Just wanted to add two more things before you go off on another anti-science tirade. I have done a little more research and found what you were talking about “violating the second law.” I may have incorrectly defined my system in my above example. Taking new evidence into account (as science can and does do) I withdraw my example above. I’ll let you read Schroedinger because if you do, you’ll understand that he used the term “negative entropy” to denote free energy, rather than entropy. Free energy is a rather well understood concept in chemistry and physics.
Also, I’m glad that you think you “butchered” our arguments. I am also done with this thread as I have more important things to do with my time than try and educate the unwilling.
[[Schroedinger]]
I meant Schroedinger in my last post- not Stroeble- So IU see I was correct, and you are goign to use his writings as your defense- wow- just wow- I’ll have to post tomorrow- but you might want to check out hte rebuttles to Schroedinger’s writings because they show Schroedinger to be quite ignorant of the second law and even more so of the second law in an open system using ‘free energy’-
[[I am also done with this thread as I have more important things to do with my time than try and educate the unwilling.]]
Awwww- don’t give up now, it was just getting fun- I was just about to slip over to the coolaid drinking side- right after I destroyed Schroedigner’s arguments
Kev- I don’t knoew if you’re still reading or not- but if so- Schroedinger’s ‘negative entropy’ is a farce. Frank Steiger, a person copiously quoted by anti-ID folks when it comes to the second law, takes Schroedingger’s convoluted hypothesis, and further butchers the science of entropy by making his case for ‘negative entropy’ by trying to pull a lsight of hand magic trick by telling his readers that ice crystals are an example of ‘negative entropy’ and tries to impress upon his reraders that the formation of simple patterns that follow natural laws is hte same hting as dynamic randomly created process’ such as Macroevolution. He further goes on to give one example after another of intelligently designed structures such as the ‘ice box’ and hte ‘water wheel’ that taps downstream currents to lift water above the upper stream, suggesting that this intellgiently designed contraption is hte equivellent of a random, dynamic, ever changing blind process that relies on mistakes in the irreducibly complex structures of species in order to reach a higher and higher form of negative entropy. Did you catch that? This is very important- Steiger HAS to use examples of intellgiently designed complex structures, all assembled, and functioning in perfect harmony as they were DESIGNED to do, in order to argue that an open system can include ‘negative entropy’ ewhich could ‘possibly indicate that a ‘negative entropy’ element’ could happen. Why does he have to? Because there are no recorded instances of ‘negative entropy’ in higher complxity species i nthe natural world, and because his model so severely violates the second law, that only a convoluted example of a perfectly structured, hiughly complex, irreducibily complex man made structure can suffice for an ‘example of negative entropy in an open system’.
What Steiger is counting on I guess is hte guillibility of his readers, because he knows darn well that IF thsoe readers ask even the very basic questions, his hypothesis is doomed. He’s counting on people accepting his model without question- he has to- because it’s so seriuouslyt flawed, that as I mentioned, even secular scientists who are them ost ardent Macroevolutionists have had to distance htemselves from his rediculous assertions. He’s counting on people not questioning the fact that there hasn’t been an example from nature showing dynamic higher complexity systems that haver shown ‘negative entropy’. Why? Because it never happened, that’s why. Even if it oculd, setting aside rational logic for a second, for the sake of argument, happen in one, two or even a dozen or so cases, Steiger wants- nay, needs us to beleive it happened trillions of times at every step of the supposed Macroevolutionary stage. He doesn’t tell you that thouhg, does he? Why? Because he knows this fact is devestating to his cause. He just makes a case for a ‘possibility’ (and a VERY slight one at that) that it ‘might have happened’ in a single case in the past, and then goes on to befuddle the minds of his readers by confusin g them with notions that simple natural patterns that show a supposed ‘negative entropy’ is the same as dynamic systems that would have to recieve trillions of ever increasing negative entropy changes, all working toward higher and higher complexities, thus resulting in higher and higher negative entropy ‘mistakes in genetics’ to work from.
Steiger has to hope that his readers won’t pause to practice an ounce of critical thinking and rationale. Steiger is hoping that by giving only a few examples of intellgiently caused ‘negative entropy’, man made systems, that the reader will then think that in nature, negative entropy is an unnequivacable fact, innevitability that it happened trillions of times in perfect successions to produce an ever incresingly complex species millions of times over.
Steiger wants his readers- needs his readers to imagine that these trillions of ‘negative entropies’ happened ‘without cause’, or rather, without direction or instructions from a structured, intelligent, purposeful agent directing the orchestra.
I’m sorry, but htis is so weak an argument for Macroevolution that it should behoove the arguer to drop the case, and to stop implying that Creationists and ID’ists ‘don’t understand the second law’, but apparently, it’s quite simply impossible to embarrass folks l ike Steiger wiht the actual facts.
Can you not see the irony in all this? In orderr for Steiger to make his case for unguided, naturalistic, isolated incidents of ‘negative entropy’, and the case for unguided, ‘uncaused’ Mistake driven mutational inspired Macroevolution, Steiger MUST give hte only known examples he can think of- Man made- intellgiently caused, perfectly constructed, fully functional, irreducibly complex and constructed devices designed for a purpose. Only then can he show ‘negative entropy’ in an immediate setting (which coincidently increases in entropy over time as well). If the case for Creationists and ID’ists ‘not understanding the second law’ is built upon such a perversion of scientific facts as Steiger presents, and if the case for ‘it could have happened because such and such shows ‘negative entropy’, then by golly, that’s a pretty sad state of affairs for Macroevolution. Attempting to blur the line between Crystal growth and genetic growth, between man made intelligently caused purposeful designs fully functioning, and random ordered mistakes i nthe gene codes, only further goes to show just how weak Steiger’s argument really is.
[[I am also done with this thread as I have more important things to do with my time than try and educate the unwilling.]]
Did you mean you have more important htings to do than to try to educate the ‘Unwilling”? Or did you perhaps mean the ‘critical thinking”?