MEETING DAVE MATTHEWS

[skiizalot]

Where did you find that definition for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - that the quality (:?) of energy and matter is degrading irreversibly. The law simply says that the disorder of the Universe is always increasing. This defends evolution, if anything. The more complex the world is getting all the time. It's easy to categorize things and create the illusion of order, but really it's getting more disorderly. how many species of animals existed a billion years ago, for example, compared to now??

That is the equivalent of me saying that the theory of Evolution simply put is there was nothing for three billion years then there was what we have today. You really think that as Disorder INCREASES,.. "The more complex the world is getting all the time." You fail to realize the broadness of the theory and the many areas for which it applies. Let me present a little info for you:


THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Everything is running down and going to pieces.
"In its most modern forms, the Second Law is considered to have an extremely wide range of validity. It is a remarkable illustration of the ranging power of the human intellect that a principle first detected in connection with the clumsy puffing of a steam engine should be found to apply to the whole world, and even to the whole cosmic universe."—*A.R. Ubbelohde, Man and Energy (1955), p. 146.
"The second law of thermodynamics predicts that a system left to itself will, in the course of time, go toward greater disorder."—*Harold Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 201.
"It is a very broad and very general law, and because its applications are so varied it may be stated in a great variety of ways."—*E.S. Greene, Principles of Physics (1962), p. 310.
"1. Classical Thermodynamics: The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains constant.
"2. Statistical Thermodynamics: The organized complexity (order) of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random (disorder).
"3. Informational Thermodynamics: The information conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete."—Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What Is Creation Science? (1987), p. 199.
"To their credit, there are a few evolutionists (though apparently very few) who recognize the critical nature of the problem [of the Second Law] and who are trying to solve it."—*Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis, and Agnes Babloyants, "Thermodynamics of Evolution," Physics Today, Vol. 25, November 1972, pp. 23-28.
ENTROPY
Unusable energy keeps increasing.
"What the Second Law tells us, then, is that in the great game of the universe, we not only cannot win; we cannot even break even!
"In any physical change that takes place by itself the entropy always increases (entropy is "a measure of the quantity of energy not capable of conversion into work)."—*Issac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even," Journal of Smithsonian Institutes, June 1970, p. 8.
"Increase in entropy means a transition from a more orderly state to a less orderly state . . In any naturally occurring process, the tendency is for all systems to proceed from order to disorder."—R.B. Lindsay, "Entropy Consumption and Values in Physical Science," American Scientist, September 1959, p. 82.
"Man has long been aware that his world has a tendency to fall apart. Tools wear out, fishing nets need repair, roofs leak, iron rusts, wood decays, loved ones sicken and die . . We instinctively resent the decay of orderly systems such as the living organisms and work to restore such systems to their former or even higher level of organization."—*V.R. Potter, "Society and Science," in Science, November 20, 1964, p. 1018.
"There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflection dissipation of energy available for future transformation—the law of increasing entropy."—R.B. Kindsay: "Physics—To What Extent Is it Deterministic?" in American Scientist, Vol. 156 (1973), p. 100.
"The entropy principle will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that it is the premier law of all science; Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as the supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View (1980), p. 6.
"There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation—the law of increasing entropy."—*R.R. Kindsay, "Physics—To What Extent Is it Deterministic?" in American Scientist, 56 (1968), p. 100.
Here is the source from a website I found while looking for the exact definition, which still eludes me:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... cond%20Law

[skiizalot]

skiz, evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origins of the universe, nor does it go anywhere beyond our planet. evolutionary theory is only concerned with life on earth.

and you can't say that because the second law of thermodynamics exists, that evolution is neccessarily false. the second law of thermodynamics deal with energy, not with biological systems. I'll go into this more when I have time. Paper writing is no fun.

You are right to a certain degree. But, the Theory of Evolution is seldom seen without its partners the “Big Bang,” “Abiogenesis,” “Geological Strata,” etc…. All working to try and establish the Origins of Species. That is what the subject is about. Faith in your origins. You are incorrect in your comment that the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t apply to biological systems. Please see the quotes from various scientific journals listed previously. Besides, what unending source of energy allowed random atomic particle collision to take place for a few billion years leading to abiogenesis?

As far as the multiple creation stories and the literal reading of Genesis goes, I have so much too say that I can’t delve into it now. I am swamped and way past meeting some hard deadlines. Until then, please be more specific of the multiple stories you speak of. I don’t want to speculate.

Thanks

[gravedigger]

nice piece of info.

doesn't explain why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not allow for evolution. I would say that the law fits with evolution perfectly because evolution involves the changing of organisms and the formation of new organisms from older ones. And as cells evolve, they become more complex. Maybe its just how you are looking at. Evolution is a random process. randomness is the essence of evolution. you have yet to show any argument concerning how the 2nd law of thermodyamics doesn't allow for evolution.

[gcom007]

salami and swiss.

[skiizalot]

nice piece of info.



This wouldn't happen to be one of those ideas,...

....I can just don't like when people try to disprove scientific fact by some ridiculously radical idea.....

would it?

How in the world can you say that the Law and the Theory fit perfectly with each other? Evolution originally came from the idea of Spontaneous Generation spread about by Greek philosophers over 2000 years ago. It has everything to do with getting life from absolute nothingness. I have stated the general precepts of evolution a number of times. It is about the creation of life from no life. It is about species changing into other species. It is not about survival of the fittest or adaptation of the species. Those are facts of life that are undeniable in nature and science, that have been coupled with Evolution to add validity to a theory that barely floats. Besides, just because you have survival of the fittest and adaptation of the species, it doesn’t mean that you have transition of species to other species or the creation of life from no life. If your hypothesis was close to being logical regarding new organisms from older ones, perhaps you can let me in on the secretes of the fountain of youth so the rest of the world can have a drink? Does this mean that when I am 100, I can form into a new organism? I apologize for the sarcasm, but you are shooting out fiction. You have no proof of organisms changing and the formation of new organisms from old ones, nor can you prove that cells become more complex. I want your scientific facts and not your hypothesis.
So, since 2nd Law tells us that energy, life, etc. is degrading, how all of a sudden does this degradation stop to allow a theory to take over when that law contradicts it? I think we are back to the wrist watch in a shoe box again. Take it apart, place the pieces in the box, start shaking it now, and let me know when it assembles itself as a working wristwatch again. Would this then represent the randomness of evolution that you use to explain your origin?

[gravedigger]

okay, this is the roomate again

The proof of new organisms arising from others is everywhere. The proof of cell specialization is everywhere aswell. You can actually watch it happen if you look at the volocine series, the textbook example of the change from single cellularity to multicellularity, Evolution fits with entropy because new species are constantly evolving at random. The disorder of the earth as one large system is clearly increasing. How can you say that say a domestic cat and a tiger didnt come from the same ancestors. The similarities are too great. Now in a thousand years as t hings change maybe a new species will begin to differentiate itself from tigers.

[ticohans]

skiz, I'm not trying to defend any of those other things you mention, so you and I at least can leave it at evolution.

About the second law of thermodynamics and order, it all depends on one's definition of order, which is slippery, to say the least. Say I have a bag of blue squares and red squares, all the same size. I make a single large square with the blue squares and a single large square with the red squares. Then, I mix the blue and red squares up, and make a checkerboard. Then, I create a symmetric shape where red, blue and the absence of squares are arranged in a mathematical fashion. Then I take the sqares, run them through a chaos model, and arrange accordingly. Obviously, the arrangements and relationships of said squares are increasing in complexity, but they are NOT increasing in order. The metaphor can be applied to biological systems. Also, as larger and more complicated organisms, we are less efficient than the smaller and inferior organisms that we supposedly evolved from. An increase in complexity is NOT an increase in order.

About the Genesis stories, it's chapters one and two, pretty straightforward. I understand if you can't or don't want to get into this stuff right now due to a finals crunch. No worries. I just like a friendly, educated, and truth-seeking discussion on such matters.

[skiizalot]

About the Genesis stories, it's chapters one and two, pretty straightforward. I understand if you can't or don't want to get into this stuff right now due to a finals crunch. No worries. I just like a friendly, educated, and truth-seeking discussion on such matters.

The only thing I can see that you are refering to is in Genesis 1:26-27 "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Then in Genesis chapter two it goes on to say in verse four, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." (NIV version quoted). There are not two creation accounts given, Chapter two verse four to twenty five, introduce what happened to God's creation. It reverts back to the creation account of the first chapter an elaborates on the creation of Man and talks about how a suitable helper could not be found and how God saw that man was lonely and therefore created Eve. It is very clear in the text that there are not two accounts of creation. If I was telling a story and then went back to elaborate on a section I have already mentioned, you would get the same thing.
As far as the reliability of the scriptures go, do a little study about the Essenes. The are responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were super sensitive regarding the purity of laws of the Torah. They felt personally charged with the recording of the old testement. They would write each word on scrolls, when they came to the name of God, Yahwey (which they wrote without vouls because they believed that if they wrote the full name of God they would die) they would put down the pen they were using, wash their hands, pick up a special pen, write the name of God, put down the special pen and pick up the original pen to continue writing the scripture. The point I am trying to make is they were super sensitive to getting the scripture perfect. After two captivity periods in both Babylonia and Medo-Persia, they were concerned about preservation of the Torah and placed complete copies of all books of the old testiment in Clay jars in the dead seas around 350BC. Those scrolls where discovered in 1947 AD. There was very little difference to the Old Testement we have today. The only exception was in word usage that didn't change the context of the scripture. There are many early pypyrus copies of the New Testement dating back as early as 150AD that are acurate to our present day New Testement. This information is very accurately illustrated in two books. The first, "More Than A Carpenter," by Josh McDowell. The second, "The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel. I suggest that you read them because I can only begin to address this issue and the above mentioned books go into much more detail regarding this matter.