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 ...
Could you fly if you didn't understand how aerodynamics work? You of all people should know how important the underlying foundations are. Even a pilot of a small craft needs to understand physics.
Creationism in biology is the same as telling pilots that a plane flies because God holds it up.
Isn't complexity really subjective?
What we habitually consider complex are those things that are arranged to our values.
In an objective sense, it may be that a desktop PC is no more ordered, no more complex, than a cloud of gas.
Yes, it is.. Thanks for recognizing it..
I think an Atheist would say, "There is no answer".. or something like that..
Worse than a wife's tale, it's 'school-teacher-talk.
In the years prior to WW II, aeronautical engineers were studying the flight of bees and wasps in order to design another 'impossible' machine: the helicopter.
There are many studies of Trilabites, fossils of snail-like creatures. They didn't have any sigificant changes for millions of years and then just dissappeared from the fossil record.
There are many many other like examples.
Darwinists make a leap of faith to cover the changes from one species to another. The fossil record does not show any evidence to cover the "missing links".
My objection is how they handle the evidence.
They do it with a leap of faith that it will be proven someday.
It is like a "chain of custody" as required in legal cases.
They can't get to there from here. The chain is broken so the evidence does not support their argument.
I was simply trying to make a point in a humorous way..
You wrote:
And: Please show us where miscible/immiscible liquids are mentioned in the 2nd law.
One of the problems with discussions such as the present one is that the parties do not take the trouble to provide a clear and unambiguous statement of what they mean by the "Second Law."
Reply:
You are very right. The ID/Creationists want us to think that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 'proves' evolution impossible. It is a very curious position. The creationists object to 'materialistic' science as undermining morality, and yet they use the same materialistic science of the 2nd law to try to 'make a point'.
There are many statements of the 2nd law. One is, "heat does not spontaneously move from a cold region to a warmer region." Put in these words, it is hardly controversial, and would seem to have zero meaning for evolution. The order/disorder confusion excites creationists, because they seek a god-driven order. Which ignores the very quasi-randomness that gives rise to every one of us individuals.
The 'logic' of a fool.
Had you not been too lazy to study, you might be aware of the thousands of numeric patterns woven into the word. It has been studied, even by the Pentagon cryptologists hoping to disprove it, to no avail. The ignorant will continue to make statements like yours.
> I think an Atheist would say, "There is no answer".. or something like that..
Having carpooled with a militant atheist for over a decade, I can assure you what he would say: 1) "Occam's razor indicates that the non-existence of God is so overwhelminging in probability that, unless given conclusive proof to the contrary, I have to reject the existence of God; 2) Christians are free to worship God in the confines of their churches, but such a right does not extend into the public square; 3) religious "zealots" [ed.: aka "Christians"] scare me more than anything else in this world.
Howz that for starters?
Oh woe!
Oh, what a tale of woe!
It goes from bladder to wort!
By providing an inital set of fundamental pieces of code the technique can alayze data and create working programs.
+
+
+
+
Oh goodness, he is a creationist!
Maybe "I don't know" is sufficient.. LOL..!!!
Had you not been too lazy to study, you might be aware of the thousands of numeric patterns woven into the word. It has been studied, even by the Pentagon cryptologists hoping to disprove it, to no avail. The ignorant will continue to make statements like yours.
Ad hominum, now! Also begging the question, and a smattering of ergo propter hoc. Yours is not argumentation, it is basically a long-winded "is not, is not." I have GOT to get that tote board started!
Scentifically, the Bible is mythology. It has historic elements but as a source of scientific knowledge it is extremely limited.
This is not a laziness issue. You won't study evolution properly. Why would I want to waste my time reading tin-foil hat "proof" of predetermined "patterns"?
Draw your lines, then plot your points.
Dan, there's no faith involved at all. Evolution is clear-cut if you just follow the chain. You know it's hard to keep perfect records of everything.
Just because a fossil disappears or a species becomes exinct doesn't disprove evolution, it actually supports it. I am sure you can always find the reason for extinction. That is survival of the fittest.
More 'tomcat' reaction.
You obviously don't understand the applications of the 2nd law. Your work obviously doesn't depend directly on the dependability of signal processing. I wish I was afforded the same luxury. To anyone who uses the electromagnetic spectrum to communicate data, thermal entropy is an every-day, real world issue. It destroys information. Enough energy can effectively destroy all information in a given stream. Keep on bleating the 'talking points' that you read in your evolution church program; just don't expect to garner any respect from real people.
> Maybe "I don't know" is sufficient.. LOL..!!!
Indeed. To assert that "God does not exist" takes as much a leap of faith as the opposite assertion, which is why atheism is, in fact, a religion... one that, by denying the existence of a Supreme Being, puts "progrssive man" or "dialectic materialism", or some other such secular ideal in the fore as their worship idol.
You posted: "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."
Reply:
By your 'logic', the Roman Empire never existed. Nobody alive today saw it, there is no way to repeat this history, and the whole idea of Roman legions in Gaul is just from ignorant archeologists and 'anti-Christian' historians.
By your view, you could say that anything that happened 200 years ago never happened. It is a very weird view. And it discounts all the begats in the Bible.
Atheism.. = Denial of God, or Denial of Religion ???
Tautology.
"Survival of the fittest" simply means survival of the survivors. Without being able to point out what condition, feature, or fortuitous chain of events made them survivors, it has no meaning beyound observation of the temporarily obvious.
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.