Posted on 06/27/2008 2:04:21 PM PDT by EveningStar
...I guess you didn't get the memo...
I've read the objections - I just don't understand them. Other than there is a desire for one side to remove a fatal argument from the table. Just because a system is 'open' doesn't negate the underlying principles of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Unless there is some 'high quality' adder to the 'open system' (e.g., Intelligence), the 'open system' is going to 'degrade' (produce less useful mechanical energy) faster than a 'closed system'. That is 'undirected solar energy', or cosmic rays, will break the system down - not build it up...
Humphreys (not "Humphries") is a "galactocentrist". He believes our GALAXY is very near the "center" of the UNIVERSE. As nutty as that may be, if offers you no help at all toward your GEOcentrism: the belief that the Earth is a the center of the solar system.
Sorry I have been late to reply - I've been tied most of today (as I will be on Sunday).
Well, first of all, and I know you know this, what you call “Darwinism” (or correctly, the Theory of Evolution) makes no statement whatsoever regarding the origin of life.
Actually I don't know that... That's kind of bizarre. An alleged 'scientific description' of the origin of life, but it declares 'off-limits' any discussion of origins? That doesn't make sense. I thought the premise of the 'Theory of Evolution' (darwinism), was that life came into existence by 'random chance'. That is, 'with enough time, anything can happen...'
Secondly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only applicable in closed system, i.e. one not subject to the introduction of material and energy from outside sources - unlike Earth (but you probably know that as well).
I've heard this claim. Doesn't mean I accept it. That is, you'll have to give me a better reason than to just to declare it off-limits because solar energy, cosmic rays, etc hit the earth... Is there any scientific evidence that these cause consistent (or even 'any') reversals in the entropy slope (i.e., a systematic decrease in entropy)?
The Theory of Evolution is supported by 150 years of research, countless peer reviewed scientific publications (in which people delight in finding the errors of others), and parsimonious scientific deduction.
Yeah, yeah ... and a million flies can't be wrong either... I'm just saying that 'darwinism' is more of a faith based religion than Creationism. At least 'Creationism' works. After the Creation week -- everything 'fits'. Life continues to degrade ... Entropy in action all around us...
Creationism is, well, about as valid scientifically as astrology, necromancy, phrenology, of any of a thousand other metaphysical scams.
Well, we are going to have to disagree.
Sorry about your belief system - it's wrong.
No need to be sorry. It is a belief system that has served many well (civilizations, scientists, believers, etc) over the past two millennium. It is a belief system that allows you stand over the grave of a loved one and say with confidence:
Isaiah 25:8-9 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it. And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.
And to know that the one who spoke these words, is the one who we can say:
Jeremiah 32:17 Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee
No, I don't envy any other belief system. Thanks.
If you are an inerrantist, the absolutely exact measurements are 10 and 30 as stated in the Bible, no more, no less, no fraction, because there can be no error in the Bible. This means pi is 3. Our actual measurements and mathematical calculations are irrelevant and wrong, because the Bible says it is 3.
If you actually have a functioning brain, you realize the Bible is not inerrant and some reason such as rounding or lack of knowledge caused the authors to write 10 and 30.
I provided my sources and used them accurately within the construct.
Your failure to understand is a failing on your part. I can’t make you into an intelligent person. That’s something your parents were tasked with doing. Sad to see the result of their parenting.
The objections are now from the creationists themselves since they've been hammered on it so many times they don't want to look bad anymore.
Just because a system is 'open' doesn't negate the underlying principles of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Here's a bunch of info to digest: Entropy even in a closed system does not necessarily mean "disorder" or "degrade" as would be perceived by the average person, as sometimes increased entropy looks like more order. The 2nd Law also only works on macroscopic systems, not microscopic ones. Entropy does increase in the system if you're looking at the solar system. The sun provides energy for complex processes to occur, such as the hydrological cycle, which aren't just "breaking down." And last, creationists (used to) take what can only truly be expressed with mathematical equations and put words to it that fit what they want it to mean.
Sure, the 2nd Law states that there is a 'universal tendency to the dissipation of mechanical energy'. This can include the ordering of crystals/atomic structures into a stable ordered lattice (particularly at cold temperatures) - less usable for mechanical energy (e.g., more energy will have to be put into the system to get useful energy out of it); or it can mean more randomization of the material (which is typically what is inferred when one talks of 'an increase in entropy' -- but you are correct, in some cases an 'increase in entropy' can also mean an increase in order).
The 2nd Law also only works on macroscopic systems, not microscopic ones.
Why (depends what you mean by 'microscopic'. If you are talking about on the atomic level - where quantum effects can govern the observations - I'll concede that point)?
Entropy does increase in the system if you're looking at the solar system. The sun provides energy for complex processes to occur, such as the hydrological cycle, which aren't just "breaking down."
I think you meant 'Entropy does decrease' - not increase. I.e., the material exposed to the sunlight has become more 'complex' ... I'm not sure if I follow this one. Sure, sunlight evaporates water. It condenses into clouds, and then recirculates as rain... I don't see the decrease in entropy in this system (energy from the Sun causes water to evaporate on earth ... etc).
And last, creationists (used to) take what can only truly be expressed with mathematical equations and put words to it that fit what they want it to mean.
I don't understand this point...
Mathematical perfection? Please show me the math. Point to an object that could pull the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?
You sure are full of yourself and Earth. Glory to Heaven and God, not to Earth and Man.
Your idea is as preposterous as claiming that in the situation where someone is standing at the edge of a city as a semi-truck comes at them at 60 mph; that it makes more sense to have the person and the city moving towards the motionless semi at 60mph.
Sure either works as a mathematic model as far as a reference frame for motion. But looking at the energy dynamics of the situation we see that the engine of the semi is capable of moving the truck at 60mph, while nowhere within observation is there enough energy to move the ENTIRE CITY and the person towards the truck at 60 mph while leaving the truck motionless. Ludicrous stupidity masquerading as Biblical adherence.
“Large Gene Study Questions Cambrian Explosion”
” The ancestors of major groups of animal species began populating Earth more than 600 million years earlier than indicated by their fossil remains, according to the largest study on the subject using gene sequences, recently completed at Penn State. The research suggests that animals have been evolving steadily into different species for at least 1200 million years, which challenges a popular theory known as the Cambrian Explosion that proposes the sudden appearance of most major animal groups, known as phyla, 530 million years ago.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990121073459.htm
Hmmmm......hurt your feelings, did I.....well I see those defending the teaching of Darwinism so smug in their ‘belief’ that it is superior to creationism or intelligent design that it tends to turn my stomach.
By the way, if you consider that an ‘unprovoked personal attack’, you haven’t been here long.
The Bible is not a Math text and you are an analist. Some truths are absolute.
Ah, insulting my parents on the internet. Not a very Christian thing to do but certainly a characteristic of internet punks. You can add a capital P to your forehead.
You’re being silly.
What are the largest and smallest numbers that can be exessed in the original language of the OT?
Sorry, that should have been
"What are the largest and smallest numbers that can be expressed in the original language of the OT?"
Also, what are the largest and smallest units of measure of time and length?
"You’re being silly."The best response you could come up with was a personal attack?
They’re selling a pig in a poke. If you don’t want to buy it you’ll be accused of having unfairly pre-judged the pig.
You don't think personal attacks against people for their religious beliefs are a good argument?
Nice strawman setup.
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.