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 ...
If it is presented as it actually is, that is, as theory and not fact.
It is taught by many, that his theory on Origin of the Species is fact, when his book of the same name does not even pretend to show how species originated.
I understand a lot about the theory of electronics as I worked in the field for 40 years, but it is still taught as theory. Nobody claims to know for fact how it all works.
That doesn't stop anyone from using the theorys to make things work. We just don't make it like religeous dogma the way evolution theorists do.
See post #299, son. Is being wrong every time you post something snotty a kind of hobby for you?
lol For the new year!!!!
If the known laws of physics are not a framework, I don't know what is. Care to reformulate?
There is hardly a more invalid analogy/argument/claim that the evol;utionist's comparison of their so called theory of evolution to the law of gravity.
Most any physicist can explain the improbabilities to you.
There are a number of physical constants in nature that if varied by a very small percentage would make life impossible. They would make the stars and atomic elements impossible, many of them.
An example of 6 of the cosmological constants are 'N (1x10^36) which defines the strength of electrical forces. E (epsilon= 0.07) defines strength of atomic nuclei bonding. Omega defines the ratio of expansion energy to gravity of all matter. Lambda, a new force, cosmic anti-gravity, which controls rate of universal expansion. Q, a ratio of 2 energies, which determines the texture of structure in our universe. D, is the number of dimensions = 4.
There are other comsological and physical constants however that can be just as important. I think Dr. Rees left them out for simplicity. The improbabilities were already near infinite.
Let's just take those 6 in particular. These 6 numbers, according to Dr. Rees (author of "6 Numbers" a book describing the multiverse theory) constitute a recipe for our universe. "If any one of them became "untuned" by only a small percentage (less than 10%) there would be no stars and no life."
Professor of Physics at Univ of Delaware, Dr. Barr, wrote the book "Modern Physics, Ancient Faith" and shows that statistically that atheistic, materialistic explanations of the universe have far less credibility than a theistic answer. Barr provides a rational argument why God is a credible concept in science.
On the atheistic side of the argument is Dr. Rees who also agrees with Dr. Barr that it is improbable that the universe is simply a singular random universe that just happenes to have the right stuff for life.
Dr. Rees postulated the theory of the "multiverse" to try to come up with a way to deal with the huge improbability of it all, since he could not consider the possibility of God (a simpler solution). His theory states that there are an infinite number of universes and ours is the ONE universe which happens to have the right numbers for those parameters.
Dr. Rees believes it would take an almost infinite number of turns of 6 random number generators before they came up with the right combination for a universe to exist in a way that supports life. The probability of life actually evolving, once the universe is suitable for life, is a whole other set of improbabilities! (anthropomorphic probabilities)
Scientific materialism of the 19th century is dead. Atheists can no longer rely on science to support their case, the reverse is becoming true. Scientific materialism has been killed by the startling results of 20th century science.
How does that square with your denial of eternal life?
You'll say what is expedient.
No person who has experienced the holy spirit has ever believed in the lie of evolution. Those who have not think that they can fake it, but they fake only themselves. Your posts are a constant string of self contradiction, and you rarely, if ever post on any other subject. We see through you.
I don't have any credentials in physics and don't need any to understand when a bogus Second Law argument is being made. Evolution no more breaks thermodynamics than the processes of life break thermodynamics. Evolution is just a life process operating on a longer time scale than respiration and metabolism.
It is both theory *and* fact. For example, it is a fact that speciation via Darwin's mechanisms has been observed.
when his book of the same name does not even pretend to show how species originated.
You obviously haven't read it.
I understand a lot about the theory of electronics as I worked in the field for 40 years, but it is still taught as theory. Nobody claims to know for fact how it all works.
Nor does anyone claim to know for a fact how all of evolutionary biology works. Operative word being "all". We do, however, know for a fact how many parts of it work, just as we know for a fact how many facets of the field of electronics behave and interact.
That doesn't stop anyone from using the theorys to make things work.
Ditto for evolutionary theory.
We just don't make it like religeous dogma the way evolution theorists do.
No one treats evolutionary biology as "religious" dogma either, and your repeating this silly claim over and over again doesn't make it any more true. Not even if you stamp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue.
Here, read this: Creationist Claim CA610: Evolution is a religion.
Also read: God and Evolution , and Is Science a Religion?.
This is hocus pocus. There is no basis for this...
Let me know when the oil slides out of the glass, starts walking around and composes the Messiah.
There was. But they ate themselves.
[All microorganisms are carbon-based due to the very unique atomic properties of carbon.]
Or one that defeats aging? Remember stem cells are aging immune."
Humans used to be immortal, then God realized they could refuse to obey and worship Him and made them mortal. Then they could still live for centuries. (in the times of Moses and Abraham...) Then, I believe, Satan created viruses, a pseudo-life form, that infests cells and reduces longevity.
The non-aging stem cells are perhaps residual from the days when God made man immortal.
Nonsense. Most of the greatest scientists the world has ever known believed in God and/or were Christian.
The inventor of modern science, and scientific process was Isaac Newton;
Sir Isaac Newton, -- "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than any in profane history."
Okay, I'll bite, where do you think I've denied such a thing?
You'll say what is expedient.
No, I'll say what makes sense, contrary to the method you use.
No person who has experienced the holy spirit has ever believed in the lie of evolution.
That's going to come as a big surprise to the millions of Christians who accept the validity of evolutionary biology. In fact, the *majority* of Americans who accept evolution are Christians, not atheists.
Are you sure you have any clue what in the hell you're talking about?
Those who have not think that they can fake it, but they fake only themselves.
Uh huh. Sure.
Your posts are a constant string of self contradiction, and you rarely, if ever post on any other subject.
Yeah, right, that's why I posted a lengthy analysis of bogus anti-gun statistics on this thread just a few hours ago.
Again, it would be nice if you had any contact with reality before you posted your fantasies as if they were true.
We see through you.
You see what you want to see, which usually involves a bizarre mix of presumption, antagonism, and paranoia.
There was an earlier thread where a department head refused to write a letter of recommendation for a student who had good grades in his classes but wouldn't answer the question that he accepted Darwins Theory as "fact".
Without the letter the student wouldn't be accepted in a Graduate School.
My contention is that it is an abuse of his position to demand blind acceptance as Darwin being fact, and not accept that the student understood the theory, and that is what he was studying --- the theory.
That is when the dogma becomes religion. It is used to coerce others. It has nothing to do with whether Darwin's theory is useful or not, it is pure power play to punish those who don't fully knuckle under to the dogma.
LOL !! - Thomas doesn't have any idea what thermo is, but he has been trying to make into all kinds of things this evening. I can almost guarantee that he has no scottish blood in his veins though; he was confused as to why I told him to use two beakers rather than two osterizers !?
I'm jumping to conclusions?
My observations are from your own testamonies, which are summed up here: God did not create what exists.
You allude to a 'God experience'. Yet your own testamonies give him no credit. He either created it all, as he said, or it's all a lie. Or do you straddle the fence when it is convenient?
Calling me a 'know it all' too?
Well, from one 'know it all' to another, goodnight. I must rest; for an early departure, my steed awaits.
God may not be perceived as active in your life, but He is certainly active in mine.
Most scientists believe in an interactive God.
The evidence is against your point.
Based on those definitions, evolution is not a theory; it is a model.
I already pointed out to you the flaw in this argument back on 12/22, and asked you to support your shaky and unsupported assumption, if you could. You failed to respond. Why are you now reposting the same argument while pretending that its inherent fallacy has not already been called to your attention?
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.