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 ...
"Historical sciences do not require eyewitnesses."
Then Historical sciences are not really science, because science requires the results of a theory to be repeatable and falsifiable.
"science requires the results of a theory to be repeatable and falsifiable."
actually, I meant to say that the results of a test of a theory must be repeatable and falsifiable.
Permit me to quote from Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (August 10, 1863), an Encyclical to the Italian Episcopate by Pope Pius IX:
". . . they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who . . . live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God . . . will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin."
Fr. Feeney's followers have been arguing about the exact meaning and extent of this and several similar passages for years. However you take it, it seems clear that, just because your opponent appears to be invincibly ignorant is not a sufficient reason not to continue trying to persuade him of the truth. Truth of religion, but also truth of science.
No, they cannot, not the parameters I am discussing. I suggest you try to understand the subject before making assertions.
The 6 numbers Dr. Rees refers to define the very structure of the universe. The slightest variation of them would prevent atoms from forming from plasma; or they would prevent any atoms of any other type than hydrogen from forming; etc etc.
No life of any form could exist in pure high energy plasma because there is not enough complexity. There would be no gravity waves to begin to cause coalescence etc etc....
Or imagine a universe in which only hydrogen, or perhaps helium also, exists.
Or imagine a universe where no stars exist. Only dust, barely above the absolute freezing point.
Life cannot be created in these conditions.
No organisms consume inorganic gravel, sand or dust for life support. There is no organic energy in these materials.
Your organisms would require little nuclear reactors in their guts to release the energy in sand. They would also crap glass pellets...cute.
Is it safe to assume that you also reject, for example, the theory of continental drift and the existence of electrons, neutrons, protons, neutrinos, etc.?
I may be wrong but I believe it was Chesterton who compared science and other earthly endeavors as "toys" as compared to religion which is the real issue that should be discussed. In any case, I applaud your efforts. To paraphrase Olympia Dukakis in the movie "Moonstruck,"
"What (they) don't know about (reality) is a lot!"
I just want to know where the glump of cosmic goo that exploded in the Big Bang came from to begin with!
Pax et bonum! An asymptote is a line!
F
;^)
Amen, Brother!
"I'm Hanz; he's Franz..."
Marquee?
He could grow up to be Governor of California!!!
In the WORLD, of course! One-worlders!
(If they were taught in the good ol' USofA that is... ;^)
It's that spontaneous RE-generation that we REALLY gotta watch out for!
I agree.
Lot's of folks appear not to know the difference between these two terms.
Darwinism, morality and the tiger
‘Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.
If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continues to recur: only the supernaturalist has taken a sane view of Nature.’
Chesterton, G.K., Orthodoxy, John Lane, London, pp. 204–205, 1927.
Come to think of it, Cicero, I think the quote about science being akin to a toy is from Sheed's "Theology and Sanity." I'll have to check.
Sound of crickets...
Yep, that's the reaction so far.
It is particularly troublesome when a national magazine catering to conservatives can't get this right.
What else can they not be trusted on?
Well, if The American Spectator wants to take over the title of Most Pathetic Conservative Tabloid from Wingnut Daily they'll still have some catching up to do. Pandering to creationists isn't enough. For instance they'll have to go into full scale panic over some issue on the level of Y2K.
I seem to be hearing footsteps!
It's time to "pump you up!"
F
If ya know what's good fer ya!
From where did those 'organisms' spring?
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.