Originally posted by KellyJay Direction, you want to take a universe where processes tend to
break down more times and not, and have one that does just
opposite, and that is mold non-living material into life, and more
than that, cause that life to become more and more complex!
Why? Why people say it must become more and more complex,
to fit into the universe better than it did bef ...[text shortened]... h not
facts in that statement.
Quite a leap of faith buying into that belief system!
Kelly
you want to take a universe where processes tend to
break down more times and not
This is referring to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics I am guessing, which is NOT violated by life or evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Entropy
Why people say it must become more and more complex,
to fit into the universe better than it did before.
Who said that? This is a false statement I believe.
a purposeful direction to become more and
more complex to fit better into the universe is a purpose, and
you cannot have purpose unless there is a will.
If life has to become more and more complex (it doesn't), and if you call this a purpose, then one can have a purpose without a will. I think the problem is that you're labelling something as a "purpose" improperly.
Are you aware of any law in physics saying life must become
more and more complex to fit into the universe? Outside of the
evolutionist belief system, I have never heard of one.
Evolutionary theory does not say this either. Will you PLEASE tell me how you are quantifying "complexity" and especially "functional complexity" so that I understand what you're talking about when you refer to increases and decreases in these things?
You think life has a purpose, to survive long enough to pass
one’s genetic material on to the next generation…seems like
that requires desire and a plan.
Again, either a mislabelling of life as "having a purpose" or a strange redefining of the word "purpose".
Originally posted by AThousandYoung you want to take a universe where processes tend to
break down more times and not
This is referring to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics I am guessing, which is NOT violated by life or evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Entropy
Why people say it must become more and more complex,
to fit into the universe better t elling of life as "having a purpose" or a strange redefining of the word "purpose".
"In my opinion, a great deal of confusion can be avoided, in many different contexts, by making use of the notion of emergence. Some people may ask, "Doesn't life on Earth somehow involve more than physics and chemistry plus the results of chance events in the history of the planet and the course of biological evolution? Doesn't mind, including consciousness or self-awareness, somehow involve more than neurobiology and the accidents of primate evolution? Doesn't there have to be something more?" But they are not taking sufficiently into account the possibility of emergence. Life can perfectly well emerge from the laws of physics plus accidents, and mind, from neurobiology. It is not necessary to assume additional mechanisms or hidden causes. Once emergence is considered, a huge burden is lifted from the inquiring mind. We don't need something more in order to get something more." Murray Gell-Mann
Originally posted by AThousandYoung [b]you want to take a universe where processes tend to
break down more times and not
This is referring to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics I am guessing, which is NOT violated by life or evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Entropy
Why people say it must become more and more complex,
to fit into the universe better t elling of life as "having a purpose" or a strange redefining of the word "purpose".
This is referring to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics I am guessing, which is NOT violated by life or evolution.[/b]
You believe life and evolution do not violate the 2nd law?
I know this has been debated countless times, but so I'm not
putting words in your mouth, beside a statement of belief on your
part, what is your reasoning?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay [b]This is referring to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics I am guessing, which is NOT violated by life or evolution.[/b]
You believe life and evolution do not violate the 2nd law?
I know this has been debated countless times, but so I'm not
putting words in your mouth, beside a statement of belief on your
part, what is your reasoning?
Kelly[/b]
The 2nd Law applies to a closed system. Life is not a closed system but interacts continuously with it's environment. Any entropy reduced in an organism is more than made up for by increases in entropy when the organism transforms food to feces, light energy to heay, etc.
Originally posted by KellyJay [b]This is referring to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics I am guessing, which is NOT violated by life or evolution.[/b]
You believe life and evolution do not violate the 2nd law?
I know this has been debated countless times, but so I'm not
putting words in your mouth, beside a statement of belief on your
part, what is your reasoning?
Kelly[/b]
I love how you go through a fairly long post of mine which contains several questions yet you fail AGAIN to answer any of mine. Instead you ask a question yourself. Why do I give you the respect of answering your questions when you refuse to answer mine? I guess I respect you more than you respect me. I need to get over that. It's hard though; treating people disrespectfully like you do is hard for me. Or maybe it's because I actually know what I am talking about and my position is consistent and logical, and so I am able to answer your questions while you cannot answer mine due to your ridiculous model of reality.
Originally posted by KellyJay You believe life and evolution do not violate the 2nd law?
I know this has been debated countless times, but so I'm not
putting words in your mouth, beside a statement of belief on your
part, what is your reasoning?
Kelly
Once again this is not belief, as whether or not life violates the 2nd law can be determined and prooved via simple logic. For example it is not a matter of belief that 2+2=4. It is true and always true whether you like it or not. In fact if the 2nd law is violated anywhere in the universe that would be very interesting as you would have made a very important discovery for science! Sadly it is more likely that you just dont understand the 2nd Law.
Interestingly the 2nd law itself is nothing more than a consequence of randomness and statistics.
Originally posted by KellyJay Natural selection is a guiding force able to work out the details of
making brains with the sophistication of that of human, down to the
lowest level of creature with a brains? No, I would not give natural
selection that much credit. Forces are what they are, but you could
also call a tornado a guiding force, the issue isn't that there isn't
some level ...[text shortened]... cessary to do something as create something with high levels of
functional complexity.
Kelly
Your posts have all the appearance of credibility until thy're read.
Please explain, with examples, what you mean by functionally complex.
I can believe that the apparent speed of light has changed through time. Here's my understanding ...
As the universe has expanded with masses moving apart, they would have a lesser affect on the curvature of space.
At an extreme where lots of mass is compacted together, the event horizon of a black hole is the radius at which light cannot escape. This must mean that the apparent speed of light slows down before it gets to that point.
Speed of Light and Age of Universe
19 May '06 15:22
Back to Top