Why people reject evolution

Actually, come to think of it, the OP is dead wrong. People disagree with evolution not because they don't understand it but because they don't want to understand it. 

Are those the only 2 options?

klimski wrote:

Who is to say that what we have now is more ordered? Thats a subjective opinion, so there goes your 'refutation' of thermodynamics. As for your other two 'laws' they have nothing to do with physics and are in fact made up by creationists. So, all your posts in summation prove one thing only: the OP is correct.

-----------------

Anyone with eyes and a brain is to say that what we have now is more ordered. It is not subjective except in the sense that someone can choose to ignore logic and reject it outright (which is a religious thing to do, BTW). The other two laws are NOT made up and have everything to do with physics, which is the "science of everything." If you truly believe these laws are made up, the burden of proof is on you to prove them wrong (which should be easy if they aren't real laws): Can you give me one, OBSERVABLE example of life coming from non-life, or information coming from non-information?

pineconehenry wrote:

Entropy says that in the formation of order there is a compensating probability for disorder. This has nothing to do with evolution. Your other two examples are either created by 'creationists' or vastly out of date and context. It was you who said to keep religion out of it, so no creationist rehetoric. Try again.

---------------

Entropy has everything to do with it. You have misstated the law. It does not require a raised *probability* of disorder, it requires a raised *measure* of disorder. Now granted, a localized system can become more ordered if there is an equal amount of disorder being put into another system. But if the WHOLE UNIVERSE is becoming ordered, there is nowhere for the disorder to go! As for my other examples, you cannot make blanket statements like that in a logical argument. I reiterate, the burden of proof is on you: can you give me ONE, OBSERVABLE example of life coming from non-life, or information coming from non-information? And BTW, using logic is not religious. I could just as easily say to you, "you can't reject what I'm saying with no evidence. Keep atheism out of it." Our religions from the backdrop of our beliefs. But they do not keep us from using logic. Also, we are not debating our religions here.

pineconehenry wrote:

ijgeoffrey wrote:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the overall entropy of the universe can only increase or stay the same. Entropy is the measure I disorder. Evolution says that everything initially came from a big explosion, and eventually stars, planets, and life formed. Life itself has been evolving into more complex and efficient forms. This is attaining incredibly higher levels of order from nothing but randomly dispersed matter resulting from explosion. But the Second Law says that the universe should only become more *dis*ordered.

The theory of evolution does not address the Big Bang or star and planet formation. So no, you do not understand it and therefore should not refute it.

----------------

The hypothesis of evolution is inextricably linked with the development of stars and planets, because where would our solar system and planet have come from for life to develop on? I believe the name for it is Cosmology, and it is a part of general evolutionary hypothesis and should also be addressed. But even so, life itself is becoming more ordered, according to evolutionary hypothesis.

lfPatriotGames wrote:

I think people reject evolution for the same reasons they reject creation. Religion. People who are religious sometimes aren't very accomodating of other views. Both theories, if taken to their logical conclusion, say that something was created out of nothing. I think you have to be pretty religious, or have a great imagination, to adhere to either view.

----------------

A very good point. Everyone's worldview, which includes a belief about our origins, stems from their religion. Those who believe the hypothesis of evolution hold to atheistic/humanistic beliefs (unless they're theistic evolutionists). It has probably become clear that I am a creationist. But what is good about being a creationist is that the beliefs which are taught in the Bible are reaffirmed by what we see in nature today. Science confirms the Scriptures. Evolutionists go CONTRARY to the evidence on a regular basis. But in this thread, we can only debate the theories, NOT whose religion is better. (Believe me, I would like to do that.)

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics refers to the Universe as a whole. However, we humans order our world in many ways. Most often, heat is the disorder that is produced as a byproduct of our ordering. So as long as it is, on the whole, exothermic, evolution does not defy the 2nd Law.

Also evolution does not necessarily defy the Law of Biogenesis. It is possible that God created the first bit of life and then let evolution take over.

As I said, it is true that systems can gain more order by moving its disorder (or the heat caused by ordering) somewhere else. But the original system we started with which was in total DISORDER was the ENTIRE UNIVERSE! Where could that heat have been moved to?

And fine, if you are a theistic evolutionist, you could say that. I have problems with theistic evolution which I cannot debate on the public forums. But the Law of Information is still violated. Can you give me one, OBSERVABLE example of new information randomly arising? And can you give me one OBSERVABLE example of NEW information being added to an organism's genetic code?

Might I ask, what parts of evolution can be demonstrated? Are you speaking of speciation/natural selection? Because that I do not reject. It would be foolhardy to reject things which can be observed and tested. I am not unwilling to look at the world around me. This is why I keep asking for observable examples of evolution. (I doubt anyone can give me any.)

Ineresting stuff

Organisms increase entropy. The second law doesnt say that entropy is the same on average in evert cubic metre of the universe. It says the entropy ON AVERAGE increases. And biological life also increases entropy.

No it isnt. There's a reson they dont treat stars in biology courses, its quite simply: stars arent alive, therefor not part of biology, therefore not interesting for evolution theory, which is about living organisms.

This is no law. So its not a problem to violate it.

This is no law, it is just a false statement. Its probably useful as a guideline in computer theory or wherever it is used, but it just isnt a law of the universe.

Every time a mutant sea slug is born with some brand new genes, we get information with no minds involved. You can even do that in a petri dish with bacteria if you wait long enough. The statement "all information comes from a mind" is just empirically false.

No they dont come from physics. I googled the "life comes from life thing", it is from Louis Pasteur, a bioologist from 19th century.

Noone succeeded yet in creating life from non-life, although biological molecules have been made from non-living ones many times. That an experiment has not succeeded yet obviously doesnt mean it never will. We havent been to Mars yet either, it doesnt mean we will never go there.

Information coming from non-information is totally routine. It is what happens in every mutation. This has been observed in labs for instance with fruit flies since the 1930ies.

Found one from 1910 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_(mutation) You can find more than you have time to read about in a whole lifetime on google, just with fruit flies. 

Then when you get reincarnated you can start readint about therats and mice and E. coli, that also has been observed in labs for more than 100 years. You could spend 4-5 lifetimes reading about observations of information coming outta nothing.

The thing with finch beaks and humans - check out first post in this thread.

As for experiments check out E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution

Evolution theory is not about life creted from non-life, this science is called Abiogenesis 

Every single word you wrote in that post is wrong, wrong as in "Paris is probably the capital of China"-wrong as in "I dont know anything, and cannot use google and cannot read books"-wrong. Not wrong in any interesting sence, just a big black hole of misunderstanding.

Thank god (!?) that there are other voices of reason here. I mean seriously, that 'law of information' stems from creation.com. broken down it says: all information comes from a mind ( assumption based loosely on superficial observation), therefore all information must come from a mind (circular argument concluding in a hollow statement of 'fact'). Nuff said

And evolution doesn't address the genesis of life, nor the age of the earth (although it does suggest that the evidence is not incompatible with an age greater than 6,000 years). Evolution only postulates a mechanism for the development of successful life forms, so why do fundamentalists have such an issue with it?