Have scientists become fantasists...

Originally posted by fishin27
Andrew, It has everything to do with it. I looked it up on wikapedia (It seems to be a favoured site for info here. Lacking in many areas but a reasonable base to start from)and followed several links that has both science and religious proponants following and discussing the inclution of thermodynamics in evolution (both using closed and open systems and o ...[text shortened]... ather.

Andrew I wish you a safe voyage but keep a look out for leaks.

Love and harmony

speak up man. he asked you what does the second law of thermodynamics have anything to do with evolution and you said "uh i found stuff that says it has". WHAT did you find. post links, post arguments, post something, not just mindless blabbing that has no facts in it.

All my creationist beliefs...?
I don't remember stating that I was a creationist.
However I do find their arguments interesting and an alternative that appears to have basis and is therefore worth investigating..
But you can't do that. Why because like alot of scientists (followers) you have a closed mind.

Not very scientific!

As for the system being closed or open....question do you beleive the sun will last forever?
I find no evidance that it will. The universe must be closed or infinate and as science has found a beginning it must be finite as no other resources are being pour into it therefore it must have an end. Ooups the second law of thermo again. Sometimes we look too deep and get lost in the complexity and forget the scientific principale that the simpleist alternative is usualy the right one.

Just a point to ponder.

Love and happiness to you and your universe.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
speak up man. he asked you what does the second law of thermodynamics have anything to do with evolution and you said "uh i found stuff that says it has". WHAT did you find. post links, post arguments, post something, not just mindless blabbing that has no facts in it.

Zahlanzi,

The information is there in that wika site you guys use. I thought I'd made it clear were I found my info. As for you thinking I'm blabbing

I state what is on my mind if you can't keep up....sorry for your lose.

Mellow thoughts

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you make some excellent points my friend! for to be sure, its better to have a mind opened by wonder than one limited by beliefs in the guise of knowledge!😀

Robbie,
I went diving off a reef in Australia and saw things that screamed creator and my heart felt heavy as my knowledge shouted evolved.

I can not reconsile what everyone is argueing about.

I can no longer accept any answer that does not give a full explination of itself.

I now see the lies both sides use to win points.

Who suffers our children.

Love and fulfilment be yours.

Originally posted by fishin27
However I do find their arguments interesting and an alternative that appears to have basis and is therefore worth investigating..

I find that hard to believe. I am yet to meat a creationist who was a creationist for any reason other than the Bible. I doubt that you are the exception.

The universe must be closed or infinate and as science has found a beginning it must be finite as no other resources are being pour into it therefore it must have an end. Ooups the second law of thermo again.
I would also like an explanation as to how you think any of what you have said regarding the Second Law relates to evolution.

Originally posted by fishin27
All my creationist beliefs...?
I don't remember stating that I was a creationist.
However I do find their arguments interesting and an alternative that appears to have basis and is therefore worth investigating..
But you can't do that. Why because like alot of scientists (followers) you have a closed mind.

Not very scientific!

As for the system ...[text shortened]... ualy the right one.

Just a point to ponder.

Love and happiness to you and your universe.

…As for the system being closed or open....question do you believe the sun will last forever?
...…

No.
-and since the sun is not part of the biosphere -that is irrelevant. The biosphere is currently getting virtually all its primary energy from sunlight which comes an external source -the sun. The biosphere is NOT a closed system thus the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to the biosphere as a whole because it only applies to closed systems that are not getting any energy from an external source.

….The universe must be closed or infinite and as science has found a beginning it must be finite
.….

Correct. I don’t see the relevance but lets continual: -

….Ooups the second law of thermo again. Sometimes we look too deep and get lost in the COMPLEXITY and .…(my emphasis)

If you read the quotation in my last post from:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

You would clearly see that the second law of thermodynamics does NOT say that a closed system always will result in greater disorder or randomness. Reminder:

The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often ( BUT NOT ALWAYS! ) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder. (my emphasis)

-so sorry, the second law of thermodynamics CLEARLY does NOT say nor imply that the “COMPLEXITY” of a closed finite system must decrease over time. Ask ANY good physicist and they will confirm this basic fact.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…As for the system being closed or open....question do you believe the sun will last forever?
...…

No.
-and since the sun is not part of the biosphere -that is irrelevant. The biosphere is currently getting virtually all its primary energy from sunlight which comes an external source -the sun. The biosphere is NOT a closed system thus ...[text shortened]... e system must decrease over time. Ask ANY good physicist and they will confirm this basic fact.[/b]

The biosphere is an open system as you know. The increase in complexity (order or negative entropy) observed on earth in biological systems arises from photsynthesis sequestering energy from increase in disorder (entropy) in the sun. Very elegant.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
fishing: The universe must be closed or infinite and as science has found a beginning it must be finite

Andrew: Correct.

Actually, that's wrong. It is not necessarily finite just because it has a beginning.

Originally posted by Palynka
Actually, that's wrong. It is not necessarily finite just because it has a beginning.

Nor is it known to have a beginning. Nor is the second law known to apply to the universe as a whole.

Originally posted by Palynka
Actually, that's wrong. It is not necessarily finite just because it has a beginning.

True -that conclusion doesn’t logically follow from that ONE premise alone.
But if:

1, the universe was a finite size at its beginning.

2, the space in the universe has always expanded at a finite rate since its beginning.

3, there has been only a finite time elapsed between its beginning and now.

-then it must logically follow from these three premises above that its size is currently finite?

-although I note that fishin27 didn’t explicitly state all three premises above, I could be wrong but I assumed that was what he had vaguely in mind? (or maybe I have overestimated him?).

P.S. I am not implying that we should have absolute certainty that (1) and (2) and (3) MUST be ALL correct.

Originally posted by Palynka
Actually, that's wrong. It is not necessarily finite just because it has a beginning.

Lets hope your right.

We have yet to discover anything that is perpetual in motion.

Love to you and yours

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nor is it known to have a beginning. Nor is the second law known to apply to the universe as a whole.

The nobel peace prize winners need to give it back then because they found the beginning and the science community agreed with them.

True it is not know if it applies to the whole universe. But lodgic would think it does in light of a clearer alternative....Mmmm may be we could be looking at the 98% of dark mater that is missing. Or the string theory that doesn't quite add up yet.

Love and peace in your search

Originally posted by twhitehead
I find that hard to believe. I am yet to meat a creationist who was a creationist for any reason other than the Bible. I doubt that you are the exception.

[b]The universe must be closed or infinate and as science has found a beginning it must be finite as no other resources are being pour into it therefore it must have an end. Ooups the second law of t ...[text shortened]... ion as to how you think any of what you have said regarding the Second Law relates to evolution.

Mmm never heard of a Muslum, Morman, Bahi and I'm sure there would be may more people who would take offence to you calling them Christian, there are a who bunch that don't beleive the bible and still look at creation and think creator.....Or are you just a Christian basher (as opossed to a bible basher..{grin}..get it )

Well as for an explination of how I find the second law relating to evolution would be determined by you giving your explination as to what you think evolution is.
I think you would agree that alot of arguments regarding this sudject miss the point that both parties are thinking of evolution in a differant light.

If you beleive evolution is macro changes within specise to over come climate and\or location I can see that is why you find it hard to see the link.

However if your evolution is..... Nothing to big bang to man.... then you have to look at how the second law effects that. I've been convinced it does and effect it in a big way. You are entitled to disagree.

Information in caps is mine after the quotes Andrew pasted from that web site I can't work out how to get the italics going sorry.

[/b]However, they neglect the fact that life is NOT a closed system.[/b] (THIS IS A LIMITED POINT OF VIEW AND REFLECTS THE WRITERS DESIRE TO PROVE A POINT BY NOT LOOK AT THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE WICH WOULD BRING THEM TO A CLOSED SYSTEM CONCLUTION BUT THAT WOULDN'T SUIT HIS ARGUMENT)

[/b]The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.[/b]
(ONCE AGAIN A POOR ATTEMPT AT DIVERTING FROM THE TRUTH THAT OVERALL THE UNIVERSE IS A CLOSED SYSTEM)

[/b]If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? [/b]
(SIMPLE GROW THAT TOMATOE PLANT IN A CLOSED GREEN HOUSE NEVER CHANGE THE SOIL THE ONLY EXTRA ENERGY BEING LIGHT THE PLANT WILL IN TIME DIE THE NEXT GENERATION FEEDING ONLY ON THE LAST PLANTS BROKEN DOWN ORGANIC MATER AND ITS LIMITED GENETICS WITH OVER TIME DIE FACT.

[/b]Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order.[/b]
I DON"T KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS STATEMENT AS I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER FOR WHAT A CRATIONIST THINKS.

[/b]However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature;[/b]
I WOULD LIKE THE GUY TO EXPLAIN THIS 'SNOWFLAKE =WATER + A DUST PARTICAL GET ZAPPED IN FREEZING COLD FALL TO EARTH AS A PRITY SNOWFLAKE (I TAKE IT THAT IS THE ORDER) BUT THEN MELT ON THE GROUND OR GET CRUSHED INTO MORE FLAKES AND LOSE THE ORDER HE USES TO PROVE THE POINT. AS WITH ANY OF THE OTHERS OVER TIME DISORDER WILL EVENTUATE. HIS POINT IS LOST AND HIS EXAMPLE IS WEAK AT BEST.

Sorry to have taken up so much space but you asked me to explain.

Once again, You are entitled to disagree but then I must put your thoughts in the area of faith.

Peaceful thoughts and meditations

Originally posted by fishin27
(THIS IS A LIMITED POINT OF VIEW AND REFLECTS THE WRITERS DESIRE TO PROVE A POINT BY NOT LOOK AT THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE WICH WOULD BRING THEM TO A CLOSED SYSTEM CONCLUTION BUT THAT WOULDN'T SUIT HIS ARGUMENT)

It would suit his argument. Unless we are all talking at cross purposes which is entirely possible as you have not yet explained what you believe to be the connection between the second law and evolution. I suspect you simply do not know much about either of them.

Just in case you didn't know, the second law does not in any way rule out the possibility of a local decrease of entropy inside a closed system - it is merely a statement about the total entropy in the system.

Originally posted by fishin27
The nobel peace prize winners need to give it back then because they found the beginning and the science community agreed with them.

Can you give me a link to a Nobel prize winner that claimed to have found the beginning of the universe? (I realize that the 'Peace' bit was a typo).
There are a number of theories surrounding the big bang, no reputable scientist claims to have solid evidence that their pet theory is the correct one, some of them include the possibility that the universe is not finite.