ps418

This might account for the disagreements we have over the age of the universe, age of the earth, etc etc

Nope. Just more poorly-formulated excuses for not actually looking at the scientific evidence for an old universe, which definitively rules out a young universe.

Besides, everyone knows that time actually passes faster as one gets older. The years went by so slowly when I was 10. Now years seem like months. Plus, we have it on good authority that humans lived hundreds of years longer in the past.

Given this acceleration of the passage of time, one can only conclude that the actual age of the universe must be much, much older than extrapolations using static modern parameters would imply.

Wizardry

Oh yes, we get almost that exact argument far, far too often. If you want a response, I'll give you a quick one.

Not bloody likely. These are professional scientists we are talking about. They are about as likely to neglect the Second Law of Thermodynamics as they are to forget about the Law of Universal Gravitation.

The disorder interpretation is one valid physical interpretation of the Second Law. Another interpretation is that the amount of energy available to do work in a closed system always decreases. However, there is one glaring error in the above sentence. The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes no statements about open systems. It only deals with closed systems. Think about it, if open systems went to disorder, then many things in the universe would be impossible. For example, a human being goes from a single cell to an infant in 9 months and becomes an adult in 20 years. That is an obvious increase in order. If the above statement were correct, that would make human life impossible. Liquid water is more ordered than gaseous water. If the above sentence were true, that would mean that rain would be impossible. That is obviously untrue.

A more correct formulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics would be: In a closed system, the entropy of that system always increases. The change in entropy is defined as the change in heat over the temperature (dS = dQ/dT).

There are no known exceptions to the Second Law. However, it is not proven. You can't prove anything in science because it is not an axiomatic system. We only make inductions from physical data. All we can ever do is disprove something by finding a counterexample.

So does embryology. So what?

As I already pointed out, it is not.

If the Second Law meant that all things always went to disorder, how the hell could you rebuild anything. Or build anything for that matter. That would be an increase in order, which is impossible, remember.

Think about it for a minute. This yahoo is claiming that increases in order are impossible. How fucking stupid is that?

Entropy is not the same as disorder. Other than that, I'll let this go.

And?

And?

They didn't randomly explode into orbit. Perhaps this guy has forgotten about a little phenomena called gravity? The formation of the planets and the orbits and rotations thereof are easily explained from considerations of gravity acting on a hydrogen cloud littered with heavy elements. This guy doesn't even know the fundamental laws of motion and he's trying to correct Ph.D. level physicists. He's a moron.

"The only two things that are infinite are the universe and human stupidity and I'm not too sure about the former." - Albert Einstein.

You know, I never cease to be amazed by the number of scientifically illiterate laymen who think that they can challenge the conclusions of people who have spent their entire life studying the subject. I would be surprised if more than a quarter of the people who use the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument could name the other two.

*sigh*

Peace out.

Kosh

ROTFL Patrick!

Simulation: Things don't break because of
the 2nd law of T. It's called planned
obsolescence. This is how detroit plots
to sell you a new car every four years...

Peter Soderqvist

TO STIMULATION

Soderqvist1: What are these scientists ignoring?
We can infer from the telescope that the distance between planets increasing all the time, and it follows from that, that all these planets have started from one point. And this point's mass density, and/or concentration were close to infinite, and the Big Bang started the cycle of dispersing of mass! So obviously dispersing or disorder increases through this time arrow!

Soderqvist1: It is quite obvious that disorder increases in the main, but we also know that, it is possible to increase order, and/or concentration locally for instance, a automobile tire can be pumped up with oxygen molecules. It goes from dispersed oxygen molecules in the environment, to a concentrated form in the tire. But this increase of order will not happens by itself, you need ordered energy, calories if you pump with your hands, or electricity if you do it with a machine. What ever you do, you will always increase entropy in the main, hence concentrated oxygen molecules in the tire + combustion of energy = increase of entropy!

What is life?
Life is an increase of order or organization it autonomously exchanges material and energy with its environment. For instance, a tree works as a basic energy/chemistry binding of sun power, air, soil, water, etc, in short the photosynthesis, and the aging is the impact of second law of thermodynamics on the tree, and the life will end up in disorganization, in the death, because of that!

WHAT IS LIFE? By Erwin Shrödinger First published in 1944.
<a href="http://dieoff.org/page150.htm" target="_blank">http://dieoff.org/page150.htm</a>

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Soderqvist ]</p>

Simulation

Here is their response to mostly what Wizardry said:


The fundamental area I would like other readers to notice comes from the statements of the writer using bad america’s thread. I will address all points in the format that he/she did, one by one.

This writer summarizes his opinions in part of a paragraph, which I quote, “You can’t prove anything in science….All we can ever do is disprove something by finding a counterexample.” Let’s look at the two ways we can address the overall issue:

- Predetermine a fact, then try to find evidence to prove it; to support a hypothesis, or

- Form a hypothesis, gather evidence, conduct experiments, and then determine fact.

Which one sounds like the standard Scientific Method on which all science is based?
Which one hints that all things will be disproved, and reduces the priority of evidence?


1. Hubble Telescope.
My respondent first points out that I must think these Hubble observers are uneducated, unprofessional people. However I know they have distinguished degrees, and are probably pretty smart. Their opinion of how the evidence is interpreted is different from my own. What I would like readers to remember is that we all make some mistakes. For example, scientists hailed Nebraska man as a clear link in the evolution of man. However, the evidence for Nebraska man was soon found to be fossils from a pig. Nebraska man made his way into the textbooks for a while, and it is that kind of misinterpretation, which I would like to avoid being established as FACT. The expansion of the universe is still an example of increase in disorder.
&gt;&gt;&gt; (Everyone, please skim) <a href="http://answersingenesis.org/docs/3396.asp" target="_blank">http://answersingenesis.org/docs/3396.asp</a> Does the information presented by Michael Oard seem to be written by a yahoo? His accreditations are listed here <a href="http://answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/m_oard.asp" target="_blank">http://answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/m_oard.asp</a> or with his article.

2. Entropy
A. Thermodynamics.
Naming the First Law of thermodynamics contradicts your quote,”…the amount of energy available to do work in a closed system always decreases.” Where do you get the interpretation that energy can decrease? What about The Law of Conservation of Energy, which was determined by Einstein? A system’s internal energy is based on the equation E(system) = KE(system) + PE(system). You can NEVER make energy disappear. You can have a change in FORM, but not in amount. The most elementary levels of chemistry teach that you can NEVER have a change in amount of energy. Example: If you put water molecules in a sealed jar, it is improbable that it will go to it’s low energy/high order state, ice, rather it will more likely go to the less ordered form of liquid or gas.
Side note: While you have what entropy is referred to, I will provide an actual definition from a book with no “cartoons”. From “Chemistry,” by James E. Brady (ST. John’s Univ., NY), and John R. Holum (Augsburg College, MN) 1993. “Because statistical probability is so important in determining the outcome of chemical and physical events, thermodynamics defines a quantity, called ENTROPY, that describes the degree of randomness of a system. The larger the value of the entropy, the larger is the degree of randomness of the system and, therefore, the larger is its statistical probability.” I will let readers determine whether entropy is “distribution of energy”, or degree of randomness.

B. Embryology
Quote, “That is an obvious increase in order.” That is because the order is already there! All the information needed to form that embryo to develop is IN the sperm and egg. The sperm and egg don’t just suddenly learn how to form in to a human being; it’s already programmed in. All the information for where about a trillion cells go is in an area the size of a pinhead. What is impossible is how all that information was randomly assembled into sperm and eggs. I believe an embryologist would laugh if you told him that all the complex order of DNA came from disorder.

3. Gravity
Gravity is not a highly ordered phenomenon. But the exact placement of a planet, at the right time, is. Scientists have computed that the earth doesn’t have to be much closer to the sun to melt the ice caps, and flood most of the planet. The odds of the Earth exploding into the right diameter of orbit are incalculable.

4. Darwinism
Darwin’s theory is dependent on order arising from disorder; which is a contradiction to laws of thermodynamics. It is my personal opinion that many professors know this, but will not acknowledge it for fear of losing all they have ever invested research time into.

&gt;&gt;&gt;Most of the writer’s response revolves around entropy, in which the he plainly contradicts himself. He says:

“Entropy is not the same as disorder.”

But the reference he uses, <a href="http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm" target="_blank">http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm</a> says:

“Entropy is also used to mean disorganization or disorder.”


I observe that life is moving to disorder, sometimes slow, sometimes fast. So, how can life evolve more and more complex? How did order arrive from disorder? Evidence points to an all-powerful Creator.

Daggah

Ask him one question, Simulation. Ask him how the snowflake doesn't violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, if evolution does. After all, the snowflake is an example of complexity and order rising out of disorder via natural processes...unless he's going to try to suggest that his god makes each and every snowflake...

RE: Michael Oard - he's on AiG and has written articles in support of the absurdity that is the global flood. So yes, he does sound like a yahoo to me.

In any case, it still remains that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not applicable: it deals with heat. Evolution does not. Ergo, evolution has nothing to do with the 2nd law, case closed.

Kosh

Why don't you invite them over here so you don't
have to waste time acting as a proxy?

Seeing this stuff (which we've gone over before)
has made realize what it must be like to be a
teacher... "Here we go again".

Pantera

Simulation, at this point my advice is that your correspondant is too dumb to be worth arguing with.

Nonsense. Nebraska Man was never widely accepted. Also, note that it was demonstrated to be a mistake by scientists, not creationists.

A couple of links on Nebraske Man <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html" target="_blank">here</a>.



Energy doesn't decrease. That's not what you (or Wizardry) said. The amount of energy available to do work decreases. This fellow does not even have a high school student's understanding of physics, so why he thinks he's outsmarted the Hubble scientists is beyond me.

What it refers to is the the fact that when heat flows from a hot body to a cold body, it can be harnessed to do useful work. For example, by vapourising water on a hot surface you generate steam which can drive a turbine. However once the surface has cooled down, no more water can be vapourise, so the turbine stops. Tha amount of energy in the system remains constant, but it is no longer available to do work. The only way you can keep the turbine going indefinitely is to keep inputing energy into the system - eg by heating up the surface again. That is an actual consequence of the 2LoT - note nothing to do with evolution.



Actually known well before Einstein.



Perhaps he could explain what all that white stuff outside is then.



Crap. For a start he doesn't know the difference between information and entropy. In fact - ask him to define information - that'll stump him.



Anyone want to hazard a guess at what percentage of embryologists accept evolution?



Note his entirely subjective definitions of order. By what standard is a planet 150 million km from the sun considered more "ordered" than one 140 million km?

And where did he get the idea that the planets exploded into orbit? Does he think they emerged fully formed from the big bang?



Given that he knows nothing about the laws of thermodynamics, this is a pretty bold statement.



How many professors has he asked?

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Wizardry

Luckily for me, this person doesn't know what they are talking about. This won't be hard.

[quote]The fundamental area I would like other readers to notice comes from the statements of the writer using bad america’s thread. I will address all points in the format that he/she did, one by one.

This writer summarizes his opinions in part of a paragraph, which I quote, “You can’t prove anything in science….All we can ever do is disprove something by finding a counterexample.” Let’s look at the two ways we can address the overall issue:

- Predetermine a fact, then try to find evidence to prove it; to support a hypothesis, or

- Form a hypothesis, gather evidence, conduct experiments, and then determine fact.

Which one sounds like the standard Scientific Method on which all science is based?
Which one hints that all things will be disproved, and reduces the priority of evidence?[quote]

I don't know what this is or how it's even relevant. Science is supposed to work in some version of the following manner(according to Karl Popper): Propose a hypothesis. Conduct experiments designed to disprove that hypothesis. If the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, discard the hypothesis. If it agrees, repeat.

You never ever prove something or determine that a hypothesis is true because we are not within the bounds of an axiomatic system. You can prove a theory wrong, but you can never prove one right.

They are very smart people and that's why it might be unwise to challenge their work in a field to which they've devoted their lives.

To accuse a professional scientist of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics with their interpretation of the physical data is pretty much like accusing a professional English grammarian of misusing the semicolon. To accuse nearly every astronomer since the development of thermodynamics of misinterpreting the data is so absurd that it should immediately be considered false.

Which is one reason why you're wrong.

This time, the mistake is yours.

Not all scientists accepted Nebraska Man. I direct your attention to <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html" target="_blank">Talk.Origins</a>.

That kind of misinterpretation is rarely, if ever accepted as fact. There were quite a few skeptics of Nebraska man, and it was eventually disproved. That's how science works. There are graduate schools full of kids who would like to make a name for themselves by showing a well accepted tenet of science to be wrong. The fact that it isn't happening should tell you something.

Who said it wasn't?

This guy's so dense, light must bend around him. I didn't say that energy decreases. I said that the amount of energy available to do work decreases. There is a difference. For example, you cannot build a heat engine out of a system at thermal equilibrium. It is impossible. Hence the eventual heat death of the universe: when the universe is at thermal equilibrium, no work will be able to be done and all processes will cease.

Entropy is not a measure of entropy, but available energy for work. The energy content remains the same, but amount of energy available for work decreases. In a machine, some energy is always lost to friction and heat; that energy becomes unavailable for work. If that energy could be used, then we could construct a machine with an efficiency of 100%. That's impossible, by the way.

That is the definition that is most commonly used in chemistry, because the concept of work is generally inapplicable to a chemistry course. When I took Chemistry I, they didn't mention work either, imagine that. I hope you don't think that you can contradict a definition of the word used by most physicists and thermodynamacists by using an introductory chemistry text.

Just so the "readers" know where I got my definition of entropy, I got it from the guy who invented the freaking concept: Rudolf Clausius.

If there's no less order in a single cell zygote then in a full human being, then I don't see what his problem is with evolution.

So now we're on the fine tuning argument now? Perhaps this guy would like to notice that there are a lot of stars in the galaxy and a lot of galaxies in the universe. In our own solar system, there are two planets that aren't that far off. I don't consider the odds all that bad that some planet would wind up at about this distance from a star.

He says that like he's not blatently wrong. Order arising from disorder is perfectly possible in an open system. He has a chemistry textbook. He should then be well aware that you can decrease the entropy of a system by supplying energy to the system.

It is my personal opinion that this guy is a moron. And I've backed mine up.

Why should we trust this observation from someone who is obviously scientifically illiterate? What evidence is there for a creator? Why are the only people who see this evidence members of a first century Roman cult that once claimed vehemently that the earth was the center of the universe?

The disorder interpretation is an equivalent and valid interpretation of entropy. However, the two terms are not exactly the same.

Have fun with this fruit loop.

Peace out.

Dr Rick

The maturation of a zygote requires an increase in orderliness within the growing organism. There is more overall order in a trillion functioning cells than in one. A devoloping embryo utilizes energy to assemble the various constituents of its body into a more orderly system.

<strong> Yes, it certainly is. Life is not a random process. No one who understands evolution and biology would assert otherwise.

He would probably also find humor in your Strawman fallacy; DNA does not just self-assemble from disorder. DNA is a string of nucleotides assembled from a less ordered state into a more ordered one by a living organism which utilizes energy to bring the structure together. In this process, the individual bases are placed into a more ordered state by the living organism.

Such a planet could still support life. If this had happened, we might have evolved to survive better in the water. But things happened the way they did, and humans and other life forms have adapted to the current environment. As a result, some creatures live better on land, others live better in water, and some live well between the two.

From the web page you provided:

It is surprising that mixing entropy and biology still fosters confusion. The relevant concepts from physics pertaining to the second law of thermodynamics are at least 100 years old. The confusion can be eradicated if we distinguish thermodynamic from logical entropy, and admit that Earth's biological system is open to organizing input from outside (emphasis added).

<strong> I wonder how many Christian leaders know they are lying but will not acknowledge it for fear of losing all of their funding from gullible followers?

How did this all-powerful creator arise from disorder?

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>