OOhhh Aliens -- spooky and scary!!
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 ...
I leave sugar water out in the sun all the time....and it disappears. I think its the Hummingbirds. And yes, they are more complex in their structure than sugar water. For one, they have wings and for two, they can change direction faster than a UFO.
Have I empirically demonstrated your point?
Understood.
It's a constant stream of fear, hatred, and memorized propaganda from the talking points page of the evolution church buletin.
The second law of thermodynamics is an explanation of the nature of entropy in a closed system. The argument being presented is that this law refutes evolution because chaos is the result of the passage of time, not organization. And what I am saying is that this argument is loaded with logical fallacies. Is the system which we live in closed? Damned if I know, but I can tell you that when I look in the sky, I see a giant fusion reaction that hasn't gotten close to burning out yet. If the universe as a whole is a closed system, are we still in its infancy ( meaning that chaos is to come)? Does the 2nd law refute the possibility of any organized system or merely state that chaos is the end result? Where is it stated that the 2nd law prevents organized systems from occurring prior to the collapse into chaos? There are no definitive answers to these questions, so people who attempt to use the 2nd law to knock holes in evolution by creating the impression that they had refuted the position ( when they really haven't) are making a straw man fallacy.
It isn't changing the subject.
Religion is a faith based system that cannot be proven to be completely true except to those who believe. Many things about it can be shown to be true by the results it brings, but it requires a leap of faith to accept completely as true.
Darwinism is s faith based system that cannot be proven to be completely true, but which contains many truths. It also can be shown to be true by some of the results. To accept everything taught under the banner of Darwinism also requires a leap of faith as some aspects have not been proven to be true, and cannot be replicated as is required by scientific methods.
It is OK to believe in the Religious aspects of Darwinism, just don't require everyone to accept those parts as anything other than speculation and theory.
It is OK to require students to understand the current speculation and theory so they can answer questions about it before passing the course.
I accept the theory of electronics and have made a good living from that. I don't get dogmatic about it though.
That's right. Entropy is quantitative. You can grind a teapot into dust without substantially altering its entropy. What alteration there is depends on the formation of new surfaces with altered bonding among the atoms there, and has nothing to do with its new configuration per se.
BTW, Lee Smolin in Three_Roads_to_Quantum_Gravity repeats the usual canard that the entropy of a teapot is "greatly increased" by breaking it into bits. I think creationists should be taken to task for their refusal to consider the error of their argument, but it's hard to say that the error is any more laughable than Smolin's.
Which "Law" of gravity? Newton's theory of gravitation? The one that, while having loads of evidence for its general operation, was unable to explain certain astronomical events with the correct precision? Or maybe Einstein's, that corrected some of the flaws that existed in Newton's theories, but still can't explain the exact operation of gravity at the quantum level?
Your mistake is attributing the status of "law" to any scientific theory. There is no "law" of gravity, because the theories are still being modified even today. No physicist worth a damn argues that there is no such thing as gravity, but none of them can tell you exactly how it is structured at both the macro- and micro-levels. Kind of like biologists and evolution...
No content to you. No surprise. It's outside your realm, don't attempt to understand. I hate to have to repeat myself.
There's nothing hypocritical about it. (Nor is it only "left-wing nuts" who are concerned about extinctions.) This misguided accusation comes up frequently, but I fail to understand why, because it makes no sense. Did all of you read it in the same pamphlet or something?
Here are a few of my prior posts on the subject, written in reply to similar accusations:
If weeding out is such a preferable occurance why on earth the hue and cry to "save " endangered species?And:Because humanity's goals are different from nature's processes. Floods are natural too, but that doesn't mean *we* need to appreciate New Orleans being underwater. Plagues are natural, but we fight against them. Forest fires rejuvenate forests (in the long run), but we still don't like fires burning up our houses.
Why? Why "Conserve" if its Natural instinct is making it die out....STUPID environmentalists!And:1. Trees don't have "instincts".
2. It doesn't seem to have been "dying out" because it's still around and alive.
3. Even though extinctions occur naturally, that doesn't mean that man has to go along with it. Floods, famines, and plagues are in the natural order of things as well, but that doesn't mean we don't have our own opinions about their desirability when they affect us or things we take an interest in.
In any case, what's your point here? Pandas were doing fine for millions of years until humans screwed up their successful lifestyle. Labeling pandas "unfit" because they don't do well in captivity or in a drastically reduced habitat is hardly a valid measure, and even if you had a point it still wouldn't support your original claim about some unnamed group(s) which allegedly feel that nature must take its course or something. It also ignores my point that letting the panda slide into extinction because of *manmade* destruction of its habitat and poaching of its members would hardly be "letting nature take its course", since we've *already* drastically interfered with nature's "course" for the panda by destroying its natural forests, and its resulting extinction would be an *artificial* result.And:
This is Darwinism at its finest.
No, it isn't. Are you sure you understand "Darwinism"? Just because extinctions are part of evolution, that doesn't make excessive extinctions a "good" thing.
Your comment is like saying that since passage of the soul via death is a part of Christianity, then "famines are Christianity at its finest". Um, no.
True. Also meaningless. This is not the only possible outcome.
Darwinism is s faith based system that cannot be proven to be completely true, but which contains many truths. It also can be shown to be true by some of the results. To accept everything taught under the banner of Darwinism also requires a leap of faith as some aspects have not been proven to be true, and cannot be replicated as is required by scientific methods.
To begin with, I can't tell where you stand.
Darwinism is a theory based on a naturalistic and scientific examination of available data. It is not perfect and there are holes (as I admitted before). Science is still pursuing those holes. No one in their right mind accepts all postulates for any scientific theory carte blance.
Religion is purely an invention of the mind. As you point out, it is reverse-engineered. You create the belief system, then point out how the "real world" supports that system.
But the idea that a scientific theory and a mythology are both equivalently faith based is a bit disingenuous.
In other words, it is meaningless and self-referential. But I appreciate the addition to FR Funnies.
If you do it in a spooky voice I am sure it will have an effect on someone.
Law of gravity is a sort of cultural term, is it not? It is a 'law' in the sense that it's functional effects are undeniable, while all that is represented as evolution is facetious, ridiculous and refuted by even the simplest observation of life.
I'm sure that it is both spooky and scary to you.
Right Here
Nope. Learn to read. Stating (correctly) that there is poor evidence for "eternal life" (you *do* know what evidence means, don't you?), and stating (correctly) that there are strong emotional incentives to believe in such a thing, is not the same as a "denial of eternal life". Instead, it is an observation on the pitfalls of epistemology.
If you can't grasp the difference, you're not equipped to hold up your end of this discussion.
I fully expect you to try to wiggle from the obvious meaning of your words above,
It's good that you comprehend, however dimly, that I am likely to disagree with your faulty conclusions about what I've actually written, and what I actually believe.
but you're wasting your time;
Yes, I am obviously wasting my time trying to have a rational conversation with you. we see through you.
You see what you wish to see. Don't mistake that for what actually is.
OOhhh Aliens -- spooky and scary!!
Do even *you* believe this stuff that comes out of your brain?
What bothers me is the personal attacks you make, connectthedots. How does that promote your ideas?
Thanks, Ichneumon,
Don't understand why they are resorting to personal attacks.
Nope. Please stop posting nonsense, and try to learn something about the topic before spouting off about it.
that cannot be proven to be completely true,
Nothing in science can. Science does not deal in proofs. If you're going to whine about something, make it something relevant.
but which contains many truths. It also can be shown to be true by some of the results. To accept everything taught under the banner of Darwinism also requires a leap of faith
Wrong again. It doesn't take "faith", it takes knowledge, understanding, and evidence.
as some aspects have not been proven to be true,
See above.
and cannot be replicated as is required by scientific methods.
You have a poor understanding of the scientific method. Science does not "require" that *events* be replicated, it requires that *findings* be replicatable.
It is OK to believe in the Religious aspects of Darwinism,
And what in the hell would *that* be?
just don't require everyone to accept those parts as anything other than speculation and theory.
Evolutionary biology is far beyond "speculation".
It is OK to require students to understand the current speculation and theory so they can answer questions about it before passing the course.
Colleges will be hugely relieved that they have your approval to teach science.
I accept the theory of electronics and have made a good living from that. I don't get dogmatic about it though.
Nor do we. So you might want to drop the snotty misrepresentations.
But it is always sad to see a FReeper fall so low. Sort of like seeing the town drunk who used to be a stand-up guy.
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.