- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut according to your very strange definition, plants cannot grow either. Humans cannot be born, and water can't be pumped up hill.
But according to your very strange definition, plants cannot grow either. Humans cannot be born, and water can't be pumped up hill.
Of course, all these things can happen, provided the overall entropy of the system goes up (i.e. energy is supplied).
You've still never got past this point.
You've still never even addressed this point.
I am still waiting for you to demonstrate how any of this follows from the definition I gave you.
Of course, all these things can happen, provided the overall entropy of the system goes up (i.e. energy is supplied).
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. As an evolutionist you maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, you suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?
You have yet to respond to this question.
Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?
A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.
If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?
What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
Originally posted by PenguinActually even the species definition is not that specific. Also it is more along the lines of "organisms from different species do not interbreed in their natural setting."
Until you can define what a 'kind' is, which creationists never can, your complaint is meaningless. The only non-arbitrary classification we have is at the species level: organisms from different species cannot interbreed. All the other classifications are purely arbitrary. In fact, even the species one is fuzzy since the loss of reproductive ability during ...[text shortened]... les at higher levels than that, more analogous to dogs evolving into non-dogs.
--- Penguin.
For example a dog can breed with a wolf. A wolf can breed with a coyote. Yet they are three different species.
dj2becker and other creationists are resorting to the use of the word 'kind'. According to Merriam Webster it could mean
4. a : a group united by common traits or interests.
or b : a specific or recognized variety
but since no more details have been given such as the traits in question or the 'recognised varieties' in question it is therefore meaningless until defined. So unless dj2becker can define it for us his statement is meaningless.
For example I could say: "You cannot use the same tires on different kinds of car". Such a statement is meaningless until I specify what I mean by a kind of car.
Originally posted by dj2beckerPlease be more specific. As your statement stands, it is simply not true.
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
When Carbon and Oxygen are put together we get Carbon dioxide. Clearly more complex than plain carbon and plain oxygen. In fact there are many many chemical reactions going on all the time. Even if we look at the whole earth, the overall average complexity of chemicals has not changed significantly over the last 1000 years say. So where is all this breaking apart taking place? Why do I see so many 'complex' chemicals? Where are they coming from?
Originally posted by StarrmanReading without understanding. Hearing without thinking. Following without seeing. Who are the strawmen?
Lol, how is that a strawman? It's not even making a claim about the subject. You're unvbelievable!
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Originally posted by buffalobillThis is the way the world ends
Reading without understanding. Hearing without thinking. Following without seeing. Who are the strawmen?
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Not with a bang but a whimper.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd we've found ammino acids in interstellar clouds, caused only by supernovae explosions and light energy to drive chemical reactions. This is an example where light energy lost by stars most certainly is enough to increase complexity significantly.
Please be more specific. As your statement stands, it is simply not true.
When Carbon and Oxygen are put together we get Carbon dioxide. Clearly more complex than plain carbon and plain oxygen. In fact there are many many chemical reactions going on all the time. Even if we look at the whole earth, the overall average complexity of chemicals has not chan ...[text shortened]... king apart taking place? Why do I see so many 'complex' chemicals? Where are they coming from?
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerBy the definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, IT ONLY APPLIES TO A CLOSED SYSTEM.
As an evolutionist you maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, you suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?
That is why the open system thing is relevent, with that in play, the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't even apply.
We can argue about what is neccesary to create life at some other time, but note my post above this one.
The point is, even if you need a God to create life, he doesn't need to break the 2nd law of thermodynamics to do so.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen Carbon and Oxygen are put together we get Carbon dioxide. Clearly more complex than plain carbon and plain oxygen.
Please be more specific. As your statement stands, it is simply not true.
When Carbon and Oxygen are put together we get Carbon dioxide. Clearly more complex than plain carbon and plain oxygen. In fact there are many many chemical reactions going on all the time. Even if we look at the whole earth, the overall average complexity of chemicals has not chan ...[text shortened]... king apart taking place? Why do I see so many 'complex' chemicals? Where are they coming from?
When energy is added to it as in combustion yes. But I said: It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
Carbon dioxide is never formed by the random collision of Carbon and Oxygen, as you would want to have it.
In fact there are many many chemical reactions going on all the time. Even if we look at the whole earth, the overall average complexity of chemicals has not changed significantly over the last 1000 years say.
In a global isolated system, spontaneous reactions may be understood to occur without human interference. Most spontaneus reactions in this system are exothermic (such as rusting) or metamorphism, thus increasing the global entropy.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou're claiming to be a chemistry student and this is your logic? What about endothermic processes (that means they absorb energy), those result in a reduced entropy (heat energy is the more entropic form of anything there is).
[b]When Carbon and Oxygen are put together we get Carbon dioxide. Clearly more complex than plain carbon and plain oxygen.
When energy is added to it as in combustion yes. But I said: It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
Carb ...[text shortened]... xide is never formed by the random collision of Carbon and Oxygen, as you would want to have it.[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
2 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZBut I said: It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. During endothermic processes, the energy is added, and thus the chemicals do not react spontaneously.
You're claiming to be a chemistry student and this is your logic? What about endothermic processes (that means they absorb energy), those result in a reduced entropy (heat energy is the more entropic form of anything there is).
Of course you will say with regards to abiogenesis that the sun supplied the energy...
Then my question is, how was the sun formed?
And presuming the sun was there...
Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?
A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.
If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?
What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
Btw, do you mean to say that you think that big bang was an endothermic reaction?
Where did the energy come from that it absorbed?
Originally posted by dj2beckerDo you think that perhaps if I meant the Big Bang I would have mentioned it? Good God, you're dumb.
But I said: It is well known that,[b] left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. During endothermic processes, the energy is added, and thus the chemicals do not react spontaneously.
Btw, do you mean to say that you think that big bang was an endothermic reaction?
Where did the energy come from that it absorbed?[/b]
And chemicals left to themselves break apart? That would explain corrosion. I mean, leave some metal lying about and then you have a metal oxide. A more complex chemical and you didn't do crap.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe whole point is that life is NOT "left to itself," but supplied with energy from the Sun!
But I said: It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. As an evolutionist you maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, you suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?
So you accept that the Sun can provide the energy necessary for a local decrease in entropy, and your argument is now that mere solar energy acting on matter couldn't have brought about life. It sounds like you accept that the second law of thermodynamics does not rule out evolution?