And the way he essentially ignores every single correction, no matter how thorough or well supported, and then presents the same nonsense later on as if nothing had happened, compels everyone to keep reiterating the original corrections if for no other reason than to ensure that readers who can't be bothered perusing the entire history of this thread aren't lead astray.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a textbook case of
trolling: halting or derailing the forward motion of a discussion. This particular form of trolling (pretending that his argument has not been refuted, stating it a second time, and hoping that nobody remembers while at the same time a bunch of new participants read it and find it convincing) is
disingenuous arguing, which IMO is the worst form of trolling because he actually realizes he's doing it and does it anyway. If this were my subforum, he would have been permabanned from this website long ago. Fortunately for the trolls my subforum is Linguistics, one of the softest of the "soft sciences," so the scientific method is difficult to enforce there.
Disingenuous argument is insidious since it's so easy to get away with.
What alternative to science can there possibly be, other than Fundamentalism?
Sheer ignorance.
. . . . if it's actually possible for a person to actually defend Creationist arguments without "following the Cross" etc.
He doesn't have to be a religionist. Creationism relies on a supernatural creature or other force, and supernaturalism of any sort is antiscience. The fundamental premise that underlies all science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior we can predict by theories developed from observation of its present and past behavior. If the natural universe is not a closed system, and gods, demons or Cosmic Winds pop in at random intervals to perturb its behavior unpredictably, then science is a sham.
At some point I began to accept the idea that, ideally, a religious person should be able to join here and offer the same arguments leo does -- that I should be able to just stick to the issues and keep this at a higher level, one that's more objective and focused on the operative facts at hand.
The leaders of most of the major religions, including the Pope, have admitted that most of the writings in their holy books are simply metaphors that must not be taken literally. Jesuit universities have been teaching evolution for generations, and plate tectonics since the theory arose. God may be an entity that only speaks to people in private so the conversations cannot be corroborated by witnesses. Since, then, there is no evidence other than hearsay which even civil courts do not accept, there is no conflict with science. Hearing God talk in your head can just as easily be an illusion, but if what he says enriches your life and makes you a better person, no harm is done.
Kermit the Frog is strapped into the back seat of my SUV and occasionally he says profound things to me, but only when I'm driving alone. I have gotten priceless wisdom from my conversations with my dogs.
I guess I wouldn't want to mess with someone who is being sincere, at least not for posting harmless ideas, and especially if they honestly feel there is something going on that they are trying to report (for lack of better words -- I can't exactly pin it down.) Obviously I'm tying to give leo full faith and credit which some of you may not feel as inclined to do. But I'm still wondering about all of this, since the pieces don't exactly fit together. It's just a hunch, not something tangible or easy to explain.
The issue is whether SciForums has the bandwidth to engage in this exercise. This thread has long outlived its value as a teaching moment for our young, impressionable Future Scientists. Should we be off on one of the other subforums, learning fascinating new things about partial differential equations or the Utility Of Money function?
That being said, you guys all rule. In a perfect world I would get an endowment to launch a campaign against Creation Science, with deep enough pockets to try to entice you folks to join a movement in the professional capacity, to really give the fundies a run for their money. That is, this would make a great team -- the ideas you all have posted in this thread alone are so thoughtful and so perfectly articulated.
The people to whom creationism appeals do not have much respect for logic and they don't let logic interfere with their mental processes. That would be a quixotic effort.
The principle of "net increase of entropy" is analogous to the "net downhill movement of water" which has the hydraulic ram as an example of a device that raises some water above its starting point, provided other water is allowed to go downhill.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows for both
spatial and
temporal local reversals of entropy. Your example is spatially local--as is the phenomenon of life, depleting the organization from its nearby environment and using it to make itself more organized--with the net organization in the entire region becoming depleted.
The Big Bang was temporally local. The total organization of the universe increased (by the universe suddenly appearing with net matter and energy = 0 but tremendous organization) but the organization is slowly dissipating and approaching zero, perhaps asymptotically.
