Thermodynamics

You have many questions. Many of them good ones too. Some not answered yet.However, the topic if this thread is thermodynamics and it's relation to evolution.Have you had that question answered sufficiently now?If so we can let this topic go quiet until the issue is brought up again. And it will since, as you have been shown, there are organizations out there who are willfully misleading people on the question.

Oh, I see, you're just an open-minded dude objectively investigating the issues and merely by coincidence asking the same questions as Creationists in the same way as Creationists. Thank God! I'm so relieved you won't be advocating any of the traditional Creationist fare like a young earth, a vapor canopy, hydroplate theory, the absence of transitionals, irreducible complexity, intelligent design and the fallacy of radiometric dating. These topics just get so tiresome after a while, and it will be so much more interesting debating a novel thinker like you who thinks for himself. I don't even know what that means, so I'll withhold agreement for now. Were you thinking perhaps of heat death? As Nosy has already noted, these are other topics. I think you're referring to the Big Bang, the origin of life, and evolution of increasingly complex organisms. These are traditional Creationist issues, by the way. Are we done with thermodynamics?--Percy

(Woohoo. I always wanted to "admin" Percy...)It is possible for someone new to this whole debate to be reading information from creationist sources, which looks superfically plausible, and to want to check it out.The original post was well stated. It presents in the form of questions, requesting response from the evolutionist perspective. The author is not particularly familiar with thermodynamics; and there is plenty of material to give someone entirely the wrong idea of what it all implies. We can address that here.It is possible that the questioner does indeed have other questions about the stardard creationist arguments, without actually being a committed creationist... just someone starting out in the whole subject, and reading all kinds of stuff, and wondering why on earth all we evolutionists don't appear to take any account of all these other scientific models. We can explain that too.People new to this debate often don't even know the best way to go about checking claims... or perhaps we are just the first port of call in part of a check to see what the other side might say. Either way, we don't need to be snide.(This is just a friendly reminder from forum moderators; no official moderator action is being considered.)Cheers -- AdminSylas

The peanut gallery demands a suspension!!

Sure, it's possible that Jordo86 is just a curious person seeking answers, but he set off my dissembling alarms, so while the evidence I can cite from his short history here is slight, my instincts have proven pretty good over time. That's why I responded as I did to this from Message 45: But he isn't arguing from his own skepticism - he's mining Creationist websites, and his point of view and level of understanding is consistent with the average Creationist we see here. There's nothing wrong with this, that's what most do, but he shouldn't try to paint a different picture. I cite Behe in this regard: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then we're warranted in concluding it's a duck. If he sticks around I think he'll be revealed as a traditional YEC who adheres to Biblical inerrancy and believes the tale in Genesis is the last word on origins.Jordo86 shouldn't try to obscure where he's coming from. I have the same reaction to this feign of independent thought as I do to John Paul's pose as a Moslem and wmscott's anonymous positive review of his own (self-published) book. It's a lie and it's done only to raise false impressions in the minds of others.--Percy

I dont see how what i said in "Message 45" makes me a creationist. Its been years since iv read creationist material (excepting the quick skim through the link one of the fellas posted earlier on)so if i ever do word anything like the typical creationist, its must be subconsciously. But i am not very familiar with many creationist arguments aside from the basic questions most people would think of if they were interested in this topic. (You mentioned a few, transitional fossils ect)And my comment on what Crashfrog said? That was my own thought, it was not influenced by anything. It doesnt take a genius to notice that humans are both COMPLEX and ORDERED. Am i wrong with this? Anyone?But yeah,just to set it sraight now, yes i am an open minded person. Skeptical, but not totally stubborn. If i am given a full, STRAIGHT answer that i am happy with...well then im willing to beleive anything.

And yeah, i was talking about heat death

The issue here was thermodynamics and evolution. Have you been satisfied on that topic?

No not yet. Im still not happy with the responses i got.
My question is "how can beings become more ordered AND complex (yes, i think that the complex beings of this earth are very well ordered. My personal opinion) when their is a law over their heads telling them to break down and tear apart. (Sorry guys im sure your finding me frustrating but if you give me a good straight answer i will listen to reason)

What is this complex thing? You haven't defined it yet. In fact you haven't defined ordered yet.If you read the links you were given you find that both order and complexity ( without a numerical definition there either) can increase without any thermodynmic problems. Did you miss that part? Message 22JonF even pulls parts out of the links which note the error in using order vs disorder in this context. Please read it over more carefully.It is interesting that you say this: and then use words like "ordered" and "complex"-- did you pick those terms yourself?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-14-2005 11:08 AM

The question doesn't really have a lot to do with evolution. Consider the whole reproductive process - don't you think that going from a single cell to an adult human is an amazing increase in order and complexity ? And that - rather than evolution - is the level where thermodynamics most obviously apply.And the reason it works is because there is no law saying that they must break down. The 2nd Law of Termodynamics applies everywhere but it does not say that there cannot be localised increases in even thermodynamic order ("order" in the ordinary sense of the term really doesn't correspond to anything in thermodynamics).

Please let me ask you to consider this.Before a house is built it is very ordered. All the lumber is neatly stacked in a pile, the nails are boxed and sitting on shelves, the glass sits aside in a sheltered area. All the components are gathered together by kind, glass with glass, nail with nail, door with door, shingle with shingle.Bear with me, we will get to the 2^nd. Law of Thermodynamics quickly.Do you agree so far? If not, why?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I apologize if i havnt worded this right, but i do mean for it to apply to progressive, biological evolution.Yes, a single cell to an adult is an amazing increase in both order and complexity. But it is following a code programmed into its genes. However, it only seems to defy the law until a certain point. Then the body gets frail, organs shut down and death occurs. We are always fighting a battle in which we ultimately lose, but its only in the last leg of the race that the 2LT gets ahead.But (and ill assume evolution is true here) our bodies along with our code did not always exist. How did the original organisms, without miles of pre-coding defy this law before passing its genes onto the next generation?Now lets assume that in a localised event something does grow, manages to reproduce and THEN dies. But then the next generation has to manage the same thing, and so on. Over millions of generations this law is being broken long enough until the code is written for all beings to beat it for similar amounts of time (depending on species)But even in a localised situation the law is defied so many times over such a long period that i dont beleive it is possible anymore. Its like if i was playing poker and my hand was a royal flush. It is believable, but odds are i couldnt do it again. But what if i was to do it again? And again? It goes from being something that is beleivable only in small doses to fantasy.

Yes i agree. All the pieces are together in separate piles. (Heh heh i know where this is going)There is total order

Okay, we are together so far.Now is it true that the ordered state that exists becomes the disordered state that we call a house by applying energy in the form of workmen to take all the parts and put them in some newer, more complex form?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion