Posted on 12/28/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
... the idea that the four fundamental forces of physics alone could rearrange the fundamental particles of nature into spaceships, nuclear power plants, and computers, connected to laser printers, CRTs, keyboards and the Internet, appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular way.
Anyone who has made such an argument is familiar with the standard reply: the Earth is an open system, it receives energy from the sun, and order can increase in an open system, as long as it is "compensated" somehow by a comparable or greater decrease outside the system. S. Angrist and L. Hepler, for example, in "Order and Chaos", write, "In a certain sense the development of civilization may appear contradictory to the second law.... Even though society can effect local reductions in entropy, the general and universal trend of entropy increase easily swamps the anomalous but important efforts of civilized man. Each localized, man-made or machine-made entropy decrease is accompanied by a greater increase in entropy of the surroundings, thereby maintaining the required increase in total entropy."
According to this reasoning, then, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal -- and the door is open. In Appendix D of my new book, The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, second edition, I take a closer look at the equation for entropy change, which applies not only to thermal entropy but also to the entropy associated with anything else that diffuses, and show that it does not simply say that order cannot increase in a closed system. It also says that in an open system, order cannot increase faster than it is imported through the boundary. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Articles are not your forte.
You wrote:
That is so stupid...
Reply:
Clear, but NOT. Just what was stupid? Stupid is generally when you see the evidence and still say, "I believe..."
I understand that genetic algorithms have generated useful programs, and even invented novel electronic circuit designs.
How did the legos acquire the PV cells? This is the same fallacy as the 'primordial soup' full of enzymes. Enzymes require the pre-existance of life. Logical mythology of the church of evolution.
My difficulties with the General Theory of Evolution are not primarily religious, although the knee-jerk scorn of religion on the part of many Darwinists is disturbing.
It's a scientific problem. It just doesn't make sense. It's bad science, dogmatic in the worst way.
I thought so when I studied Darwin in school and college, and I think so even more after considering the matter and reading further discussions of the difficulties. DNA was unknown when I first studied biology. The macro difficulties were already a deal breaker, but the difficulties on a micro level are even worse.
And there is a fundamental problem underlying all the rest: Take away the Logos, the principle of rationality built into the universe, and take away the philosophical concept of realism, and you take away rationality itself. I have argued this point with a philosopher friend of mine who works in the field of artificial intelligence. In a purely materialistic and accidental universe, rationality has no real meaning.
And right you are.
If you "see the evidence" that is stupid.
I believe that scientific studies of all these things should proceed. There has been much learned and much more will be learned.
My problem is when professors become dogmatic and refuse to give proper grades to students who don't "believe" that Darwin's theory explains the Origin of the Species as his book is titled.
If you read his book, it has some interesting observations, but in the book he does not even pretend to explain the origin of the species, so it cannot be taught as dogma the way it is treated by many professors.
It should be taught as a work in progress and to question some of the dogma is in the best scientific tradition.
Even a student who is seriously studying biology should not be penalized for "un-orthidoxy".
I am a Mormon and these studies are persued at Brigham Young University. They should be. Just don't get hung up on the dogmatic approach.
What is your definition of tautology?
That is well said.
To you it is. There are others in science who see the handiwork of a designer because evolutionists have failed to conclude many issues. They can neither prove how the single cell came about even though it is highly developed and complex nor can ansewer how or why the eye formed, according to them life started without eyes, why did it have to develope if there was not the need? Maybe by design things could see? Nahh, thats mythology.
Sure we understand vast amounts but if your going to speak to foundations then start by having one to stand on. And I do not mean that to say that all of science supporting Evolution is junk, thats not it at all. But the chance that it relies on in all honesty is as good as what you claim of Creationists. Were not just saying "believe just because."
How about being taught as a theory? Maybe combine Darwin's original work with, say, 150 years of addition research and testing?
Would that be OK with you?
My definitions follow:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
The same as everyone else's. You're in over your head if you have to ask what the meanings of basic terms are. If you read my post, you will find an identity that will lead you to a definition.
The Wolf in Sheep's clothing..
You obviously have a "non de plume" ( or whatever )
You pose as a creationist in another guise, and encourage their misdirected psuedo-scientific pursuit at discrediting evolution, all the while laughing, silently at their hystrionics.
Indeed, thou art Machiavellian.. ;o)
JS1138. I will throw out the same challenge to you that I have to other arrogant evos. Please provide your educational background and current employment so we can judge whether you have any credibility on the subject or are just blowing smoke. Thanks ahead of time.
Thanks to the intelligent design of computers and software.
So are there LAWs of Thermodynamics, or not? If there are such LAWs (and all of science recognizes there are), shouldn't we be able to harmonize them with evolution, expecially since we know evolution is as much a fact as gravity, eh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.