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 ...
Straw man, non-sequiteur, begging the question.
I need to get a tote board to keep up with all the logical fallacies used.
In a scientific discussion, saying "'cause God made it so" has the same casual relationship as a voodoo doctor making it rain.
I will say it again. As an argument, God belongs in mythology, not science.
btw: I am a Christian and devoutly believe in God and His Son, who died for our sins. And anyone that watches evolution unfold and doesn't see the Glory of God is looking but not seeing.
He started a Religeon [sic] of psudo [sic] science. Professors are preaching it still.
From a google search:
Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic definition: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."Wrong. Try again?
Can you paraphrase post 119 for me?
No matter how loud their proponents yell, creationism and ID are mythology, religion, and philosophy. Evolution is science.
Oh bogus, it is only in your mind as it is an affront to what you hold to be true. While Science supports the theory of Evolution it is not a theory vetted out to perfection. there are a lot of unansewered questions that we have not even the capacity to compute or understand yet so quit making as if its a foregone conclusion. There may be a lot of eggs in your basket but few have hatched...or are you prepared to say with total certainty that the theory needs nothing more to explain?
The only reason I get involved is because I worry about our kids getting screwed up thinking that when you hit something you can't explain, you basically throw your hands up and say "magic did this." That is very real damage.
Oh yes, and all of us useful idiots could care less about our kids...about science and about the "real world"...right? My degree in Professional Aeronautics means I am just an idiot who now flies for the USAF by total luck and chance...right? How do I dare say to you, the higher form of intelligence, that I actually understand the arguments and come to a different conclusion? I share your worry about education of our kids, but I am not ready to berate you over it. My five children are getting more factual science than I ever did and we are hyper-involved with their education. What I fear in education more is an inept government minded union who has control over schools from ther top down and see it as a place where social engineering takes place and where all the liberal ideologies of the world are to be indoctrinated into unsuspecting minds who get more screwed up than well served.
No wonder we are losing so badly in worldwide academia.
And yet where does the world come for the best education?
Is it? I thougt it would be on the other foot.
No matter how loud their proponents yell, creationism and ID are mythology, religion, and philosophy. Evolution is science.
Oh bogus, it is only in your mind as it is an affront to what you hold to be true. While Science supports the theory of Evolution it is not a theory vetted out to perfection. there are a lot of unansewered questions that we have not even the capacity to compute or understand yet so quit making as if its a foregone conclusion. There may be a lot of eggs in your basket but few have hatched...or are you prepared to say with total certainty that the theory needs nothing more to explain?
The only reason I get involved is because I worry about our kids getting screwed up thinking that when you hit something you can't explain, you basically throw your hands up and say "magic did this." That is very real damage.
Oh yes, and all of us useful idiots could care less about our kids...about science and about the "real world"...right? My degree in Professional Aeronautics means I am just an idiot who now flys for the USAF by total luck and chance...right? How do I dare say to you, the higher form of intelligence, that I actually understand the arguments and come to a different conclusion? I share your worry about education of our kids, but I am not ready to berate you over it. My five children are getting more factual science than I ever did and we are hyper-involved with their education. What I fear in education more is an inept government minded union who has control over schools from ther top down and see it as a place where social engineering takes place and where all the liberal ideologies of the world are to be indoctrinated into unsuspecting minds who get more screwed up than well served.
No wonder we are losing so badly in worldwide academia.
And yet where does the world come for the best education?
I'm an evolutionist.. ( whatever that is.. )
Have you read Origin of the Species?
Post 119: From Darwin's Origin of the Species:
"After five years' work I allowed myself to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes; these I enlarged in 1844 into a sketch of the conclusions..."
."For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question"
Darwin himself states that his theory is speculation and someone considering the same subjects could come to an opposite conclusion.
It requires faith to believe his theory, therefore it is a Religion.
Darwin is the founder of the Religeon of Eveloution in that it takes faith to follow his teachings.
"It is an observable fact that evolution has occurred"
Actually, it's more of a supposition instead of a fact, since no one has watched it happen, and there is no way to repeat the experiment.
OK ... how about an earth-sized box of billions of different sized Legos covered with photovoltaic cells in earth's gravitational field? Expose it to sunlight. Add lightning ... Carl Sagan liked to do that ... shake it up for a few billion years and then see what "evolves"?
Maybe that'll do it.
See post #189.
Still don't understand your point. Sorry.
I would think that with a better understanding of the "rules" (physical constants, dynamics of multiphase flow, physics of magnetism, wave motion & heat, chemistry, &c.) we would find there are no such things as "random" actions. To completely understand something is to be able to predict what happens next. God like in our understand, we would become as gods ourselves. Notice the small "g", because we could understand everything except how it started in the first place.
Regards,
GtG
"Please explain this via your interpretation of the 2nd Law and entropy."
That is so stupid...
False Logic..
If all you want to do is "believe" a theory, it would still be only a belief.. not a religion..
Darwin however, presented a theory and as quoted, presented it for debate.. pro and con..
Darwin did not provide proofs confirming his theory, others did.. over the following century of scientific endeavor..
You try to inject religion where none was ever inferred..
My point is: Darwin himself did not state that his theory was based on firm facts, and that someone else could look at the same evidence and come to other conclusions.
Followers of Darwin have taken his "speculations" and expanded them far beyond what he himself stated.
It is OK to follow a different religion, just don't call it proven science.
His theory of incremental change over long time is refuted by the fossil record. It hasn't been shown how the changes took place. It is still an open question that is disputed by the Religeonists of Darwin.
Dan, Darwinism is not a religion. It is not OK to follow another religion. There is only one God.
The fossil record actually substantiates incremental change.
> That's why I'm an atheist. I know when to say, "Gee, I don't KNOW... hmm."
That sounds like the definition of an agnostic, not an atheist. Important distinction.
You have proven that your attention span is less than a sentence. You lost the thread of the post, and reacted to the word 'god' like a tomcat cornered in a shed.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Model: a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic definition: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
But wait, there's more!
From an NSF abstract:
As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence. ...Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
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.