Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
Does that mean you are going to study some real text instead of that creationist website?
I'm not about to tutor you on entropy. How can you be so sure evolution doesn't contradict if you don't understand the principle?
The evolutionist house of cards is collapsing as I type this. It is happening to them as it happened to the liberals and CBS. The internet and free discorse has allowed alternative viewpoints that actually have merit, like the unique superscript for example, to see the light of day for discussion they deserve.
Once reasonable people are able to see the evolutionists and their theories and hypotheses for what they are, evolution will be put back where it belongs. That is a good thing and can actually open up scientific discovery that was impossible as long as that dogmatic belief system had a stranglehold on the whole discipline.
It is somewhat amusing to watch them twist in the wind however. It is one of those things I rack up as a "guilty pleasure."
I got you on that one! You don't know. You give me a link and you have no idea how to explain the central equation in that link.
Oh, really? Where has evolution been pulled from schools? Hasn't The Church accepted evolution?
>>Hasn't The Church accepted evolution?<<
What church? What evolution are you talking about? The evolution of the Corvette? The evolution of the democratic party?
"Where has evolution been pulled from schools?"
Heh, heh. You think schools operate in a cultural vacuum? My youngest is a Senior in high school. Do you honestly think her friends and she don't chuckle about the things said in "science" class? She likes to point out the "evolution claims" in her school books. Some of them are downright dogmatic in their goofball assumptions and scientific support or lack thereof.
Remember, Dan is still at CBS. For just a little while longer.
8^>
Was there a question?
The Church.
But the earth is an open system, and that is the topic of discussion.
Do you "believe" in your keyboard?
Please cite.
>>Please cite.<<
Not here. I prefer to fight each battle only once. Those who have been paying attention know exactly what I am talking about.
8^>
No offense, Ma'am, but your posts so far haven't even been dimensionally correct. And Meyer, while being a bit more polished, is every bit as clueless. You can't lawyer or philosophize entropy; it's a physical quantity we can measure.
The entropy of an object is a simple thermodynamic state function, which can be measured or estimated. A human being does not have significantly more entropy than the same mass of bacteria. Let me prove it.
Let's say that to put a 200 lb human together, we had to assemble the body from atoms in the gas phase. We'll let the gas atoms initially occupy a volume of 10 m3, and we'll say to get a human built correctly, we have to specify the position of each atom precise to 1 Angstrom. This is a gross overestimate because we're ignoring the indistinguishability of particles (i.e. we can use any hydrogen atom in place of every other one, etc.). We'll just use Boltzmann's formula. We'll therefore get a value of W of 1031 per atom, or (1031)N for N atoms. Let's say we have 1029 atoms in a human. Then the entropy required to assemble the body from gas atoms is S = kBln W = 1029*kB*ln(1031), or about 98 MJ/K.
The entropy to assemble the same mass of bacteria. assuming the bacteria to be indistiguishable, would be smaller by kB times the natural log of the factorial of the number of bacteria. If we say each bacterium weighs about 1018 kg, and the human 100 kg, the mass ratio is 1020, and the difference in entropy is therefore 0.063 J/K; one part in 109 or so of the entropy of the human. This, if you like, is our 'evolutionary entropy' (actually, a big overestimate of it.)
And, of course, since the sun's surface is at 104 K and heat is re-radiated from the earth into interstellar space at 2K, the entropy involved in cycling 1 J of energy through the earth is about 0.5 J/K. Terajoules of energy fall on the earth from the sun per second. So in one second, you have trillions of times more negative entropy provided by the sun than needed to evolve from a bacterium to a human.
False, even stipulating that 'CSI' has some meaning.
I'm uncertain why you pinged me. I'm not a creationist, I just think Darwins's theory of natural selection is almost certainly wrong. Assuming the changes in species over the millenia are due to alteration of DNA, the theory of many random mutations, competition (battle for the "survival of the fittest") and emergence of a dominant "winner" has very little support in the fossil record as the agent for that change in DNA. As one paleontologist once put it to me, we know that change has occurred, we just don't know yet what the change agent was. Your post really doesn't address this issue.
A good understandable honest view of research from the view point of a scientist. Thanks. MRN.
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.