Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thermodynamics
Own3D
Junior Member (Idle past 6214 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 03-21-2007


Message 1 of 27 (390949)
03-22-2007 5:54 PM


Ok, here are the first two Laws of Thermodynamics.
The First Law of Thermodynamics:
In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
There is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work.
Evolution is not a theory; Special Creation is not a theory.
Both are models for explaining the origin of life on Earth. Neither can be proved scientifically, Evolution would occur far too slow to be observed and the bulk of evolution would have occured in the distant past, and Special Creation is said to have occured in the past and is also said to have been brought about by process that are not functioning today. So neither model can be "proven" scientifically. In the end, by scientific evaluation, both could be considered wrong, and a new model formulated. Becaise neither model can be "proven" this means that neither model can be "disproven". Because of this status (being neither able to prove nor disprove either model) both should be considered outside the realm of "science"
The basic postulate of Evolution is a "law" of increasing organization, which introduces new systems into higher systems; The Principle of Naturalistic Innovation and Integration would be a suitable name.
The basic postulate of Special Creation is that in the beggining God formed a complete and perfect, as well as purposeful, primeaval world. God then set in place laws and principles of conservation. The Principle of Naturalistic Conservation and Disintegration would be a suitable name.
All scientists agree that the universe is running down (entropy). This is accepted as a universal fact in The Second Law of Thermodynamics. All observed scientific evidence agrees with and upholds this law. The evolution model postulates an increase in useable energy, information, and complexity of living organisms. The Special Creation model postulates a running down of the universe (Any change in an originally perfect environment must be in the direction of imperfection). (entropy) By applying the information observed by science, it can be seen that the Special Creation model predicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, whilst the Evolution model propses a contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that energy becomes unavailable for use, disorder increases and information becomes garbled. Evolution requires that energy be gained, order icreases and information added. Clearly, this is a contradiction to the Evolutionary model.
I'll continue this later, as for now, I have a lot on my plate to do. See you all later.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2007 6:06 PM Own3D has not replied
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 03-22-2007 6:09 PM Own3D has not replied
 Message 4 by Modulous, posted 03-22-2007 6:31 PM Own3D has not replied
 Message 5 by Parasomnium, posted 03-22-2007 7:50 PM Own3D has not replied
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2007 10:00 PM Own3D has not replied
 Message 7 by fallacycop, posted 03-23-2007 11:00 AM Own3D has not replied
 Message 13 by Matt P, posted 03-24-2007 3:39 AM Own3D has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 27 (390951)
03-22-2007 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Own3D
03-22-2007 5:54 PM


Ther's a lot wrong with your post.
Evolution is a scientific theory. It does not deal with the origin of life. It can be observed on a small scale in fast-breeding organisms (bacteria are good). It does not postulate a "law" of increasing organisation.
To deal with thermo dynamics, one thign you have o understand is that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics does NOT propose that entropy is always increasing everywhere. Overall entropy is increasing. Local decreases in entropy are perfectly permissable (if they weren't then refrigerators would be impossible !). SO even if everythign else you say is right you can't say that evolution is against the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. To say that, you need to go into the details and actually show a real violation. Are you ready to do that ? Or even to try it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Own3D, posted 03-22-2007 5:54 PM Own3D has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 27 (390954)
03-22-2007 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Own3D
03-22-2007 5:54 PM


Hello, Own3D, and welcome to EvC.
quote:
Neither can be proved scientifically, Evolution would occur far too slow to be observed and the bulk of evolution would have occured in the distant past, and Special Creation is said to have occured in the past and is also said to have been brought about by process that are not functioning today.
Actually, either one or both could potentially be "proven", as much as anything can be proven in science. As I have said before, not all potential past histories are consistent with the world that we see today. The theory of evolution certainly makes predictions as to what we should see in the world today. In so far that these predictions have always been born out, we may say that evolution has been "proven". As much as Special Creation makes predictions that have not been born out, then we can say that Special Creation has been disproven.
-
quote:
The evolution model postulates an increase in useable energy, information, and complexity of living organisms.
The theory of evolution does not postulate an increase in useable energy. It may or may not postulate an increase in information -- it is hard to determine because creationists either do not give a quantifiable definition of "information", or they change the definition whenever it is convenient. Likewise, "complexity" is an ill-defined concept.
-
quote:
By applying the information observed by science, it can be seen that the Special Creation model predicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics...
Actually, the only thing Special Creation postulates is that originally the world was perfect, then it was imperfect. The entropy nonsense was added post priori after the concept was discovered. That the second law of thermodynamics is consistent with Special Creation is not the same as being a successful prediction of Special Creation.
-
quote:
...whilst the Evolution model propses a contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I don't understand this statement seeing how earlier you had a correct statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
quote:
here is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work.
Evolution does not rely on a process that has no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a resevoir and the production of an equal amount of work.
-
quote:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that energy becomes unavailable for use, disorder increases and information becomes garbled.
This is not a correct statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Your earlier statement is correct, and evolution does not violate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Own3D, posted 03-22-2007 5:54 PM Own3D has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 4 of 27 (390966)
03-22-2007 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Own3D
03-22-2007 5:54 PM


Why evolution is not thermodynamically prohibited
Maxwell's Demon
Imagine a coke bottle gets opened in a sealed room. Gas escapes the bottle and spreads across the room. That is the thermodynamically appropriate state of affairs. Those molecules are not likely to end up all convened back in the bottle.
However, if a little demon lived on the bottle top and this demon grabbed the gas molecules that were in the bottle and leaves those that weren't and procedes puts these gas molecules back into the bottle, while simulatenously preventing the release of any gas molecules from the bottle, then eventually the bottle will be filled with all that gas, despite the thermodynamic absurdity of this happening without the demon.
Maxwell proposed that a selective entity could create a system in which that which seems thermodynamically improbable, turns out to be inevitable. This does not break the second law though - since the demon has to do work to be a selective entity. That work is not 100% efficient, some energy is lost as entropy.
Evolution has a selective entity. It is called natural selection, and the theory of evolution describes it. It describes natural selection as an inefficient system - a lot of energy and inefficient work goes into creating babies, and those babies growing and eating and so on, and not all of them survive. It is a very wasteful process and the end result is a hell of a lot of entropy increase in the universe.
Evolution is not a perpetual motion machine, cut of its power, and it runs out of steam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Own3D, posted 03-22-2007 5:54 PM Own3D has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 5 of 27 (390983)
03-22-2007 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Own3D
03-22-2007 5:54 PM


Not the Second Law again...
Own3D writes:
Becaise neither model can be "proven" this means that neither model can be "disproven".
Could you please explain how you come to this conclusion? Suppose I have a model that explains how gravity works: it's caused by invisible oxygen-breathing pixies who push things to earth. If they didn't do this, everything would be floating around all the time. Now, I don't think I'll ever be able to prove my model. But it doesn't take a genius to propose an experiment whereby we suspend a metal ball on an electromagnet in a vacuum chamber. We wait until the pixies have asphyxiated and switch off the electromagnet. If the ball falls, then we have effectively disproved my model, because something else than pixies must cause it to go down.
The basic postulate of Evolution is a "law" of increasing organization, which introduces new systems into higher systems; The Principle of Naturalistic Innovation and Integration would be a suitable name.
It's all very well to go and reinvent the theory of evolution, but what is it going to bring you? All that's going to happen in the rest of your post is that you are going to shoot down a theory of evolution that never was.
All scientists agree that the universe is running down (entropy). This is accepted as a universal fact in The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
the Evolution model propses a contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
First you say that all scientists agree on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and then you say they don't. Which is it?
Frankly, what you say doesn't make sense to me.
Edited by Parasomnium, : Removed the word 'bearing'.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Own3D, posted 03-22-2007 5:54 PM Own3D has not replied

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


Message 6 of 27 (391001)
03-22-2007 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Own3D
03-22-2007 5:54 PM


Ok, here are the first two Laws of Thermodynamics.
So?
The basic postulate of Special Creation is that in the beggining God formed a complete and perfect, as well as purposeful, primeaval world. God then set in place laws and principles of conservation.
The Special Creation model postulates a running down of the universe (Any change in an originally perfect environment must be in the direction of imperfection).
So when new species are observed to evolve, how does this not violate the second law for Special Creation?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Own3D, posted 03-22-2007 5:54 PM Own3D has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by SpongeLikeBattleAxe, posted 03-24-2007 12:30 AM RAZD has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 7 of 27 (391051)
03-23-2007 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Own3D
03-22-2007 5:54 PM


Ok, here are the first two Laws of Thermodynamics.
The First Law of Thermodynamics:
In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
There is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work.
That's basically correct. I gather you copied it from some text book.
The rest of your post is cranky garbage. Let me make you a favor and shred it for you...
Evolution is not a theory; Special Creation is not a theory.
Both are models for explaining the origin
You contradicted yourself.
That's what atheory is: A model for explaining some observation.
Evolution would occur far too slow to be observed
You are mistaken.
Evolution has already been observed.
and the bulk of evolution would have occured in the distant past
Pointless statement because being in the distant past does not preclude observation
Becaise neither model can be "proven" this means that neither model can be "disproven".
Non-sequitur
The basic postulate of Evolution is a "law" of increasing organization, which introduces new systems into higher systems;
That one is a misconception about what the theory of evolution is.
The evolution model postulates an increase in useable energy, information, and complexity of living organisms.
More misconceptions.
Evolution model propses a contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Evolution does not occur as a "cycle that produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work.", or any other equivalent statement.
Therefore the 2LoT has no application here...
Edited by fallacycop, : typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Own3D, posted 03-22-2007 5:54 PM Own3D has not replied

  
SpongeLikeBattleAxe
Junior Member (Idle past 6214 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-23-2007


Message 8 of 27 (391234)
03-24-2007 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
03-22-2007 10:00 PM


So?
I was reading this forum, and was quite enjoying the well thought out arguments posted here. But then I came down to the "argument" (probably better labelled "cat vomit") posted by RAZD. RAZD, please, learn to present a logical argument before blighting intelligent discussion. Not only did you not explain or lay out your thoughts but you start by trying to poke fun at OWN3D for doing exactly that. Then there was your attempt at argument:
So when new species are observed to evolve, how does this not violate the second law for Special Creation?
I would like farther explanation of exactly what that’s supposed to mean, as the second law of thermodynamics is the same for both evolution and special creation. The implications (namely the decrease in entropy) of any observed evolution of new species are the same regardless of weather evolution, special creation or neither were the origin of life on this planet. If a decrease of entropy is a direct result of evolution, then either evolution or the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. If a decrease in entropy is not a necessary result of evolution, then the ideas are reconciled. If new species are observed to evolve, that does not violate the second law for Special Creation, not any more then it violates the second law for evolution, because both laws are the same: entropy will increase.
If the aim of that statement of yours was actually supposed to be the age old argument, "but evolution HAS been observed!" then I think its time for you to explain the statement with proof. IF evolution has been observed no one told me about it, and I would appreciate knowing the “whos”, “whens”, “weres” and “whats” involved in this much mentioned, yet never described observation.
In the mean time I give this advice to anyone else who wishes to make unsupported statements then use a smart-alicy finisher like:
Enjoy.
It better to stay quite and look like a fool, then to open your mouth and confirm it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2007 10:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by kuresu, posted 03-24-2007 12:49 AM SpongeLikeBattleAxe has replied
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2007 3:36 PM SpongeLikeBattleAxe has not replied

  
Own3D
Junior Member (Idle past 6214 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 03-21-2007


Message 9 of 27 (391236)
03-24-2007 12:31 AM


PaulK, what do you define as a scientific theory? Scientific theory as defined by wikipedia is:
In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.
Would you agree to this definition?
quote:
Evolution is a scientific theory. It does not deal with the origin of life. It can be observed on a small scale in fast-breeding organisms (bacteria are good).
Show when, what, and who. When was it observed? What was observed to evolve? Who observed the process?
quote:
Overall entropy is increasing. Local decreases in entropy are perfectly permissible (if they weren't then refrigerators would be impossible!).
Do you fully understand how a refrigerator functions? This is how wikipedia defines the function of a refrigerator:
The vapor compression cycle is used in most household refrigerators. In this cycle, a circulating refrigerant such as Freon enters the compressor as a vapor at its boiling point. The vapor is compressed and exits the compressor as a superheated vapor. The superheated vapor travels through part of the condenser which removes the superheat by cooling the vapor. The vapor travels through the remainder of the condenser and is condensed into a liquid at its boiling point. The saturated liquid refrigerant passes through the expansion valve (also called a pelvic thrust) where its pressure abruptly decreases. The decrease in pressure results in the flash evaporation and auto-refrigeration of a portion of the liquid (typically, less than half of the liquid flashes). The cold and partially vaporized refrigerant travels through the coil or tubes in the evaporator. There a fan circulates room air across the coil or tubes, and the refrigerant is totally vaporized, extracting heat from the air which is then returned to the food compartment. The refrigerant vapour returns to the compressor inlet to complete the thermodynamic cycle.
The refrigerator does remove heat energy from one area and releases it at another area. This would contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, however, everyone knows that a fridge has to be plugged into a power point to function as it was designed. This introduction of an outside power source negates your argument, because the some energy is then lost. To take it further, one could say that during the power generation process at the power plant, more energy is lost because of the burning of fossil fuels in the power plant. ( It could be a nuclear power plant or an alternative energy power plant. Energy in a nuclear power plant is lost as radiation, and alternative power plants, such as wind powered fans, lose energy to friction during the process of turning the blades. Not all the energy of the wind is collected, some is lost to friction.)
Hello, Chiroptera, thanks for the welcome.
quote:
not all potential past histories are consistent with the world that we see today.
Both models postulate that conditions were different in the past. The difference, however, is that Special Creation postulates that conditions were different because of divine influence. Evolution would rely on everything functioning naturally with completely natural cause with no interference or influence from an outside divinity.
quote:
The theory of evolution certainly makes predictions as to what we should see in the world today. In so far that these predictions have always been born out, we may say that evolution has been "proven". As much as Special Creation makes predictions that have not been born out, then we can say that Special Creation has been disproven.
This could also be written:
The Special Creation Model certainly makes predictions as to what we should see in the world today. In so far that these predictions have always been born out, we may say that Special Creation has been "proven". As much as the Evolutionary model makes predictions that have not been born out, then we can say that Evolution has been disproven.
Both models have shortfalls, nothing man has designed can be termed "perfect".
quote:
it is hard to determine because creationists either do not give a quantifiable definition of "information", or they change the definition whenever it is convenient.
Are you saying that the Evolutionary Model is based on the definitions that Creationists use?
quote:
Actually, the only thing Special Creation postulates is that originally the world was perfect, then it was imperfect.
Is this truly the only thing Special Creation postulates? The Special Creation Model is based on the Biblical book of Genesis. (A discussion on the book of Genesis would be in the theological discussion areas. This Discussion is not in the theological area, so we will all stay on topic.) Special Creation postulates that although God created everything pure, perfect, and complete. Man chose to disobey God's commands and thus God changed the laws by which the universe runs on. (Through the curse) He changed them from laws of conservation into laws of disintegration. This is written in Genesis, a book that is thousands of years old. A book that was around a long time before the Evolutionary model. I will stop there, any further and it will go theological.
Hello, Modulous, How are you today?
Ok, I'll admit, I like that story.
quote:
Imagine a coke bottle gets opened in a sealed room. Gas escapes the bottle and spreads across the room. That is the thermodynamically appropriate state of affairs. Those molecules are not likely to end up all convened back in the bottle.
Ok, that’s all fine.
quote:
However, if a little demon lived on the bottle top and this demon grabbed the gas molecules that were in the bottle and leaves those that weren't and precedes puts these gas molecules back into the bottle, while simultaneously preventing the release of any gas molecules from the bottle, then eventually the bottle will be filled with all that gas, despite the thermodynamic absurdity of this happening without the demon.
That’s alri.......WAIT! This story includes a supernatural being, how is that natural means? It most certainly is not natural.
quote:
Maxwell proposed that a selective entity could create a system in which that which seems thermodynamically improbable, turns out to be inevitable. This does not break the second law though - since the demon has to do work to be a selective entity. That work is not 100% efficient, some energy is lost as entropy.
Agreed, the demon would certainly need to do a lot of work, but where does the demon get its energy? The demon must get its energy by natural means for it to comply with evolution, even then, only if the Evolutionary model must still naturalistically describe the presence of a supernatural demon.
quote:
Evolution has a selective entity. It is called natural selection, and the theory of evolution describes it. It describes natural selection as an inefficient system - a lot of energy and inefficient work goes into creating babies, and those babies growing and eating and so on, and not all of them survive. It is a very wasteful process and the end result is a hell of a lot of entropy increase in the universe.
Wow, is that an omnipotent selective entity controlling evolution? the very thing evolution denies existence?
quote:
Evolution is not a perpetual motion machine, cut of its power, and it runs out of steam.
That’s right too. However, where did evolution get its energy in the first place without invoking supernatural interference?
Hello Parasomnium.
quote:
Suppose I have a model that explains how gravity works: it's caused by invisible oxygen-breathing pixies that push things to earth. If they didn't do this, everything would be floating around all the time.
Good, but how do you know that there are pixies in the vacuum chamber when the air is pumped out? Remember the pixies are invisible. Then, if the pixies are invisible, how do you know that they breathe oxygen, how do you know they breathe at all? This can't be shown by science because there is no way to observe the pixies at work. If this model was true, the experiment designed to "disprove" it would not be valid. Everyone can see the same effects of gravity in the solar system, which is in empty space(a vacuum), as those on Earth.
quote:
It's all very well to go and reinvent the theory of evolution
Can you provide a better definition? The basic postulate of Evolution is a "law" of increasing organization, which introduces new systems into higher systems. That’s what evolution proposes to do, develop lower things into higher things, disorganized things into organized things, simple things into complex things.
quote:
First you say that all scientists agree on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and then you say they don't
Wow, you think so? All scientists do accept the Second Law of Thermodynamics as fact, its observable, it can be experimented on, and it’s proven to be a known phenomenon. Not all scientists are, however, Evolutionists.
Hello RAZD.
quote:
So when new species are observed to evolve, how does this not violate the second law for Special Creation?
So what are you calling the Second law for Special Creation? Is it the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The same Second Law of Thermodynamics that is scientifically verified as known and proven FACT? WOW! That statement would support Special Creation. With observed evolution, tell me when it was observed, what was observed to be evolving, and who observed it. Then you would have a valid argument.
Fallacycop, I have covered all that you have proposed.
See you all later.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by kuresu, posted 03-24-2007 1:20 AM Own3D has not replied
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2007 5:53 AM Own3D has not replied
 Message 20 by Parasomnium, posted 03-24-2007 7:26 AM Own3D has not replied
 Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 03-24-2007 9:46 AM Own3D has not replied
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2007 3:46 PM Own3D has not replied
 Message 27 by fallacycop, posted 03-24-2007 4:41 PM Own3D has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 10 of 27 (391239)
03-24-2007 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by SpongeLikeBattleAxe
03-24-2007 12:30 AM


It better to stay quite and look like a fool, then to open your mouth and confirm it.
you are quite right. Care to follow your own advice?
see, RAZD was pointing out that Own3d was trying to use the 2nd LoTD to disprove evolution, without realizing (3D not realizing, that is), that the 2nd LoTD refutes special creation the way that he applied it to the real world. (especially since we have observed the "creation" of new species. not discovery, but actual "creation").
The rest of your post is pure foolishness.
so I ask you--follow your own advice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by SpongeLikeBattleAxe, posted 03-24-2007 12:30 AM SpongeLikeBattleAxe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by SpongeLikeBattleAxe, posted 03-24-2007 12:57 AM kuresu has not replied

  
SpongeLikeBattleAxe
Junior Member (Idle past 6214 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-23-2007


Message 11 of 27 (391240)
03-24-2007 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by kuresu
03-24-2007 12:49 AM


quote:
see, RAZD was pointing out that Own3d was trying to use the 2nd LoTD to disprove evolution, without realizing (3D not realizing, that is), that the 2nd LoTD refutes special creation the way that he applied it to the real world. (especially since we have observed the "creation" of new species. not discovery, but actual "creation").
Ok, to start, please explain:
1. How the 2nd LoTD "refutes special creation the the way he applied it to the real world
2. How RAZD in any way suggested that
3. When and were "we" have observed "actual "creation""

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by kuresu, posted 03-24-2007 12:49 AM kuresu has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 12 of 27 (391241)
03-24-2007 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Own3D
03-24-2007 12:31 AM


Evolution would rely on everything functioning naturally with completely natural cause with no interference or influence from an outside divinity.
actually, the ToE says nothing about the supernatural. it does not preclude the supernatural or include it.
Wow, is that an omnipotent selective entity controlling evolution? the very thing evolution denies existence?
you misunderstand natural selection. it is not omnipotent. heck, it isn't even "alive". and again, ToE does not deny the existence of the supernatural.
However, where did evolution get its energy in the first place without invoking supernatural interference?
take a look outside. see that massive yellow orb? you know, the thing that gives us daylight? heat? or go way down deep. check out the steam-vents in the ocean.
The basic postulate of Evolution is a "law" of increasing organization, which introduces new systems into higher systems. That’s what evolution proposes to do, develop lower things into higher things, disorganized things into organized things, simple things into complex things.
no. evolution = change in species over time. there is no "direction", in terms of becoming more complex or less so. just change.
Show when, what, and who. When was it observed? What was observed to evolve? Who observed the process?
I reccommend checking out TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
He changed them from laws of conservation into laws of disintegration.
you are, apparently, unaware of the laws of conservation of mass and energy. which are very important today.
Are you saying that the Evolutionary Model is based on the definitions that Creationists use?
he isn't. he is saying that it's nearly impossible to debate creationists because they tend to change their definitions or to use those that are not accepted (such as with information theory, shannon is what we use, creos love using dembski's, even though his is not right).
That’s alri.......WAIT! This story includes a supernatural being, how is that natural means? It most certainly is not natural.
you do understand metaphor and analogy, right?
Good, but how do you know that there are pixies in the vacuum chamber when the air is pumped out? Remember the pixies are invisible. Then, if the pixies are invisible, how do you know that they breathe oxygen, how do you know they breathe at all? This can't be shown by science because there is no way to observe the pixies at work. If this model was true, the experiment designed to "disprove" it would not be valid
nice try. not good enough. to figure out if there is something invisible breathing oxygen (or any other gas), you can create a sealed container. after an amount of time has passed, you can determine the levels of specific gases. if no life forms are in there (which you detected previously), and there is less O2 than to begin with, and the container is air-tight, and there is more, say CO2 than to start with, something must have converted it. this could be the "invisible fairy". now we have a way to test for the "fairies". see, it only takes some thought and a little bit of creativity.
we can now observe them. so now we can create a vacuum (empty of gases). after a while, any pixies would be dead or unconscious, and thus unable to push things down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Own3D, posted 03-24-2007 12:31 AM Own3D has not replied

  
Matt P
Member (Idle past 4774 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 13 of 27 (391256)
03-24-2007 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Own3D
03-22-2007 5:54 PM


Thermodynamics of disequilibrium systems
Hi Own3D, welcome to EVC.
The evolution model postulates an increase in useable energy, information, and complexity of living organisms.
Let me first say that entropy seems to be an insurmountable problem in life/evolution/growth/etc., but that is due in large part to a major fatal flaw in your initial conditions. Whether or not you knew it, you assumed that your system started at or very near to thermodynamic equilibrium. Since there are several sources of energy available to life (chemical, solar, thermal, etc.), we can not assume that life is at thermodynamic equilibrium. Under such conditions that is synonymous with death.
It's a major fault in chemical education that thermodynamics only goes to the end of the 19th centrury. Work in thermodynamics in the 1950s and beyond has focused on the development of non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Ilya Prigogine was the leader of this field and received the Nobel prize in chemistry for his work (see Ilya Prigogine - Wikipedia ). Prigogine developed the mathematical basis for non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The math is tough but has been shown to be correct (see Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactions Belousov—Zhabotinsky reaction - Wikipedia).
Note that in order to understand thermodynamics, you have to understand some math and theoretical background. If you don't have the mathematical background, then you can't honestly hope to use thermodynamics to critique evolution.
Let's start with the first and second laws of thermodynamics expressed in chemical terms (modeled after Lunine 2004):
TdS = dE +pdV - SUMiXidNi
where T is the temperature, dS is the change in entropy, dE is the change of energy, p is the pressure, dV is the change in volume, X is the chemical potential of the species of interest in a chemical reaction, and dN is the change of number of atoms/moles of those species of interest.
We can determine the rate of change of entropy of the system if we keep the system energy and volume constant (a convenience which does not affect the generality of this relation). This becomes:
dS/dt = SUMiXidNi/dt
Now let's say we have a chemical reaction:
A B
In this reaction, let's say that "B" is more ordered than "A". The rates of the reaction, k1 and k2, denote the forward and the backward reaction rates, respectively.
The chemical potential for a species is proportional to the forward and the backward rates of reaction:
XA = CA * ln (k1 / k2)
XB = CB * ln (k2 / k1)
where C is just a constant that allows for proportionality.
The change in the number of moles of these species with respect to time is also proportional to the rates of reactions, that is:
dNAA/dt = k1 - k2
dNB/dt = k2 - k1
What happens now when we substitute these into the dS/dt relation?
dS/dt = C * {(k1 - k2) ln (k1/k2) + (k2 - k1) ln (k2/k1)}
If k1 is larger than k2, then the relation is positive, that is, dS/dt is positive (try it yourself!). If k2 is larger than k1, then the relation is still positive. This means that no matter which way the reaction procees, the change in entropy is positive! Even when B is being produced (order increases), the change in entropy also increases!
Non-equilibrium thermodynamics has hugely affected the field of biochemical thermodynamics, as it has influenced how we consider the chemical networks of what goes in life, in ecosystems, and elsewhere. It's not an easy subject, so there's still a lot more applications ready to figured out.
Hope this helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Own3D, posted 03-22-2007 5:54 PM Own3D has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Own3D, posted 03-24-2007 5:01 AM Matt P has not replied

  
Own3D
Junior Member (Idle past 6214 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 03-21-2007


Message 14 of 27 (391260)
03-24-2007 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Matt P
03-24-2007 3:39 AM


Re: Thermodynamics of disequilibrium systems
Thank you for the information Matt P, I appreciate it. I think it would be good to research that, its very interesting. Have a good day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Matt P, posted 03-24-2007 3:39 AM Matt P has not replied

  
SpongeLikeBattleAxe
Junior Member (Idle past 6214 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-23-2007


Message 15 of 27 (391261)
03-24-2007 5:34 AM


After reading over the posts so far I thought it would be good to clarify what part of the evolutionary theory OWN3D is talking about when saying that it postulates an increase in complexity and order. The evidence for natural selection is overwhelming, however it involves a reducing in the overall genetic verity of a species; there is lose of information involved. It's the part of evolution involving the generation of new genetic information that implies a decrease in entropy.
Statements like kuresu's:
quote:
evolution = change in species over time. there is no "direction", in terms of becoming more complex or less so. just change.
are fully valid. From any point in the evolutionary process there is not necessarily a moving in the direction of complexity. OWN3D's point is that, assuming evolution is true, then evidently there has been an increase in complexity, because the creatures around us are more complex then the chemicals from which life is said to have arisen.
Furthermore, if any new species were to evolve (not develop through natural selection, but through some process resulting in an increase in genetic information) then there would be an increase in complexity there too. If say, a dog, were to evolve into a new species, that was identical to a dog, except that the new species has a single horn on it’s head, then the genetic information needed for the horn must have been added to the gene pool. Therefore there has been an increase in complexity.
The important difference (as far as I can see) in the creation and evolution models as far as this discussion goes, is that evolution states that no genetic material existed in the beginning, and since then it has arisen, while creation states that in the beginning all genetic material existed and that since then genetic material has been lost. Therefore, evolution states an increase in information (and logically a decrease in entropy) while creation states a decrease in information (and logically an increase in entropy)
Thank you Matt P, your mathematical approach was quite intriguing. I plan on researching non-equilibrium thermodynamics myself, thank you also for the links you posted.
And please kuresu (or anyone else who can explain kuresu's statement) explain that puzzling statement from earlier,
quote:
the 2nd LoTD refutes special creation the way that he [OWN3D] applied it to the real world.

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2007 6:09 AM SpongeLikeBattleAxe has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024