Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the big bang ( Questions from a Teen )
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 79 (99447)
04-12-2004 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by rineholdr
04-12-2004 1:29 PM


Re: Thermodynamics & the Origin of Life
Where did Isaac Asimov (who didn't take kindly to mispellings of his name, btw) say that? I have his Guide to Earth and Space and I don't see that quote; it doesn't sound like the way he'd put it.
But to be fair, the quote isn't off the mark. The entropy of the universe is increasing. But if you try to use this fact to disprove evolution you'll lose. It is not necessary that the entropy of the earth increase in order for the 2nd law to hold, because earth is not a closed system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by rineholdr, posted 04-12-2004 1:29 PM rineholdr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by rineholdr, posted 04-13-2004 1:08 PM berberry has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 79 (99450)
04-12-2004 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Adminnemooseus
04-12-2004 2:31 PM


Re: Topic drift alert!
Adminnemooseus says:
quote:
...things are making a sharp turn off-topic.
I'll start a new thread, but something tells me it'll die quickly. I'll use rineholdr's subtitle 'Thermodynamics & the Origins of Life'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-12-2004 2:31 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 48 of 79 (99451)
04-12-2004 3:06 PM


NOT THE 'ORIGINS OF LIFE' FORUM!
quote:
Re: Thermodynamics & the Origin of Life
There is an "Origins of Life" forum, and this isn't it. Take the origins of life discussion to a better place.
Adminnemooseus
NOTE BY EDIT: I POSTED THIS BEFORE SEEING MESSAGE 47 - AM
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-12-2004]

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

  
rineholdr
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 79 (99683)
04-13-2004 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by berberry
04-12-2004 2:53 PM


Re: Thermodynamics & the Origin of Life
Isaac Asimov: "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even," Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970 page 6

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by berberry, posted 04-12-2004 2:53 PM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Eta_Carinae, posted 04-13-2004 1:20 PM rineholdr has replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 50 of 79 (99687)
04-13-2004 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by rineholdr
04-13-2004 1:08 PM


You (and it seems Asimov) are misunderstanding Thermodynamics
Entropy is NOT a measure of macroscopic order/disorder. It never has been and never will be.
Please repeat the above sentence until you remember it.
The order/disorder analogy is just that - an analogy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by rineholdr, posted 04-13-2004 1:08 PM rineholdr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Brad McFall, posted 04-13-2004 1:37 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied
 Message 52 by rineholdr, posted 04-13-2004 1:45 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied
 Message 53 by rineholdr, posted 04-13-2004 3:16 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 51 of 79 (99693)
04-13-2004 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Eta_Carinae
04-13-2004 1:20 PM


Re: You (and it seems Asimov) are misunderstanding Thermodynamics
Not believing in (a)free will is a bit much to impose. Provine does not premit studenets to so think even about entropy changing ( he would have allowed me to freely express some willingness that entropy could be macroscopically describable someday)but did permit it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Eta_Carinae, posted 04-13-2004 1:20 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
rineholdr
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 79 (99696)
04-13-2004 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Eta_Carinae
04-13-2004 1:20 PM


Re: You (and it seems Asimov) are misunderstanding Thermodynamics
Being caught with an evidence-free and experimentally contradicted theory would nnormally induce scientists to abandon the impotent theory in favor of a competing theory that better explains the facts. However, when it comes to the subject of origins, if naturalistic processes are inadequate then the only alternative is supernatural creation.
Philosophically, creation is so disdained by many scientists that they would rather hold to an impossible theory than accept the alternative of creation. Of course, admitting this bluntly is embarrassing since scientists are supposed to stick to the facts and not let their pejudice and emotions sway them. Therfore, they attempt to camouflage their indefensible position by making a procalamation that their pet theory wins after all because, by definition, it is the only theory that qualifies as a scientific explanation of origins. Thus, although the evolution theory is contradicted by known science and is downright impossible, it still has to be accepted because it is the "only show in town" so to speak. Creation is excluded by virtue of a bogus definition of science. Therefore, evolution, though worthless, still wins by default since it doesn't have to compete with creation because creation has been wrongfully defined as a non-competitor.
The intellectual bankruptcy of this absurd position is well seen in the words of evolutionist L.T. More who said, "The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." How is it possible that something could be both true and irrational? Isn't the truth rational by virtue of it being the truth? It should be. but what if the truth turns out to be something very undesirable. Then one could be strongly motivated to label the truth as "unscientific" or "irrational" in order to call attention away from the fact that the truth does not agree with one's beloved theory. This is precisely what many evolutionist have done. They know they cannot disprove the possibility of creation by the scientific method, so it may very well be true, but this possibility is denied consideration on the grounds that it does not fit the definition of rational science. Of course, they have illegitimately assumed for themselves the authority to define science as pure naturalism. Accordinglly, any theory which sees naturalistic forces as inadequate and therfore postulates supernatural intervention is automatically thrown out of the arean because the self-proclaimed rule-makers have labeled it an invalid competitor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Eta_Carinae, posted 04-13-2004 1:20 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
rineholdr
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 79 (99712)
04-13-2004 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Eta_Carinae
04-13-2004 1:20 PM


Re: You (and it seems Asimov) are misunderstanding Thermodynamics
I cannot allow myself to be swayed by a single statement you make without any proof to back it up...there's plenty of folks out there who may do that because they think you are the all knowing scientific guru but...get a reality check...
Lets talk probability...game?
If evolutionists ould only take the time to realistically check out the implications of the second law of thermodynamics, or at least to examine their arguments using probability analysis, they hopefully would no longer dare to make such incredible assertions about the supposed "miraculous" power of time. Evolutionists who have bothered to make a serious and thorough probability analysis of evoution therory have been stunned by the results. Consider their testimony.
Peter T. Mora:
The prescence of a living unit is exactly opposite to what we would expect on the basis of pure statistical and probability considerations.
Harold Urey:
All of us who study the origin of life afind that the more we look at it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an artical of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great athat it is hard for us to imagine that it did.
A.I Oparin (The father of Origin-of -life research):
To the student of protein structure, the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as improbable as would the accidental origin of the text of Virgil's Aneid[a Latin epic poem] from scattered letter type.
Futher more he acknowledged:
It is sometimes argued in speculative papers on the origin of life that highly improbable events (such as the spontaneous formation of a molecule of DNA and a moecule of DNA-polyerase in the same region of space and at the same time) become virtually inevitable over the vast stretches of geological time. No serious quantitative [mathematical] arguments, however, are given in support of such conclusions.
Harod Blum:
The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. This calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all liveing matter and systems are descended from a single protein molecule which was formed as a "chance" act.
Paul Erbrich:
The probability...of the convergent evolution of two proteins with approximately the same structure and funtion is to low to be plausible, even when all possible circumstances are present which seem to heighten the likelihood of such convergences. I this is so, then the plausibility of a random evolution of two or more different but functionally related proteins seems hardley greater.
David H. White:
Even a vastly simplified version of the modern genitic apparatus, requiring perhaps 20 proteins working together, would have a very low probability of even one copy of each protein being in the ocean at the same time. If you started with a billion planets like the primitive earth and let each of them react for a billion years, chances are that not one of them would come up with the right combination even once.
Francis Crick:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miricle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.
Stanley Angrist And Loren Hepler:
Life, the temporary reversal of a universal trend toward maximum disorder, was brought about by the production of information mechanisms. In order for such mechanisms to first arise it was necessary to have matter capable of forming itself into a self-reproducing structure that could extract energy from the environment for its first self-assembly. Directions for the reproduction of plans, for the extraction of energy and chemicals from the environment, for the growth of sequence and the mechanism for translating istructions into growth all had to be simultaneously present at that moment. This combination of events has seemed a incredibly unlikely happenstance and often divine intervention is prescribed as the only way it could have comeabout.
Peter T. Mora:
I believe we developed the practice of infinite escape clauses to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of a self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude form classical quantum mechanical principles [mathematical probability analysis], as Wigner demonstrated...
We have seen that many evolutionists avoid aprobability analysis as if it were the plague. Small Wonder! The implications drawn from such analysis are horribly unnerving to those who embrace a non-theistic philosophy. Those relatively few evolutionsits who who have dared to make a realistic and through examination of evolution theroy using probability calculations have reluctantly conceded the serious challenge of the probability argument against evolution. Try as they may, however, none of them has ever produced an adequate answer to the devastating testimony of the scientifically proven laws of probability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Eta_Carinae, posted 04-13-2004 1:20 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Eta_Carinae, posted 04-13-2004 4:19 PM rineholdr has not replied
 Message 55 by Loudmouth, posted 04-13-2004 7:17 PM rineholdr has not replied
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2004 12:25 AM rineholdr has not replied
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2004 5:00 PM rineholdr has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 54 of 79 (99729)
04-13-2004 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by rineholdr
04-13-2004 3:16 PM


Take a step back.
Before getting in a tizzy about (silly?) probability questions please first understand thermodynamics.
Can you (in a few sentences not a dense 10 paragraphs) tell me your problems with thermodynamics and why you feel the order/disorder viewpoint has merit.
I think you are under many misconceptions that will not get addressed in 40 line posts that somewhat change the subject.
By the way, the probability arguments posited by Creationists are usually infantile in thought and are strawmen in the extreme. After clearing up the thermodynamics I'll go on to explain why they are terrible arguments.
[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 04-13-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by rineholdr, posted 04-13-2004 3:16 PM rineholdr has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 79 (99746)
04-13-2004 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by rineholdr
04-13-2004 3:16 PM


Re: You (and it seems Asimov) are misunderstanding Thermodynamics
quote:
We have seen that many evolutionists avoid aprobability analysis as if it were the plague. Small Wonder! The implications drawn from such analysis are horribly unnerving to those who embrace a non-theistic philosophy.
It is unnerving because the probabilities are all unwarranted. They make evo's cringe because they are bad math, and the people that use them are self-professed experts.
Just as an example, lets use some creationist math to prove that you or I were never born.
Just as an estimate, let's say there are 1 million cities in the world. This means, using creationist math, that the chances of you being born in the city your were born are 1 in a million. The chances of me being born in a certain city is also 1 in a million. The chances of both of us being born in precise cities is 1 in a million million, or 1:1012. Therefore, I can say that these odds are too high and that neither of us were born. Of course, we know this isn't true. The odds of us being born are 1:1, because it happened, just as the odds of life occuring are 1:1, because there is life.
The other flaw in creationist probabilities is that there is no agreement on what the first life was. Before probabilities can be ascribed to a specific DNA, RNA, or protein sequence, the actual sequence has to be known. To put it mildly, creationist construct their own probabilities from their day dreams in order to make people like yourself feel better about their faith. These probabilities have no ties to reality, nor are they indicative of reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by rineholdr, posted 04-13-2004 3:16 PM rineholdr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Brad McFall, posted 04-14-2004 7:38 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 79 (99825)
04-14-2004 12:06 AM


Y'all are getting WAY off-topic
I created a new topic, Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution in the 'Origins of Life' forum for the express purpose of continuing this discussion. You may continue here if you wish, but I think you're running the risk of a topic closure.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 57 of 79 (99829)
04-14-2004 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by rineholdr
04-13-2004 3:16 PM


the old improbable probability problem
We have seen that many evolutionists avoid aprobability analysis as if it were the plague.
this is now addressed at
EvC Forum: the old improbable probability problem
please make all replies there.
(edited to remove off-topic material)
[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-14-2004]

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by rineholdr, posted 04-13-2004 3:16 PM rineholdr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-14-2004 5:20 AM RAZD has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 58 of 79 (99875)
04-14-2004 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by RAZD
04-14-2004 12:25 AM


Probability message - nice, but very off-topic
The non-admin mode thinks this is a very nice message (POTM quality).
The admin mode thinks it's at least mostly off-topic, and deserves a better home (new topic?).
Care to try out the Proposed New Topic forum?
Adminnemooseus
Edited to try out newly modified "signature"
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-14-2004]

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2004 12:25 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2004 10:48 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 59 of 79 (99926)
04-14-2004 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Adminnemooseus
04-14-2004 5:20 AM


Re: Probability message - nice, but very off-topic
new topic proposed

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-14-2004 5:20 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
rineholdr
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 79 (100014)
04-14-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by coffee_addict
04-02-2004 6:42 PM


If gravity is what kept the cosmic egg together why would it want to expand? Does it operate as you state like a star that burns out its fuel collapses and explodes? Once the expansion started during the big expansion (new Name) as a homogonous hydrogen gas cloud, the gas pressure mechanics would far outweigh any gravity that would be generated by the cloud itself by as much as 50 times. As you describe the sequence of events...which by the way have never been obsurved...you state them as though they are facts and they are only hypoth. First there is speculation then wild speculation then cosmology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by coffee_addict, posted 04-02-2004 6:42 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024