Well; I almost posted this in 519, but I didn't want to be the first to bring ol' Adolph into the thread.
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 ...
"13. I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
14. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds,
15. I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. "
I like the Irish version better. You know - the one involving leprechauns and a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?
I'm truly sorry for breaking this to you, but rainbows are due to the prismatic effect of water and sunlight. There's no magic wand being waved in the sky by the Great Bearded White Sky God.
Huh?
"Mater can neither be created or destroyed.
Tell Einstein!
E=Mc2"
How exactly does that disprove the theory of conservation of energy and matter? Feel free to use Biblical phrases here.
How about if those who belive in the Creator, acknowledge that their belief is based on their faith?
I'll do that. --- There that wasn't hard.
Now acknowledge that your beliefs in the theory of evolution, that cannot be proven are likewise based on your faith that it will "someday" be "proven"?
If we give each other that space, there is no reason for invective.
Well; I almost posted this in 519, but I didn't want to be the first to bring ol' Adolph into the thread.
An apt verse for these threads.
Old Jewish lament:
"Lord; I know we're supposed to the the ChosenPeople; but couldn't You, just for once, chose somebody else??"
"How about if those who belive in the Creator, acknowledge that their belief is based on their faith?
I'll do that. --- There that wasn't hard.
Now acknowledge that your beliefs in the theory of evolution, that cannot be proven are likewise based on your faith that it will "someday" be "proven"?
If we give each other that space, there is no reason for invective."
I respect your opinion and faith, but would point out that if you've taken anti-biotics in the past 40 years, you've experienced prove of evolution, on the micro scale. But evolution nonetheless.
Ok; look in a mirror then!
If THAT doesn't convince you that there is a Creator (And One with a sense of humor, too), then I guess He will have to convince you in another way.
While I have never believed in evolution, my lack of faith increased because of my involvement in computer programming. I am working on an article that explains why. An early draft of it is at:
http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/creation_change.html
You might find it interesting as well.
It never entered your head that there could be several ways of looking at a rainbow or a sunset, and that they are not necessarily contradictory?
As Blake said in his letter to Butts, God save us "From single vision and Newton's sleep."
He didn't mean that Newton was wrong, as far as he went. He meant that those who see things only in terms of interacting gravitational forces, or the prismatic bending of light, are closed minded, and deprive themselves of vital aspects of experience.
You haven't drowned yet. ;^)
"The probability distribution of the molecular conformation phase space is extremely biased and irregular, though many creationists/ID-ists pretend otherwise for the sake of their argument."
Of course, "for the sake of their argument" meaning that the actual space for this to occur actually removes the possibility of evolution from the start. The assumption that it is isotropic is simply to give evolutionists a fighting chance.
You might enjoy reading "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life" from Cell Biology International (2004) journal.
Who said it did?
Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
The apes are much closer.
Doctors study pig circulatory system because nobody gets too upset if you dissect "Porky the pig". Cutting open "Cheetah the Chimp" is a different story.
Not in the BushMeat markets in Africa!
"It never entered your head that there could be several ways of looking at a rainbow or a sunset, and that they are not necessarily contradictory? "
There are many ways of looking at the rainbow....but the rainbow itself is possible only thru the prismatic effect water has on sunlight. Zero other childish explanation needed.
"Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. "
You haven't drowned yet. ;^)"
Nor did I write the comment above that you responded to?
"If THAT doesn't convince you that there is a Creator (And One with a sense of humor, too), then I guess He will have to convince you in another way."
If that's my 'proof', then it's only proof that the Creator IS NOT PERFECT.
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.