Posted on 10/11/2007 8:52:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Kev- I don’t knoew if you’re still reading or not- but if so- Schroedinger’s ‘negative entropy’ is a farce. Frank Steiger, a person copiously quoted by anti-ID folks when it comes to the second law, takes Schroedingger’s convoluted hypothesis, and further butchers the science of entropy by making his case for ‘negative entropy’ by trying to pull a lsight of hand magic trick by telling his readers that ice crystals are an example of ‘negative entropy’ and tries to impress upon his reraders that the formation of simple patterns that follow natural laws is hte same hting as dynamic randomly created process’ such as Macroevolution. He further goes on to give one example after another of intelligently designed structures such as the ‘ice box’ and hte ‘water wheel’ that taps downstream currents to lift water above the upper stream, suggesting that this intellgiently designed contraption is hte equivellent of a random, dynamic, ever changing blind process that relies on mistakes in the irreducibly complex structures of species in order to reach a higher and higher form of negative entropy. Did you catch that? This is very important- Steiger HAS to use examples of intellgiently designed complex structures, all assembled, and functioning in perfect harmony as they were DESIGNED to do, in order to argue that an open system can include ‘negative entropy’ ewhich could ‘possibly indicate that a ‘negative entropy’ element’ could happen. Why does he have to? Because there are no recorded instances of ‘negative entropy’ in higher complxity species i nthe natural world, and because his model so severely violates the second law, that only a convoluted example of a perfectly structured, hiughly complex, irreducibily complex man made structure can suffice for an ‘example of negative entropy in an open system’.
What Steiger is counting on I guess is hte guillibility of his readers, because he knows darn well that IF thsoe readers ask even the very basic questions, his hypothesis is doomed. He’s counting on people accepting his model without question- he has to- because it’s so seriuouslyt flawed, that as I mentioned, even secular scientists who are them ost ardent Macroevolutionists have had to distance htemselves from his rediculous assertions. He’s counting on people not questioning the fact that there hasn’t been an example from nature showing dynamic higher complexity systems that haver shown ‘negative entropy’. Why? Because it never happened, that’s why. Even if it oculd, setting aside rational logic for a second, for the sake of argument, happen in one, two or even a dozen or so cases, Steiger wants- nay, needs us to beleive it happened trillions of times at every step of the supposed Macroevolutionary stage. He doesn’t tell you that thouhg, does he? Why? Because he knows this fact is devestating to his cause. He just makes a case for a ‘possibility’ (and a VERY slight one at that) that it ‘might have happened’ in a single case in the past, and then goes on to befuddle the minds of his readers by confusin g them with notions that simple natural patterns that show a supposed ‘negative entropy’ is the same as dynamic systems that would have to recieve trillions of ever increasing negative entropy changes, all working toward higher and higher complexities, thus resulting in higher and higher negative entropy ‘mistakes in genetics’ to work from.
Steiger has to hope that his readers won’t pause to practice an ounce of critical thinking and rationale. Steiger is hoping that by giving only a few examples of intellgiently caused ‘negative entropy’, man made systems, that the reader will then think that in nature, negative entropy is an unnequivacable fact, innevitability that it happened trillions of times in perfect successions to produce an ever incresingly complex species millions of times over.
Steiger wants his readers- needs his readers to imagine that these trillions of ‘negative entropies’ happened ‘without cause’, or rather, without direction or instructions from a structured, intelligent, purposeful agent directing the orchestra.
I’m sorry, but htis is so weak an argument for Macroevolution that it should behoove the arguer to drop the case, and to stop implying that Creationists and ID’ists ‘don’t understand the second law’, but apparently, it’s quite simply impossible to embarrass folks l ike Steiger wiht the actual facts.
Can you not see the irony in all this? In orderr for Steiger to make his case for unguided, naturalistic, isolated incidents of ‘negative entropy’, and the case for unguided, ‘uncaused’ Mistake driven mutational inspired Macroevolution, Steiger MUST give hte only known examples he can think of- Man made- intellgiently caused, perfectly constructed, fully functional, irreducibly complex and constructed devices designed for a purpose. Only then can he show ‘negative entropy’ in an immediate setting (which coincidently increases in entropy over time as well). If the case for Creationists and ID’ists ‘not understanding the second law’ is built upon such a perversion of scientific facts as Steiger presents, and if the case for ‘it could have happened because such and such shows ‘negative entropy’, then by golly, that’s a pretty sad state of affairs for Macroevolution. Attempting to blur the line between Crystal growth and genetic growth, between man made intelligently caused purposeful designs fully functioning, and random ordered mistakes i nthe gene codes, only further goes to show just how weak Steiger’s argument really is.
[[I am also done with this thread as I have more important things to do with my time than try and educate the unwilling.]]
Did you mean you have more important htings to do than to try to educate the ‘Unwilling”? Or did you perhaps mean the ‘critical thinking”?
More important things being actually advancing science and doing something with my life other than arguing on an internet forum with an anonymous troll. You don’t like theories that challenge your view that your imaginary friend is better than everyone else’s. Again I suggest you read up on cognitive dissonance (not disconnect).
I will also repeat that I’m not a biologist, my field is NOT evolution and I refuse to argue something that I’m not familiar with. My field is aerospace science, and to be specific space exploration. That means pushing past the noise generated by troglodytes like you and furthering mankind’s presence in our universe; God or no God. If you’d really like I can take this to PM and we can discuss how this is in fact pro-life position that should be supported by most conservatives. But again, it doesn’t fit with your worldview so you’ll probably just tell me I don’t understand the field that I study and invoke God again.
I visualize everything is contained within an immeasurable ice sphere. Whenever new 'space' is needed to contain new matter, the inner surface of the ice sphere melts some more. Ice has more volume than water, so when the ice turns to water, there is a little left over space.
I was kind of surprised to see that picture, as it nearly matches my crude model.
[[More important things being actually advancing science and doing something with my life other than arguing on an internet forum with an anonymous troll. You don’t like theories that challenge your view that your imaginary friend is better than everyone else’s.]]
Having trouble countering the second law problem for Macroevolution eh? That’s ok- you’re lashing out with kiddie insults is understandable- people usually do that when they find their precious theories in trouble
[[ If you’d really like I can take this to PM and we can discuss how this is in fact pro-life position that should be supported by most conservatives.]]
Nah- I think it’s important that peopel see how unravelled folks liek you become when your preferred hypothesis falls apasrt, and see hte depths you sink to to avert attention away from that fact-
And just for hte record- noone invoked God- I appealed to hte science which directly contradicts Macroevolution and oyu apparently couldn’t handle it- preferring instead to engage in playground taunts and insults as is typical of those who hold your position apparently, as the internet is rife with pro-evo folks resorting to such pettiness- you’re a space engineer? My goodness- Hopefully objectivity isn’t a requirement in your field as it appears you have none- When hte going gets tough- assasinate the problem alerter- Yep- that’s soem GREAT science right there fella!
Kind of a Steady State model there. As to empty space, if you can measure it that would mean you are putting something in it to measure with so it isn't empty anymore. The ice sphere might be an old style black hole so it wouldn't radiate anything and there could be truly empty space outside although by saying outside we are putting a determination on the empty space and for that very action it isn't empty anymore.
The distance between objects would be measured. The span would contain other objects, larger and smaller, as well as other energy forms. When new matter erupts, it pushes everything around it outwardly, generating or creating its own nest, as only one unit of matter can reside at an address. An expansion of the universe, but with no consequences or phenomenon such as compression, for the inner ceiling of the ice would be melting to make room for the new matter wihout robbing any other unit of matter of its allocated volume of space.
"The ice sphere might be an old style black hole so it wouldn't radiate anything and there could be truly empty space outside although by saying outside we are putting a determination on the empty space and for that very action it isn't empty anymore
In my model, there is no 'outside of the ice sphere. It goes on forever and melts as needed inside the sphere.
Then 'empty space' is not empty at all. The idea has potential but needs work in the language area.
That's what I said. The span (distance between objects) contains other matter, both visible and invisible to the senses, and possibly to mechanincal/electrical measuring instruments as well.
"The idea has potential but needs work in the language area."
Yes. I must learn the language. Thanks for your comments.
Ideas are not easy.
Looked at Humphries work and it’s B.S. It can look convincing to people without expertise in the field, but it is non-sequitor.
Do go on. And feel free to be specific.
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.