Originally posted by LangtreeIf anyone wonders why I keep claiming to know Lang. Go search his message history (It's still very short.) We all had a similar conversation about a year ago. Fortunately, Lang and I were able to part on good terms.
How come it seems everybody seems to know my background;you are very presumptuous, especially since you have been wrong, you only exposing your ignoranc, and detract from your credibility. You don't know how to present a logically valid argument, but you certainly are very capable at heaping on the insults. Whether you accept my credentials is irrelevent, a ...[text shortened]... a fact, reject as you will, but it doesn't alter the truth. Evolution is TERMINALLY ILL.
Originally posted by LangtreeWrong.
Somebody doesn't understand the Law of Entropy. Entropy is the result of energy being used, if the system is open more energy is introduced, and entropy increases. Entropy is inexorable, even Isaac Asimov admitted that
in" the Laws of Thermodynamics: You can't even break even." It still stands science flies in the face of evolution. Evolution is TERMINALLY ILL.
http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html
Originally posted by LangtreeWhilst it is true that someone doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics that person is you.
Somebody doesn't understand the Law of Entropy. Entropy is the result of energy being used, if the system is open more energy is introduced, and entropy increases. Entropy is inexorable, even Isaac Asimov admitted that
in" the Laws of Thermodynamics: You can't even break even." It still stands science flies in the face of evolution. Evolution is TERMINALLY ILL.
Entropy is the result of energy being used? Well, not really. "Work" is normally the result of energy being used. Water being pumped up a hill for example. The "work" done by the pump (at a cost of an increase in entropy in the coal, oil or whatever used to power the pump) decreases the entropy of the water. The water has more energy.
If your definition of the 2nd law is right, then it'll be a fine day forever, since water will never evaporate, and it'll never rain again!!!
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
You still don't understand entropy; then why do we have to clean our houses of dust? That is a direct effect of entropy, you can deny the effects of entropy intellectually, but you can't ignore them practically. So you are impractical. Then of course you have the problem of no new matter being created, I guess you will deny that also.
However, you cannot deny the fact that all the dating methods for determining the age of rock strata are unreliable. That the rock strata has systematic gaps that refute transitional development of animals.
That natural selection only occurs within kinds, otherwise, the distinctions among kinds would be blurred.
That Dr. Lee Spetner of Johns Hopkins recently stated that in all his investigation, that mutations do not produce new information.
The testimony of the fossils: Billions of dead things bury in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. Catastrophism!
This the reason why I don't debate live you are convinced that evolution is a science, but it isn't. Evolution is terminally ill. Good day. Don't bother replying, I am going to another site where there is more interesting topics.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt is quite simple to make an unsupported statement.
WRONG!!!!!! Tricksey, false!!! You cannot promote something from a theory to a law. A theory is an explanation, normally of a complex set of events or systems. A law is a (normally mathematical) description of a simple process.
They are not in any way related.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. They are typically conclusions based on the confirmation of hypotheses through repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. While there are no uncontroversial rules as to how or when a scientific hypothesis becomes a scientific law, scientific laws at their strongest are generally observations that have never had repeatable contradictions.
The laws of thermodynamics are very strong ones indeed.
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo.
So, in essence, what you are saying here is "because most the rest of the universe is very very cold (deep space) it cannot be warm here." Well, that's a whole lead of central heating companies in trouble then!!!
There are valid, observable and explainable reasons for the earth being habitable and warm. The sun holds the earth in orbit close enough for the earth to benefit from the sun's energy without being consumed by it. The earth's gravity attracts an atmosphere which is heated by the sun and life thrives. (grade school version, sorry I am not capable of a more sophisticated description)
I am not saying that entropy couldn't decrease in one portion of the universe while increasing in others. There should just probably be a reason. Something from without causing it to decrease (I am assuming this is why the system must be closed) or heck, even from within.
I am still reading 2ndlaw.com which seems to state that in chemistry, the second law really means that objects will tend to organize themselves. Interesting. I haven't heard this before. Worth investigation.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by LangtreeYou are the one that continually seems to deny that the earth and the life on it is not an isolated system because we continually receive new energy from the sun.
You still don't understand entropy; then why do we have to clean our houses of dust? That is a direct effect of entropy, you can deny the effects of entropy intellectually, but you can't ignore them practically. So you are impractical. Then of course you have the problem of no new matter being created, I guess you will deny that also.
However, you canno ...[text shortened]... . Don't bother replying, I am going to another site where there is more interesting topics.
The second law of thermodynamics states that ISOLATED systems become disordered, earth is not an isolated system.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by stevenv76Think of it like this, pumping water up hill, you use energy to power a pump that makes water go up from say a low lying river to irragate some land.
No.
There are valid, observable and explainable reasons for the earth being habitable and warm. The sun holds the earth in orbit close enough for the earth to benefit from the sun's energy without being consumed by it. The earth's gravity attracts an atmosphere which is heated by the sun and life thrives. (grade school version, sorry I am not capable o ...[text shortened]... nd to organize themselves. Interesting. I haven't heard this before. Worth investigation.
To power the pump you need to make the energy from something, like burning a fuel source such as butanol; that burnt fuel source has now increased in entropy because it is now much less useful; but the power created from burning that fuel is able to power that pump to push that water up hill, decreasing the water's entropy.
Now imagine that pump is the sun with it's nucleur reactions (or any of the trillions of stars in the universe with their planets) and the earth is the water, the sun is now powering the earth to decrease it's entropy / keep it steady. See?
Now the sun, whilst creating all that energy, is always increasing in entropy, FAR more than entropy is decreasing on earth, as the sun's energy is always changing to less useful heat.
That is why OVERALL entropy is increasing in the universe, as all the stars in it are changing their energy into heat; but places like the earth, that decrease in entropy over time can decrease in entropy, they are open systems as they get all that powering energy from the sun.
Originally posted by LangtreeI guess you just stopped by for your 2nd Annual Rant Fest?
You still don't understand entropy; then why do we have to clean our houses of dust? That is a direct effect of entropy, you can deny the effects of entropy intellectually, but you can't ignore them practically. So you are impractical. Then of course you have the problem of no new matter being created, I guess you will deny that also.
However, you canno ...[text shortened]... . Don't bother replying, I am going to another site where there is more interesting topics.
See ya next year, Lang.
Why is that people who reject evolution, and attempt to give scientific sounding rejections of it, will then use other scientific models/theories, such as thermodynamics, to do so?
Scientific reasons will sound scientific. I contest that some scientific-sounding arguments in favor of evolution are just as false as some scientific-sounding arguments in favor of creation.
You can use theories from other scientific disciplines to support/condemn any theory if there is a logical relationship. There is no one thing that operates in a vacuum.
Why do evolutionary rejectionists seem to often display so little understanding of scientific principles and yet vehemently support their position?
Let's face it. A majority of the people who support creationism are not scientists and have little understanding of scientific principles. Conversly, a majority of the people who support evolution are not scientists and have little understanding of scientific principles. How many people that have commented on this thread (on both sides) are actual experts in the fields in which they have commented?
Are you saying that evolutionists support thier statements less vehemently than creationists?
What's wrong with evolution?
As a theory? Hrm, nothing. Anyone is free to propose thier own hypothesis and proceed to try to confirm it.
As truth? Well, it poses several theological problems to Christians. One can even argue that evolution fits just fine with Judaism and Islam, but discussing those issues is not really the topic of this thread.
My affirmation is that there are serious gaps in the evolutionary theory, which through time (millions and billions of years of expirmentation and observation... or maybe one very fortunate strike), may be filled but have not yet. It is far from undeniable truth.
I can't prove creation Scientifically, and an absence of substancial scientific evidence in favor of evolution does not prove it false, but when it comes to picking a life view, I go with Christianity. Certainly if I choose to beleive in evolution, Christianity does not condemn me to hell, but creation fits better, there is not enough scientific evidence to convince me I am wrong.... and heck if I am wrong and there is no Christ or God or any of that and I spend my whole life preaching and believing in creationism, then when I die the same thing is going to happen to me as happens to all the athiests out there. Whatever that is.
I actually question why I jumped on this thread in the first palce.
Originally posted by Bad wolfOk, that sounds logical. I can accpet that, and may actually be a valid argument.
Now imagine that pump is the sun with it's nucleur reactions (or any of the trillions of stars in the universe with their planets) and the earth is the water, the sun is now powering the earth to decrease it's entropy / keep it steady. See?
Now the sun, whilst creating all that energy, is always increasing in entropy, FAR more than entropy is decreasing on earth, as the sun's energy is always changing to less useful heat.
It doesn't prove evolution happened, but it lets organic evolution exists in context of the 2nd law (still haven't read that whole, site... I do have a job).
However beneath the surface of this argument is the argument of where does life come from and you can almost always step back further.
I openend my comments by stating that evolution doesn't explain life from non-life, and I was countered with a statement basically saying that that is out of scope.
But you got to think, before there was a sun, what was there? How did the sun get here? And here you get explanations along the lines of cosmic evolution...
So maybe I am getting off topic. If you want to support evolution without considering how it got going, then you are free to do so.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by stevenv76I believe what you are referring to (how life started from non-life) is called abiogenesis, it is different theory that trys to explain, using all the available evidence and trying to use the fewest assumptions as possible, how this occurred. It trys to explain how life started from spontanious chemical reactions etc, in the atmosphere at the time.
Ok, that sounds logical. I can accpet that, and may actually be a valid argument.
It doesn't prove evolution happened, but it lets organic evolution exists in context of the 2nd law (still haven't read that whole, site... I do have a job).
However beneath the surface of this argument is the argument of where does life come from and you can almost al ...[text shortened]... u want to support evolution without considering how it got going, then you are free to do so.
I know very little about it and so I wouldn't be able to answer much on it.
This may interest you though:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=42355&page=1
Originally posted by stevenv76I don't think we were trying to prove evolutionary theory to you. (That species have and do evolve is a fact. One account for how that occurs is evolutionary theory, and that, like any scientific theory is always open to debate.) You raised the objection that evolutionary theory violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2TD). We have all tried to explain why the 2TD does not apply here. That is all.
Ok, that sounds logical. I can accpet that, and may actually be a valid argument.
It doesn't prove evolution happened, but it lets organic evolution exists in context of the 2nd law (still haven't read that whole, site... I do have a job).
However beneath the surface of this argument is the argument of where does life come from and you can almost al ...[text shortened]... u want to support evolution without considering how it got going, then you are free to do so.
With a few exceptions, no participant in this thread is an "expert" on biology or evolution. We all have varying degrees of education on the subject. The key is to see whether the ideas stand on their own or not. For example, you challenge the theory of evolution with the 2TD. You may have picked up this criticism from some one you believed to be an "expert" on the subject of physics. Whether this is the case or not, we have shown you that the criticism is invalid.
Another thing to consider is that we all have different areas of expertise. We may be able to draw upon what we know when we participate in a discussion of evolution. On this site, I have on occasion debunked arguments from the improbability of abiogenesis copied and pasted from Creationist "experts." I did this without understanding the ins and outs of how a protein is formed. I simply drew upon my knowledge of probability theory.
Others have enlightened the discussion through their expertise in philosophy or even history when those knowledge of those fields were pertinent.
Originally posted by telerionI don't think we were trying to prove evolutionary theory to you. (That species have and do evolve is a fact.
I don't think we were trying to prove evolutionary theory to you. (That species have and do evolve is a fact.
The key is to see whether the ideas stand on their own or not. For example, you challenge the theory of evolution with the 2TD. You may have picked up this criticism from some one you believed to be an "expert" on the subject of physics. Whether this is the case or not, we have shown you that the criticism is invalid.
Evolution may or may not be a fact. I beleive it is not. The scientific method has supported the theory of evolution in the past. But if the theory has not yet been confirmed by enough experimentation to put to rest any experimentation condeming it, on what basis do you assert it as fact?
Sure, you probably think I am a moron for discounting what you may consider a mountain of evidence, but there are enough people questioning this mountain to make it ... questionable.
It's not like I am arguing against the hydrologic cycle or gravity or even relativity. It's more like I am arguing against black holes. Sure, there is some evidence and some reasoning, but not enough without introducing could haves, would haves, and should haves.
The key is to see whether the ideas stand on their own or not. For example, you challenge the theory of evolution with the 2TD. You may have picked up this criticism from some one you believed to be an "expert" on the subject of physics. Whether this is the case or not, we have shown you that the criticism is invalid.
You put the term "expert" in quotes. Believe it or not there are experts in every field (with Ph.Ds and everything) who refute evolutionism. Who do you beleive? Does being a creationist automatically disqualify you as a scientific expert? Is buying in to evolution a requirement to being taken seriously by the scientific community? It's like deciding something is true and then going out to prove it... what ever it takes.
2TD does not "kill" evolutionary biology (right now, in my mind. I haven't done enough research to come to a final conclusion). But it certainly does not help it, especially considering pre-life conditions.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by LangtreeOne possible end of the universe is 'entropic death', it is estimated that if that is the fate of the universe then it will happen in not billions but trillions of years time, in the mean time, if you consider for the moment the solar system to be a closed system, which it is reasonably close to for our purposes here, then you see that the sun produces energy which it pumps out in all directions, a very small fraction of this hits the earth, of this some of this energy is reflected, some heats the place up, (increasing entropy) and some is absorbed by photosynthesizing plants (I am being intentionally and necessarily simplistic here), of the energy that hits these plants, a percentage (about 10% ish) is used to build the plant up and is stored as sugars and starches and the like, this plant is more organised than say random rocks lying around or glooping mud but the entropy created in the sun to power this plant is far greater than the order of the plant, and the plant needs a constant supply of energy to keep it going, the next stage in the food chain, (could be us it depends on the plant) uses about 10% of the energy stored in the plant, and every stage in a food chain again uses around 10% of the energy stored in the previous stage, while arguably more organised than anything else in the food chain, being at the top of it means we are about the most entropic (viewing the entire solar system).
Somebody doesn't understand the Law of Entropy. Entropy is the result of energy being used, if the system is open more energy is introduced, and entropy increases. Entropy is inexorable, even Isaac Asimov admitted that
in" the Laws of Thermodynamics: You can't even break even." It still stands science flies in the face of evolution. Evolution is TERMINALLY ILL.
The second 'law' of thermo dynamics works in the same way that the gas laws work, it is the 'law' of large numbers, if you have a trillion gas particles in a room then the odds of them all landing up arranged in a nice lattice pattern in one tiny corner of the room is so small that you would have an expectation time for it happening being somewhere in the billion trillion, trillion year range (and that is probably being hugely optimistic) in fact you expect the particles to be evenly spread and to comply with immense accuracy with bulk rules giving the illusion of continuum, not quantum. This is not however because the gas laws are a description of how nature works, they are the result of the deeper rules that govern how atoms behave and interact. In the same way there is no 'force' of entropy that inexorably 'makes' things more chaotic, the second law of thermodynamics is simply a result of the deeper workings of the universe.
Oh and by the way, I am a physicist, and I can tell you that not only is the second law of thermodynamics not a threat/contradiction to evolution, but that there is no law/theory/evidence in physics which is a threat or contradiction to evolution.