ex-xian

I know that Hovind claims that stellar formations are unobserved, so he doesn't believe in them. In fact, he lumps stellar evolution in with biological evolution as part of his bogus $250k challenge.

The problem with their assertion is that it's the total entropy of the universe that has to be increasing. Local bodies can and do become ordered. There is enough heat being given off from stars to more than compensate for the order that gravity has caused. Also, by this same argument, nuclear fussion inside stars would be impossible. After all, the atoms are being put into a more ordered state than they were in before. But the heat given off compensates. If everything in the universe tends toward disorder, then nothing could ever be ordered in any way. Not even human design could make anything go from less ordered to more ordered--that is, simply gathering some twigs together to make a fire would decrease the entropy of the universe and contradict the second law. Nevermind that the fire you make gives off heat.

I just can't believe the lengths these people will go to make their religion seem scientific. If they believe in the supernatural, then they should be consistent. They should just say "God did it" and stop trying to sound smart.

Kimpatsu

Yeah, we all know the sky is really a great big canopy with pinpricks in it that let the light of heaven shine through.
These people will never be convinced, no matter what the evidence.

caravelair

wouldn't the fact that the whole universe is not causaly connected imply something about the entropy of the universe as a whole? i'm trying to mull this one over in my head.

anyways, the system must be isothermal for the 2nd law to apply, and since a collapsing gas cloud is not isothermal, the law would not apply to a forming galaxy or stellar system, correct?

Peez

Hi,

If I may pick a nit: the fovea is actually the spot where cones are concentrated and much of the “junk” between the cones and the incoming light is pulled aside (it is exactly opposite of the pupil of the eye). It is at the optic disc that the neurons converge and make their way out of the eye, leaving a blind spot.

Good post, and I liked the comment at the end.


Peez

Doubting Didymus

I think there is, depending on how you define it exactly. An irreducibly complex system is one where you can not progressively remove parts and maintain function at all times. Such systems obviously exist: moustraps, and also simple arches, fulfill this criteria. (and living systems, obviously). The problem comes when you try to claim that evolution can not produce such systems, when it can. Evolution could even produce a mousetrap if it really wanted to.

This is my very favourite website for demonstrating how evolution in small steps can create systems that are irreducibly complex (a moustrap in this case!).

Ensign Steve

I LIKE it!!

Arthwollipot

You are right. I stand corrected. I was sure I'd seen it referred to as the fovea somewhere before.