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 ...
The cult will soon be dead.
The question has to do with the great debate that wound up in the court trial.
If Darwin's theory is taught as dogma, as it in many classes, it must be a violation of the "Faith Based" taching of Darwinism to point out that there is other contrasting information and that Darwin's Theory isn't the complete universe regarding "The Origin of The Species" since Darwin doesn't even pretend to explain the origin of the species in his book of that name.
The only way someone would object to a statement that there are other theories, is if they are so dogmatic that it is their "Religeon" and any questioning of the dogma should be treated like Copericus was when he talked about the earth going around the sun.
No, it isn't, but thanks for sharing your misunderstanding of biology with us.
**Actually, I am quite happy that our species evolved and that I am here to enjoy the pleasures thereof.**
For how long?
You don't know, do you? Even if you live to 100 yrs, it will be here before you know it.
I'm 51, and have seen my share of young lives ended in tragic accidents.
For people of your mindset, this is it. No soul, no afterlife, no hope.
What would you do if you had a child with a terminal, incurable, disease, lying in death's grip? I suppose your evolved emotions would cause you to cry tears from your evolved tear ducts. Say a prayer? No, that would be a waste of time.
I am always amazed at the evolutionists 'know-it-all' position.
The grave awaits us all. Some of us are positively convinced that that is not the end.
Eternity is too long to be wrong.
Happy New Year!
"Another ID debate I would love to contribute to but cannot for other things are in demand right now and through the weekend."
Way too many crevo threads.
My suggestion is to assign a single thread to the crevo discussion, something similar to the Threat Matrix thread.
I think a single thread would make things much easier for anyone interested in sincere crevo dialogue. But that's just me. Anyone else thinks so too?
Well said.
You wrote: "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?"
Question: Let's say that out of religious faith one believes that airplanes stay aloft due to prayer and angels, and this should be taught in schools as a valid alternative to aeronautic engineering. The "wing and a prayer" theory. Would you propose that this be taught in engineering school on an equal basis?
Thanks for the ping.
Guess what? Your post had absolutely nothing NEW or TRUE to say. Again, your contempt for creationists is a tad obvious. You use the word "creationist" like a KKK cultist would say the word nig...r. I'm sorry to say your zealotry leaves you with no scientific knowledge but a re-play of the evolutionary talking points that have no basis in scientific laws.
He was very educated in philosophy, languuages, etc, but worse... he reverts under stress to theoretical mathematics, being a Ph.D in it (I am a Ph.D in Mechanical Engineering, by contrast). Thus, his rigid doctrinaire approach is his "comfort food" of logical argument, though I am sure he would classify me as equally doctrinaire in a different direction.
Interestingly, if one would ask, how could such a person trained in the rigors of logic come to such ridiculous conclusions, I eventually concluded (after many years) that it wasn't his (or my) logic that was flawed, but his starting premises... namely, this "serve the greater good" worldview. Given his different premises, the chasm of difference in logical conclusions could frequently be predicted in advance. And maybe, this premise difference that I refer to is exactly what you meant by him "reverting to philosophy." Very astute, if that is what you meant.
The desire for such a comforting possibility is a strong incentive to believe that it is true, regardless of the poor evidence for it.
The way I see it, a BMW 735i has a higher chance of spontaneously coming into existence out of nothing,than a single strand of DNA. But that doesn't mean that either cannot happen.
This is a non-sequiter.
Airplane theory can be demonstrated more thoroughly than evolution.
If it had the gaps in it like are shown in the fossil record, then you could call on some leaps of faith like the evolutionists do and call it complete science.
You wrote: "It requires faith to believe his [Darwin's] theory, therefore it is a Religion."
Reply:
Yep. Also about gravity and the sun rising. Every morning I have faith that the sun will rise just like it did on all the previous mornings. Science gives us faith. Every morning I find that gravity is still working. Science is wonderful.
Punctuated equilibrium! what a laugh, the surrender of the evolution church.
Thank you, spam man.
Your examples are supported by religeous teaching, so I agree with you.
I just don't accept the dogmatic approach that is expressed by some.
This is where your premise is all wrong, Dan. Try to figure out what I am saying here. Think about it.
It may look that way to someone who refuses to learn anything from it. It is, nonetheless, correct, and your childish retorts do nothing to refute its contents.
Again, your contempt for creationists is a tad obvious.
I have no respect for anyone who actively resists learning about a topic he insists upon lecturing about using fallacies and misrepresentations. Unfortunately, that includes a very large percentage of anti-evolution creationits
You use the word "creationist" like a KKK cultist would say the word nig...r.
No, I don't, but thanks for sharing your ugly slurs with us -- it makes it quite clear to the lurkers who actually is driven by "contempt" here.
I'm sorry to say your zealotry leaves you with no scientific knowledge but a re-play of the evolutionary talking points that have no basis in scientific laws.
ROFL!!! Do you expect anyone to actually fall for that?
Is this kind of bitter diatribe, devoid of any discussion of the actual science, and full of desperate excuses for *not* responding to the actual points we make, the best you can do?
Yes, I suppose it is.
See if you can get a cloud of gas to download your e-mail ;o)
You wrote: "Emulsified water and oil hardly seem to me to fit the definition of disorder. The molecules are still distinct and separate. (Believe me when I say I have no expertise in any of this.)
"Looks to me like following similar reasoning, the erosion of varied sizes of mountains, boulders, rocks and pebbles into a smooth beach of evenly sized particles of sand is the creation of order."
Reply: Oh, I do believe you--that you have no expertise in any of this! You obviously do not understand what emulsions are. Do the experiment in your kitchen, and then explain why the water and oil spontaneously separate. Use the 2nd law, and explain why we have order appearing FROM DISORDER.
You posed an interesting question--why do sandy beaches have a distribution of particle sizes within a narrow range. What do you think is the answer? Is "Intelligent design/ intervention" for each grain of sand an answer?
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.