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 understand why.
LOL.
Your statement "stands" because you said so, not because you have proven so.
Look, science is NOT an argument against God. Science is merely the discovery of Gods universe. Because I KNOW God to be true, by my own personal experience, I am motivated to pursue science and advance my understanding of God's universe.
I've read the CS Lewis, and also the recent book by Dr. Armand Nicholl, "The Question of God" which "debates" CS Lewis against Sigmund Freud.
Fundamentally the error you repeat is that you assume all knowledge comes from scientific research, and that no knowledge came come from revelations by God. This itself is an unprovable philosophical position. The case that some knowledge comes from Divine revelation is strong, simply because it is supported by the the majority of people on the planet, who though they may come from diverse disconnected societies, all share similar experiences about divine revelations, as personal experience. Just because it cannot be measured by scientific apparatus does not mean it does not exist.
If you have not experienced love I cannot scientifically convince you it exists. But love does exist because respectable people have testified and we have seen the effects of love by the actions of people in love.
The same is true for the experience of those of us who have recieved divne revelation and those of us who have received the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is as profound, or more so, as the experience of love. It is personal and it is derived from God. This I know because it was experienced only when I conceded myself to God and asked Jesus Christ to be my personal Lord and Saviour, in accordance with his teachings and will. My wife, a Jew, and a deist for 20+ years, and a manager of a large engineering operation experienced an epiphany when she asked Christ into her soul.
I know God is real as surely as I know any scientific proof is true. My personal senses and sensibility convince me of the truth.
Scientists experience such revelations also. They do not stop their science and say "God did it". On the contrary for most it propels them on at a more urgent pace.
As Einstein said "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man."
"...But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. 13These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." -- 1 Corinthians 2:10-14
You have a poor understanding of the scientific method. Science does not "require" that *events* be replicated, it requires that *findings* be replicatable.
Of all the mis-statements and misrepresentations the CRID crowd does, that is the one that really burns me up.
I have tried posting the list of links but to no avail.
But we have yet in this entire thread to have a CRIDer directly address a single meaningful point.
Your assertion. And the idea that time slows down or speeds up depending on how fast you are moving is equally as counterintuitive and "refuted by even the simplest observation of life." Ditto that with the idea that some tiny entity can act as both a wave and a particle, depending on whether or not you are watching it. Or any of thousands of other scientific discoveries that "simple observation" might lead you to believe are ridiculous. That's why we have science... because carefully replicable experimentation tells far more than your simple observation.
"And yet it moves!" --- Galileo Galilei
The problem is that evolutionists systematically prevent anything remotely challenging to evolution by denying publication in most journals. THAT is what it needs to apologize for. It shows a tremendous weakness when they forcefully prevent anything contrary to their worldview from being challenged.
And on your point about being so religious yet still managing to be an evolutionist...I only urge you to pray for wisdom on the matter. To attempt to exclude God from this discussion shows that you have very little faith in Him.
Evo-activists are hypocrites. They claim in one breath that we are all just another animal, yet deny us the same rights they so freely give to lesser species. But the "rights" pie must be of a fixed size, because when they give rights to a lesser species they take other rights away from us (but exempt themselves from that restriction).
All your prior postings and convoluted "science" won't sway me from my opinion. Evo-activists are nothing more than fascists trying to supress criticism of their views.
Phooey:
Einstein: Patent Clerk.
For the record, I believe that you are here as a fifth column saboteur to blunt the effect of a very important web site. Nothing is so pernecious as the promulgation of this evolution filth. It has eaten away at the foundations of civilized society through the moral relativism and humanism that is the direct and expected result of such a belief.
Abortion, multiculturalism, gay marriage, sex education (even mice can figure that one out), and governmental ursurpation of parental rights are all the legacy of the promotion of evolution.
You continue to shift the discussion. Straw Man, Begging the Question, Ergo Hoc (1/2).
This is NOT a discussion about whether science is against God. As I have said post after post after post, most scientists see the amazing beauty and wonder in their discoveries and see God's hand.
This is about whether ID (or its retarded cousin, Creationism) is a valid scientific theory or line of discussion. It isn't.
"Fundamentally the error you repeat is that you assume all knowledge comes from scientific research, and that no knowledge came come from revelations by God. This itself is an unprovable philosophical position."
That is a great philsophical discussion. It has no place in a science lab. The source of inspiration is unknown and unfathomable.
All scientific knowledge comes from the scienific method. It MUST.
"God said," soul-satisfying as it may be, is not a valid answer. In fact it is copping out.
Again, just because scientists believe in God, that doesn't prove His existence nor does it change the nature of Religion as a philosophical/mythological pursuit.
Nothing in your response undermines my contention: All religion boils down to: "because I think so."
I freely admit that my beliefs are faith based. What is wrong with that?
My beliefs in electronic theory is also faith based as I have not seen how a transistor works, but I believe I can make a device with transistors work, so there is basis for my beliefs short of anybody knowing for fact how a transistor works.
It is the same in my religeous beliefs. I can see how my family has turned out because of my religeous actions just like seeing how a transistor device functions. It is because of my beliefs.
You reject that it is because of your beliefs in Darwins Theories that you can speculate how species came and went and new ones came. There is only belief that species changed from one to another. It cannot be demonstrated any more than my religious beliefs can be demonstrated by other than what I say and do.
There is no evidence other than what others have said, and what you believe. The fossil record does not show how it takes place.
If you just admit that it is because of your belief that it happens, and that belief is a leap of faith, I will accept that you believe in Darwins theory and have demonstrated that belief.
Short of that, you are being dogmatic just as the Church was when they insisted that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
There is no more imperical evidence for Darwin's theory of Origin of the Species than the belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Maybe you should read some of freedumb2003's posts before you comment. He simply doesn't have to intellect to engage me in a battle of wits, which he did start, by the way.
So what kind of intellect do you have? Just curious. What degree did you get in college?
I think that we have heard this before. Can this person be a reincarnation FR style of the same individual that was attacking you on every post back in '98?
Got tinfoil?
And on your point about being so religious yet still managing to be an evolutionist...I only urge you to pray for wisdom on the matter. To attempt to exclude God from this discussion shows that you have very little faith in Him.
Again, you change the subject. This has nothing to do with my relationship with God. This has everything to do with whether magic (aka God's direct intervention).
The reason why you CRIDers keep making these misleading statements in an attempt to change the nature of the discussion is that you don't have any true counterarguments. "God said so" is intellectually bankrupt.
I constantly need to remind myself that faith is a gift, and though God wills all to salvation, one must humble themselves and ask. It is disconcerting that I can't find better words to explain my joy, so that others may come to share in it.
You have already been schooled, and by those much better at doing so than me, on why your comparison is false.
If you HAD to determine why a transistor worked, science provides tools to make that determination. You know that there is a scientific, physical underlying priciple for how a transistor works. It is not just "faith." It is knowledge (unless you want to go down the "if Helen Keller falls in a forest, does she make a sound" road).
Faith provides no such investigatory tools. It just ends with {poof}.
Even the discussion about what is "faith" and what is "known" is philisophical, not scientific.
Again, is it impossible for you to stay on topic?
"Because Darwin said so" is also intelletually bankrupt.
Can we both admit that we take it on faith?
Take a look at pictures of the Gulf Coast after Katrina was done (and diffused) and get back to me on your point about entropy. And how this might pertain to evolution.
Ok maybe I should inquire as to how you believe species came and went and later another started.
It is OK if you cite someone else as the basis for your belief. Just don't tell me that the fossil record shows it happening, or that there was a gradual incremental change that made it happen.
It has not been shown by anyone how this happens.
I'm a pretty smart guy; far smarter than most. In terms of IQ; I'm in the upper half of the top one percent.
Smart enough to figure out that if evolutionists calim evolution has nothing to say regarding the beginning of life, it is because they know that random chance cannot possibly explain the emergence of life from non-life. If they cannot do that, evolution oj the macro level must be false.
Smart enough to know that in order for a species of one classification to 'evolve' into a species of another classification, the following must occur:
Both a male and a female of this 'new' species must be born with the same specific mutations at approximately the same time in close proximity to one another, survive to adulthood, find each other, sucessfully mate and then raise at least some of their offspring to adulthood. There is much more. to further complicate matters, to think that both a male and female of even the same litter would have a mutually compatible impossible mutation at the genetic level it too great to comprehend and so speculative that no rational person would think it to be possible.
Those who claim that these new species of a different class could evolve over long periods of time, ignore the very real fact that there must be at some specific generation a point in time when the nes species of a different classification occurs at conception.
No rational person would believe this to be possible.
I am also smart enough to know that someone who claims that evolution is on par with the law of gravity is either ignorant or is being intellectually dishonest.
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.