Posted on 12/30/2001 2:08:09 PM PST by Exnihilo
Fact is: You don't know squat about thermodynamics. All biological systems are endothermic. Ipso facto all living things are at the bottom end of an enthalpy gradient. This is consistent with the fact that most people believe the sun exists (the high end of the enthalpy gradient).
I get tired of repeating it, and nobody ever refutes it, but thermodynamics allows for local decreases in entropy if the total entropy of the system increases. Biological organisms are examples of decreases in entropy. Massive quantities of enthalpy are expended to reverse entropy (as allowed in thermodynamics) and enormous quantities of entropy are created in the enthalpy transfer. So what is so hard to understand?
And a little more food for thought: If thermodynamics precludes the possibility of evolution, then it also precludes the existence of things such as diamonds, which are also local reversals of entropy by the massive expenditure of enthalpy. Do you believe diamonds exist?
Ummm... You paraphrased wrong. All enthalpy transfers generate entropy. Thermodynamics says nothing about complexity and what you said doesn't make sense. Entropy and complexity are not the same thing, though I have seen it repeatedly used that way here.
Two points: First, evolution says nothing about the creation of increasingly complex information structures; it can go either way. It just turns out that our environment sometimes allows slightly more complex systems to survive as more sophisticated organisms are usually more adaptive. Second, I don't think entropy means what you think it means, and "complexity" is utterly non-descriptive when talking about thermodynamics. Everything involving thermodynamics is in terms of entropy and enthalpy; there are only four components to the Gibb's free energy equation, and "complexity" isn't one of them.
Here's a little tip. Look at the basic tenets of the faith of evolution. (It IS a religion. It takes faith to believe in and people to spread the faith. It even has it's own system for collecting donations from it's supplicants.) Look at how it fails to describe certain things.. like how certain systems show up without intermediate steps and fully functional. Now, look at how it and it's supplicants literally state, "That's the way it is, stop asking questions." Gee, that's hard to swallow.
I always ask questions and look at things. THAT is why I am distrustful of evolution. It assumes to tell you not to ask questions. And when you stop that, you cease to learn. So look again.
No theory adequately explains our origins unless you put some irrational faith in it, because no matter how you slice it things don't just pop into existence, but that obviously did happen. Twice.
"Though aware that there is nothing in the universe that suggests any purpose
for humanity," he wrote, "one way that we can find a purpose is to study the
universe by the methods of science, without consoling ourselves with fairy
tales about its future, or about our own."
Do you bring that same admirable skepticism to bear when you consider the claims of creationism?
Do you bring that same admirable skepticism to bear when you consider the claims of creationism?
*hack, cough*
--cheep--cheep--
Sounds of crickets in the silent night.
Exit stage left.
Since ExNihilo has gone on to post other ID articles without finishing his business on this thread, I assume he has, like Behe, pled no contest to gene duplication having created biological systems of increasing complexity.
Noted for future use. :-)
I know you were paraphrasing. I said so. Then I paraphrased the 2LoT more accurately. You need to read it again, & maybe this time you'll comprehend. Geesh!
To reiterate: The only thing the 2LoT says about evolution is: "All living things must eat." They must eat in order to get energy to flow from outside their body to the inside, because keeping absolute disorder from taking over requires energy from outside the system. Otherwise the body would be a "closed system", and I'm sure even you understand what happens when you use up energy inside a closed system! The key to sustaining life is making sure the organism in question stays an open system.
Examples, please...
Are you evolved from FReeper "Gore3000" by any chance, or is it a coincidence that you go around insulting people in the "G3k" mode?
If you can point out a single lapse in my manners toward you, I would appreciate it. As for using "our own attitudes" against us, I've observed creationists using the words of their opponents, but this us usually done without understanding them. For example, when creationists call science a "religion" and claim that rational thought requires "faith." These are intended as criticisms, but they are statements without substance.
You'd bet wrong. I am swayed by evidence.
The scientific method, you know. Critical
judgement. Testability, prediction of results.
That's the wellspring of the theory of evolution.
Swallowing superstition whole, unexamined,
and out of fear is quite the opposite.
Really? Have you ever read the statements in reverence of evolution? The "Infinite wisdom" of evolution? The "Grand design" of evolution? The "Mother Earth" BS? It IS a religion. Just as much a religion as Protestantism, Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, Wicca, New Age, Buddhism, Taoism, Communism (Yes, it is a religion. It espouses itself as the end all of everything.) And hundreds of others. Besides.. take evolution to it's logical extent and what do you have? Life is nothing more than an accident. Thus you are an accident. Thus what you do doesn't matter. Thus your whole life doesn't matter. Thus it doesn't matter whether you live or die. So suicide means nothing either. What a cheap way of looking at life. It makes abortion more palatable, as the life you're snuffing is insignificant anyway! How deplorable. And how typical of 99.9999999% of those espousing evolution as their god.
Let's not forget that depending on who does the reconstruction, the reconstructionists' bias comes through. There is plenty more. Like: Cro Magnon man had a skull capacity and bone strength far superior to man of today, yet he is described as inferior when he was physically superior in every way. If this shows anything(and evolution was true) it shows that man has DEGENERATED instead. Oh, gee. I forgot. He was judged to be evolutionarily insignificant.
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.