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 ...
Nothing more than speculation on your part. That's why evolution is merely a model and not a theory.
You wrote: 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.
Reply:
I am not sure of your point. Nobody with any scientific knowledge believes that Noah's Flood actually happened. ID does not support the flood. ID actively dismisses Genesis and suggests an alternative 'Creator'. ID rejects Christ as Saviour, a cheap bargain for you to argue against science.
I'll try to contain my disappointement.
People are not persuaded by insults, sarcasm or bitterness.
They're seldom persuaded by facts either, if threads like this are any indication.
It turns everybody off, even those disposed to be on your side. And ironically, it tends to discredit your factual arguments. Lighten up.
Has it escaped your attention that I'm *responding* to the tone of the people I'm addressing? Why aren't you taking them to task? Why single me out, when before I even joined this thread, it had such gems from anti-evolutionists as:
Amazing how disjointed things become when you're either too lazy, or too ignorant peruse them in depth.Or:
all the evolutionists cultists can say, is well - make up a big lie , using scientific jargon that means absolutely nothing (that's called an illusion) or call names. They sure sound like alot of democrats I know!Etc., etc...
If I've been insulting to anyone who wasn't already being obnoxious themselves in some manner, I'll be glad to apologize.
You wrote: There is hardly a more invalid analogy/argument/claim that the evol;utionist's [sic] comparison of their so called theory of evolution to the law of gravity.
Reply: About all the so-called theory of gravity:
Warning: Gravity is Only a Theory
All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a "fact," when in fact it is not even a good theory.
First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is "universal." Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, "the moon goes around the earth." If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon has to go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
The existence of tides is often taken as proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's "gravity" were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are two high tides every day--not just one. It is far more likely that tides were given to us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
There are numerous other flaws. For example, astronomers, who seem to have a fetish for gravity, tell us that the moon rotates on its axis but at the same time it always presents the same face to the earth. This is patently absurd. Moreover, if gravity were working on the early earth, then earth would have been bombarded out of existence by falling asteroids, meteors, comets, and other space junk. Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the 2nd Law, orderly orbits are impossible. (This cannot be resolved by pointing to the huge outpouring of energy from the sun. In fact, it is known that the flux of photons from the sun and the "solar wind" actually tend to push earth away.)
While micro-gravity is observed when, for example, dropping an egg on the floor, this does not prove that macro-gravity exists. If there is macrogravity, why don't the sun, the moon, and the planets all fall down and hit the earth? Some say that planetary orbits are proof of gravity. According to gravitationalists, gravity applies in a straight line between different objects. Gravity does not make things spin in circles. But the planets do move in circles, and then gravitationalists say such orbits prove macro-gravity. This is merely circular reasoning.
Moreover, if gravity were a complete theory, it would show a full range of transitional forms. No one has ever found the missing links in gravity; instead it is presented as fact, with no adequate explanation of its origins. Gravity has not been shown to be irreducibly complex, which undermines the claims for a universal theory.
There are numerous alternative theories that should be taught on an equal basis. For example, the observed behavior of the earth revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity. Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy.
The U.S. Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.
Even Isaac Newton, said to be the discoverer of gravity, knew there were problems with the theory. He claims to have imagined the idea early in his life, but he knew that no mathematician of his day would approve his theory, so he invented a whole new branch of mathematics, called fluxions, just to "prove" his theory. This became calculus, a deeply flawed branch having to do with so-called "infinitesimals", which have never been observed. Then when Einstein invented a new theory of gravity, he, too, used an obscure bit of mathematics called tensors. It seems that every time there is a theory of gravity, it is mixed up with "fringe" mathematics. (Newton, by the way, was far from a secular scientist, and the bulk of his writings is actually on theology and Christianity. His dabbling in gravity, alchemy, and calculus was a mere sideline, perhaps an aberration best left forgotten in describing his career and faith in a Creator.)
To make matters worse, proponents of gravity theory hypothesize about mysterious things called gravitons and gravity waves. These have never been observed, and when some accounts of detecting gravity waves were published, the physicists involved had to quickly retract them. Every account of anti-gravity and gravity waves quickly turns to laughter. This is not a theory suitable for children. And even children can see how ridiculous it is to imagine that people in Australia are upside down with respect to us, as gravity theory would have it. If this is an example of the predictive power of the theory of gravity, we can see that at the core there is no foundation.
Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It utterly fails to account for obesity. In fact, what it does "explain" is far out-weighed by what it does not explain.
When the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, he relied on "gravitational calculations." But Tombaugh was a Unitarian, a liberal religious group that supports the Theory of Gravity. The present-day Unitarian-Universalists continue to rely on liberal notions and dismiss ideas of anti-gravity as unfounded. Tombaugh never even attempted to justify his "gravitational calculations" on the basis of Scripture, and he went on to be a founding member of the liberal Unitarian Fellowship of Las Cruces, New Mexico.
It is safe to say that without the Theory of Gravity, there would be no talk about a "Big Bang," and important limitations in such sports as basketball would be lifted. This would greatly benefit the games and enhance revenue, as is proper in a faith-based, free-enterprise society.
The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously true for Northwest airplanes (relying on "a wing and a prayer"), it appears that Jet Blue and Southwest have superior methods that effectively overcome the weight of masses at Northwest, and thus harness forces that succeed over so-called gravity.
It is unlikely that the Law of Gravity will be repealed given the present geo-political climate, but there is no need to teach unfounded theories in the public schools. There is, indeed, evidence that the Theory of Gravity is having a grave effect on morality. Activist judges and left-leaning teachers often use the phrase "what goes up must come down" as a way of describing gravity, and relativists have been quick to apply this to moral standards and common decency.
It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it. If gravity wasn't important in Moses' day or Jefferson's day, it is ridiculous to take it seriously at this time.
Finally, the mere name "Universal Theory of Gravity" or "Theory of Universal Gravity" (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass" is communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such "universalism." And, if we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed "educators," it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.
from http://www.re-discovery.org/gravity_1.html
"But I do deny them my essence" placemark
You're a smart guy -- and should know better than to argue matters of faith.
The only argument that exists is the impact of turning away from science.
Ever hear of demonstrating the absurd by being absurd. The obvious purpose of the article was to point out that comparing gravity to evolution is outrageously absurd.
The astute reader will notice that several times in that post, I stated that these processes have been observed occurring in nature, and that there is abundant evidence for them. If connectthedots wants to challenge that assertion, he's welcome to do so (and in reply I'll be glad to post enough primary citations to choke a horse), but it's just childish of him to pretend that what I posted was just "nothing more than speculation" on my part.
Or maybe he didn't even bother to read it before hand-waving it away. That would be consistent with his past behavior.
In any case, his failure to deal with the facts, and his obstinate and pointless naysaying as a substitute for dealing with the subject matter, should be entirely obvious to all by now.
I'm not trying to "argue matters of faith", I'm trying to get the faithful to stop lying about science.
When faith is in conflict with science, faith wins over the short term.
The real question is: what are the consequences?
Ask Giordano Bruno or Galileo.
A bit dramatic. Nobody's burning anyone at the stake or tossing particle physicists in jail.
Science is alive and well and will continue to flourish -- though probably not with the U.S. as its center.
You're not the only person to notice that aspect of "ID": This Might Explain A Few Things.
But there are those who would if they could. I myself have received not-so-veiled threats about how I might have to be "dealt with" for "doing the work of the devil" and so forth.
Isn't that a bad enough consequence all by itself?
I'll assume you're in Texas. Over the past three years I've run into an increasing number of Europeans/Asians/South Americans etc. who are outright scared to travel into the "interior" of the U.S., Texas included. They stay in NYC, LA, SF, Chicago and Miami. At the same time, I've seen a growing phenom of really bright American born kids who think nothing of bouncing from jobs in Paris to Madrid to Berlin and Tokyo/Osaka.
The world is shaping up to be much different than it used to be.
You wrote: "Your example does not posit an argument for evolution. Oil and water separate, but don't you need things to come together, in a very specific and intricate method(krap, can't use that word, implies intelligence) way?" [sic]
Reply: You are a sad case.
You admit that oil and water separate--without referrring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So you see that a simple kitchen observation disproves all the claims about order-disorder not occurring spontaneously.
You attempt to promote ID/Creationism by saying that "evolution is false, so ID must be right". A false binary choice. You are too obvious, trying to force us into a 1 god or no god decision. You obviously prefer your god. The missionary position has always been curious to me--you need to get converts to make your faith secure in your mind? Pathetic.
..and yes, it's an extremely bad thing.
You actually posted: "Abortion, multiculturalism, gay marriage, sex education..., and
governmental ursurpation of parental rights are all the
legacy of the promotion of evolution."
Reply:
Gosh. Now that you mention this, evolution is also the cause of hangnails, teens not cleaning up their rooms, lack of parking spaces, excessive menus when calling the cable company, the high price of gold, and the low price of international shipping. Not to mention the decline in moral values and parental sex.
I never imagined all these consequences of the theory of evolution.
Gosh.
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.