Posted on 12/28/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
... the idea that the four fundamental forces of physics alone could rearrange the fundamental particles of nature into spaceships, nuclear power plants, and computers, connected to laser printers, CRTs, keyboards and the Internet, appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular way.
Anyone who has made such an argument is familiar with the standard reply: the Earth is an open system, it receives energy from the sun, and order can increase in an open system, as long as it is "compensated" somehow by a comparable or greater decrease outside the system. S. Angrist and L. Hepler, for example, in "Order and Chaos", write, "In a certain sense the development of civilization may appear contradictory to the second law.... Even though society can effect local reductions in entropy, the general and universal trend of entropy increase easily swamps the anomalous but important efforts of civilized man. Each localized, man-made or machine-made entropy decrease is accompanied by a greater increase in entropy of the surroundings, thereby maintaining the required increase in total entropy."
According to this reasoning, then, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal -- and the door is open. In Appendix D of my new book, The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, second edition, I take a closer look at the equation for entropy change, which applies not only to thermal entropy but also to the entropy associated with anything else that diffuses, and show that it does not simply say that order cannot increase in a closed system. It also says that in an open system, order cannot increase faster than it is imported through the boundary. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
So, how many teeth have you pulled that you are able to make such a comparision with such authority?
MY math teacher used to demand: Show your work!
I detect a subject change here.
Isn't it about time for Itchy to post the graphic with all the various skulls?
Oh how droll.
You are truly unable to argue. You just toss platitudes. Please get back to me when you have something of substance to contribute. Even sarcasm would be OK, if it is grounded in something and not just random phrases strung together.
Come on Dan; you're mocking them; right?
Point to one unanswered question. A question grounded in an understanding of science and the TOE and not one where htey say "why are there multiple species?" and other specious questions.
Oh, and that has been answered as well.
I guess I agree that to rationalize the debate a change in human nature will be required, as this suggests.
The whole of evolutionary science is delusional if they think that all their beliefs are scientific.
It is common for someone who has their presumptions questioned, to become defensive and start calling other people names.
People in general do not like to concede that someone else has a valid point of view and they fight like tigers to hold on to a belief that has been shown to be in error.
No, I am serious. I freely admit that I don't know everything and that many of my beleifs are based on faith.
I just think it is not too much for the evolutionists to admit that there is much that is unknown and that they fill in the gaps with statements of what they beleive will be shown in the future.
Are they afraid that it will be like when Martin Luthur wrote a statement of his beliefs and nailed it to his church door?
I am sure that they see that action as one they don't want repeated because it made cracks in the Dogma that are still having reprocusions hundreds of years later.
Yes.
Hungover?
Just a minor point. Darwinism can't address abiogenesis simply because the mechanisms require life to already exist.
"Aside from snide dismissals, I'm still waiting for a concise, reasonable explanation why one cannot bring up the Second Law of thermo when we are debating if life started from naturalistic, non-intelligent, random forces.
If you want to bring the 2LoT up in an abiogenesis thread I doubt you would get any flack. In an evolution thread however, the discussion of evolution requires us to ask how evolution differs from any other biological process that apparently does not 'break' the 2LoT. We have yet to receive a reply.
Since both of you seem to be well equipped to discuss the 2LoT and abiogenesis, could you explain how the 2LoT prevents the formation of biotic molecules from prebiotic molecules? So far all I have gotten is the assertion that it does. Since I am no expert, please use terminology even I could understand.
This is a big thread. Whether I posted to you directly is a pretty poor measurement.
Please point to any unanswered questions. I will be happy to help you clear your confusion.
No, just an offer of assistance.
So, am I then to understand that you are clear on the TOE and don't have any outstanding questions that have been left unanswered (either by omission or by what you describe as insults)?
Is that a snide remark?
So I assume you revoke your post #55 (which was awhile ago). Just wanted to make sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.