Life from non-life?

Originally posted by PotatoError
[b]The animals weren't neatly stacked with each animal of its kind in its specific layer. Dude go dig up some fossils and you'll find chaos! You'll find thousands of fossils of different animals mixed up all over the show.

So why have so many Creationist organisations concieve of elaborate flood sorting mechanisms then?

From
http://www.nwc ...[text shortened]... les into distinct layers and so it had to create order from disorder regardless of the fossils.)[/b]

The question is really "Does the Geologic Column exist?"

check:http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

Originally posted by dj2becker
Given any amount of time, I don't see how a bunch of chemicals in a puddle could arrange themselves into the complex and ordered universe we see around us today. The second law of Thermodynamics states that everything tends towards disor ...[text shortened]... don't see anyway in which nature itself can oppose its own laws.

Energy in ordered form, sunlight, is constantly arriving on Earth. Heat, which is energy is disordered form, is constantly leaving Earth. Therefore there is a net release of entropy into the universe from the Earth. Because disordered energy is constantly leaving the Earth and ordered energy is arriving, the Earth is not a closed system, and can become more orderly over time.

Do you understand now why 'life from non-life' would not violate the second Law of Thermodynamics, dj?

Originally posted by yousers
Yes, actually being a true evolutionist links you directly with naturalistic philosphy. In other words, there is a natural cause and therefore a natural explanation for everything. As a major basis for science, it is quite materialistic. Without naturalistic philosophy, evolution amounts to a myth trying to piece together billion-year-old fossils.
But, p ...[text shortened]... intelligence cannot handle. If that is so, maybe even the creationists are making sense, haha.

No, actually, nothing in the TOE entails a particular metaphysical view about the nature of reality. Sorry. Naturalism is irrelevant here, unless you think that naturalism entails physicalism (some say it does, and some say it doesn't, but those who say it does are wrong). I can be a naturalist, and a monist, while rejecting physicalism if I maintain that the natural world is, at bottom, not constituted by the physical. So, I can maintain that evolution is a blind, natural process that gave rise to us while denying that the constituents of reality that evolved were ultimately physical.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Energy in ordered form, sunlight, is constantly arriving on Earth. Heat, which is energy is disordered form, is constantly leaving Earth. Therefore there is a net release of entropy into the universe from the Earth. Because disordered energy is constantly leaving the Earth and ordered energy is arriving, the Earth is not a closed system, and can be ...[text shortened]... nderstand now why 'life from non-life' would not violate the second Law of Thermodynamics, dj?

Firstly, aren't you assuming that the universe is a closed system?

And secondly, simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down&rdquo😉. Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”

[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

See:http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp#second

Originally posted by bbarr
No, actually, nothing in the TOE entails a particular metaphysical view about the nature of reality. Sorry. Naturalism is irrelevant here, unless you think that naturalism entails physicalism (some say it does, and some say it doesn't, but those who say it does are wrong). I can be a naturalist, and a monist, while rejecting physicalism if I maintain that ...[text shortened]... se to us while denying that the constituents of reality that evolved were ultimately physical.

Naturalism is irrelevant??? I see that your are comfortable with your contradictions, so I will just leave this discussion as is. We at least have some common ground in that we know consciousness did not evolve.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Firstly, aren't you assuming that the universe is a closed system?

And secondly, simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down ...[text shortened]... , 1980, p. 40]

See:http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp#second

Interesting post. I'll have to think about this and do some research.

EDIT - Never mind; it's just another cut and paste for the most part. Here's my response:

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "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.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. 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? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. 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; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

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

Originally posted by corp1131
I know dj2becker doesnt understand thermodynamics, but it appears neither do you! Thermodynamics is the driving force behind chemical change, when you combine H and O to make water (a decrease in the entropy of the system), you release heat, causing an increase in entropy of the surroundings. For the process to be spotaneous the entropy of the universe as ...[text shortened]... re are thermodynamic forces and chemical forces working against each other is absurd!
~corp1131

Yes, you are right, it appears my thermodynamics is a little rusty.

Nevertheless, my point about misunderstanding "disorder" still stands. According to dj2becker, assembly of complex molecules cannot form as this is would contravene thermodynamics. Yet complex molecules do form (ones that have lttle to do with life).

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Interesting post. I'll have to think about this and do some research.

EDIT - Never mind; it's just another cut and paste for the most part. Here's my response:

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of ...[text shortened]... ate any physical laws.

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

Please read the whole link on Thermodynamics that I gave you. It is a refutation of what you have copied and pasted from the talkorigins website.

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

Originally posted by Varg
Yes, you are right, it appears my thermodynamics is a little rusty.

Nevertheless, my point about misunderstanding "disorder" still stands. According to dj2becker, assembly of complex molecules cannot form as this is would contravene thermodynamics. Yet complex molecules [b]do form (ones that have lttle to do with life).[/b]

It's long past the point where the the only thing the creationists have proven is that they themselves have no credibility.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The question is really "Does the Geologic Column exist?"

check:http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

The answer is yes

Check: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html

Originally posted by dj2becker
Firstly, aren't you assuming that the universe is a closed system?

That's what the 1st law of thermodynamics says...

TrueOrigins is simply wrong about the 2nd law to almost deceitful levels. They create a strawman version of the 2nd law. Take a look at what they say when introducing open/closed systems. I have highlighted the important two words:

But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down&rdquo😉. Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

"Doesn't automatically" means that in some cases order can arise from disorder in an open system. But they quite blatently steam roll over that little point.

So this is what the 2nd law actually implies:
-In open systems order doesn't always arise from disorder, but it can.
-In closed systems order can never arise from disorder.

Wheras here is TrueOrigin's strawman version of the 2nd law which it attributes to "evolutionists":
-In open systems order always arises from disorder.
-In closed systems order can never arise from disorder.

The Dr. John Ross quote directly after does not support their position. He is not saying that order cannot arise in open systems. He is simply saying that "there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics" and that is exactly right. Order increaseing in open systems is not a violation of the 2nd law.

TrueOrigins write So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?, which shows their fundamental lack of understanding (according to Dr. John Ross as well). Life does not violate of the 2nd law. Nothing violates the 2nd law (or appears to violate it, whatever that means)

Their next argument (and I would say this is their central argument) is that two additional things are required for order to arise from disorder:
- a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
- a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

They then use the first point to argue that order-from-disorder in life is valid as it is "programmed" in DNA, wheras evolution is not valid because it is a change to that program. But notice that the two points above are their own criteria they have set up. They are not part of the 2nd law, and have not been derived from the 2nd law. Their remaining argument has nothing to do with the 2nd law. The title of the article at this point should be changed to "our ideas about order and disorder vs. evolution"

But is a program really required for order to arise from disorder? No, Stars are a good example of order from disorder occuring in nature. We can see various stages of star lifecycles and formation in deep space. Stars are organised structures. I wonder what "program" (information) directs the growth of stars? Could it be that you don't need a "program" for order to arise from disorder, you just need natural laws? Surely TrueOrigins couldn't be wrong yet again could they? fraid so.

Originally posted by yousers
Naturalism is irrelevant??? I see that your are comfortable with your contradictions, so I will just leave this discussion as is. We at least have some common ground in that we know consciousness did not evolve.

If there is a contradiction here, then show it. Or would you prefer to keep whistlin' Dixie?

Originally posted by yousers
Naturalism is irrelevant??? I see that your are comfortable with your contradictions, so I will just leave this discussion as is. We at least have some common ground in that we know consciousness did not evolve.

You don't know any such thing, you only think you know.
and btw ID implys a creator , so you are in fact a creationist, just not a young earth creationist.

Originally posted by bbarr
If there is a contradiction here, then show it. Or would you prefer to keep whistlin' Dixie?

Let me get this straight first - you are prepared to defend the position that evolution is not dependent on naturalism?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Interesting post. I'll have to think about this and do some research.

EDIT - Never mind; it's just another cut and paste for the most part. Here's my response:

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of ...[text shortened]... ate any physical laws.

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

It seems like the law of entropy should be renamed the rule of entropy since it can be overridden in some instances. At least, since there are very few closed systems, and all one seems to need to override entropy is to open the system and some added energy.

Well, I agree with you in general on how entropy works. I think the main problem is how it gets over-ridden in an open system. It still seems to require some sort of life to make to make conversion from disorder to order - and this seem to be going against the general flow of nature. That only make me skeptical about maco-evolution and it's little cousin abiogenesis.

I suspect someday in the distant future scientist will be able to produce something like a life (some sort of self-replicating molecule) from inanimate raw materials. But even that tiny step will be far from what we really need to do, which is observe abiogenesis nature. What we need is to find some planet on a distant star with ideal conditions to develop life - and then we can watch an see what happens. But even if they did get some self-replicating molecule to form in a lab, it would still not disprove Creation, or prove Evolution. Both will remain at heart - beliefs of faith - and always open to debate.

Unless one wants to equate science with religion, it seems best to believe (or not believe) evolution loosely - as one possible way God or Nature formed life. I would like to understand why people insist on viewing ToE as a indisputable fact, but I think it is mainly they are caught up in the herd, and fear going against popular opinion. Or maybe it's a innate distrust of religion - that seems to be a popular view - accusing people who are open about their faith with having ulterior motives. Either way, it seem irrational to declare ToE as scientific fact.

Anyway, I am not putting you in the categories of unquestioning religious faith in the ToE. You seem open to questions and honest inquiry. It's just too bad that more people are not willing or are too afraid to question ToE.