be shown.

The only way that we can show God love is by knowing what He likes and does not like.

Quote:
He implemented the law so show man the character of Himself.

Not needed. Just read the old Testament and you can see the character of this god.

Which part the part that says "Love thy neighbor"? The part in which God forgave David, when David sinned. Or maybe the countless times He forgave the nation of Israel.

Quote:
Therefore sin brings death on all who commit sin. So the punishment for sin is death.

Actually, sin is just an invention of your religion. It no more brings death then it brings ice cream.

You are correct on this point it does not actually bring death. It brings eternal separation from God. If every good gift and every perfect gift is from God above then hell has nothing good and nothing perfect.

Quote:
Jesus had to die because the law condemns all who sin to death.

This seems like nothing more than religious speak.
Face it EarthScienceguy, you're not going to buy the medicine (religion) unless you first believe that you are sick (Adam's sin in the garden).
Feel free to believe you are sick, but it is rude of you to project your sickness on to the rest of mankind.

It is only sick if it were untrue. If Jesus who claimed to be God, died on the cross and was raised from the died three days later than God is who He says, He is and Jesus is who, He says He is.

you claim I'm going to die because of sin.
The Bible does not teach that we die, it teaches that we are eternally separated from God. A person who does not believe this to be true, is not bothered by someone saying what I am saying.


[/quote]

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 258 by EarthScienceguy]

So why did God allow all of these plagues to happen to Job? So that the world could see His Glory, and there by seeing Him by seeing His glory.

So God tortured a decent human being just to show people his magnificence. He is one sick puppy. And to do this in partnership with the so-called father of sin makes him no better than Satan himself. You worship an immoral monster.

[Tcg]

The part in which God forgave David, when David sinned.

You mean the God who killed the child that was born as a result of David's sin?

That's a special brand of love.

[Bust Nak]

Love does not exist without rules. Love without rules is either tyranny or selfishness not love.

Does unconditional love mean anything to you? That means love regradless of whether the rules are followed or not.

For anyone to feel loved another person has to do what they like and desire. Otherwise love cannot be shown.

The only way that we can show God love is by knowing what He likes and does not like.

So how come God isn't showing us love by doing what we like and desire?

Which part the part that says "Love thy neighbor"?

That's NT, isn't it?

You are correct on this point it does not actually bring death. It brings eternal separation from God. If every good gift and every perfect gift is from God above then hell has nothing good and nothing perfect.

What's stopping God from sustaining said gifts? Is it not the case that this separation is eternal only because God wants it to be eternal?

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by EarthScienceguy]

Note.
Entropy seems to be more a theory of substances rather than fact. Some substances are incredibly stable and the actual splitting of substances due to entropy has yet to be seen or otherwise confirmed.

I know well about the Weak Forces of Physics yet they do not apply to all substances equally as is well known.

Therefore, one may find better ways to dispose of Darwinian evolution than your suggestion, perhaps. Though, I'm grateful for all contributions "on my team".

Say spurious existence and some type of Barianism (a more straight nature than the diagonal nature by mutations).

Cheers!

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 1 by EarthScienceguy]

Note.
Entropy seems to be more a theory of substances rather than fact. Some substances are incredibly stable and the actual splitting of substances due to entropy has yet to be seen or otherwise confirmed.

True ,but only because those substances are equipped to combat entropy, they have the benefit of being given specific instructions and mechanisms to fight against it.

Entropy reigns wherever there is no resistance to it, e.g in the Darwinian model, without specific instructions/goals to follow, random mutations would quickly disassemble life

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 266 by Guy Threepwood]

Entropy reigns wherever there is no resistance to it, e.g in the Darwinian model, without specific instructions/goals to follow, random mutations would quickly disassemble life.

Sigh ... yet again, ignoring natural selection and assuming pure randomness throughout the process, and nothing more. You seem to be stuck on an oversimplified description of evolution that ignores the nonrandomness of chemistry, as well as the nonrandomness of natural selection. Random mutations cannot be considered standalone, as far as the evolution process is concerned, without the context of both of these important nonrandom components.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 266 by Guy Threepwood]

Sigh ... yet again, ignoring natural selection

not at all, yet again:

; superior designs out performing, out lasting, surviving, and being replicated in greater numbers than inferior ones, is an absolute given. Hence more Ford Mustangs than Pintos- it applies to anything designed or not

The same process remains at work if you take the latest line up of new cars, and introduce random errors into their manufacture. Survival of the fittest still applies- and the least degraded cars will naturally be selected- e.g. the one with the broken wing mirror rather than the one with the broken transmission- until you are left with the most primitive functional car, and then nothing. that's random mutation PLUS survival of the fittest- the latter is unavoidable- it just does nothing to demand improvement against entropy over successive generations

And that's what we see in life also; birds LOSING flight. fish LOSING sight.


The fallacy is to imagine that survival of the fittest somehow demands survival of the fitter
there is nothing in the simple algorithm to demand this. ToE has no theory of the generative, nothing to combat entropy with, that's why many scientists are looking for a fundamentally better explanation today.

and assuming pure randomness throughout the process, and nothing more. You seem to be stuck on an oversimplified description of evolution that ignores the nonrandomness of chemistry, as well as the nonrandomness of natural selection. Random mutations cannot be considered standalone, as far as the evolution process is concerned, without the context of both of these important nonrandom components.

well I don't assume pure randomness- I think relying 100% on random mutations as the core creative mechanism is a fundamental flaw in the theory- there has to be a better creative mechanism.- intelligent or not-

Natural selection is NOT a creative mechanism- it merely selects what has already been created- there is no way around this.

As for chemistry (and physics)- absolutely- we have a lot of pre-loaded information there specific to life and even specific organs and tissues- that's works, and it's NOT random- and that's the way things seem to be going, just like they did with classical physics to QM- development occurs according to pre-ordained formation, not simple laws + chance

So yes, of course the hurricane can make a neighborhood appear, if it was just lying buried under the sand- but to put the phenomena down to purely natural causes.. begs the question

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb]

So God tortured a decent human being just to show people his magnificence. He is one sick puppy. And to do this in partnership with the so-called father of sin makes him no better than Satan himself. You worship an immoral monster.

We call men that give their life for their country heros.

We call men that give their life for the families heros also.

Here Job was giving his life for his friends. The Bible says that no love is greater than to lay down your life for your friends.

Death is not the end of things but simply the door into eternity. Being used to save someone for all of eternity, there is no higher honor.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Does unconditional love mean anything to you? That means love regardless of whether the rules are followed or not.

There is a difference between showing love and showing unconditional love. Unconditional love involves the covering of another's "sin" against you. Like for example at one point in a marriage one person will do something another does not like, even though they had told them before that they do not like it.

Unconditional love would cover the sin with love and not hold it against them.

1 Peter 4:8 "Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins."

So how come God isn't showing us love by doing what we like and desire?

The Bible tells us that every good gift and every perfect gift comes from the Father above.

The Bible also tells us that the rain falls on the just and the unjust.

So every good thing that comes into your life comes from the Father above. Even the sin that brings pleasure. Because all sin is, is the perversion of a pleasure that God gave to man. When we sin God does not take that pleasure from us.


That's NT, isn't it?

Leviticus 19:17-18

17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

Quote:
You are correct on this point it does not actually bring death. It brings eternal separation from God. If every good gift and every perfect gift is from God above then hell has nothing good and nothing perfect.

What's stopping God from sustaining said gifts? Is it not the case that this separation is eternal only because God wants it to be eternal?

Why would one who does not want to praise God here on Earth suddenly change and have a desire to worship God?

Praising Jesus is what heaven is all about. To a Christian that is the most wonderful thing they could think of doing. To a non-believer that sounds like the most horrid thing in the universe. So how would heaven be a great thing to a non-believer.