Science or The Bible?

OK Now find the place where he says something to this affect:

"Moreover, that increased entropy cannot be removed from the local area and shed into the surrounding environment" and you will have completely demolished evolution on thermodynamic grounds. Of course, you will have also proved you cannot have lived your own life, nor can you use any kind of heat engine such as a car or a plane or a locomotive or a refrigerator . . . .

But don't let that give you pause.

 

"Big Bang claims that a pure catalystic reaction of unknown gases resulted in an explosion that set the entire Universe into motion, and that in that explosion it created perfect order (by chance) out of total disorder (an uncontrolled explosion.)

Yet, thermodynamics teaches that order deteriorates to disorder unless an outside force is applied."

There are some misconceptions that cloud you view.

The first is that your view of the beginning of the universe bears little resemblance to actual inflationery cosmology. But I shall not dwell on that.

As far as entropy goes, the initial configuration of the universe was very low entropy. Inflation says that the matter of the early universe was spread in an extremely homogenous manner. This is an extremely low entropy configuration. Conversely, as gravity perturbs this homogenity into clumps, such as stars, the entropy of the clumps goes up. Star are a higher entropy configuration compared to what came before. This is a good example of why our familiar notions of order and disorder are difficult to apply to thermodynamic entropy. It is not intuitive.

---------------------

"Thermodymanicist Arnold Sommerfeld author of Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics [Academic Press, 1955] writes [page 155]: The statement in integral form, namely that entropy in an isolated system cannot decrease, can be replaced by its corollary in differential form, which asserts that the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of whether the process under consideration is irreversible or not."

Yes. And he says nothing that disallows one part of a system to decrease in entropy so long as "the quantity of entropy generated locally [is not] negative."

In addition, we stil have not had a rigorous explanation of what problem entropy is supposed to pose for evolution that follows the actual science of thermodynamics.

 

Hi Bill

It is a good question and I hope that I can shed some light upon it for you.

Like the rest of you, I am loathe to adopt a non-literal interpretation without solid reason to do so. I, personally, find that the evidence for an old earth is convincing enough to justify such a reading of the the creation account in Genesis. There are also some reasons in the text itself. In my opinion, there are some contradictions in the account if you take a literal view which are not there if you take a non-literal view. It also seems to me that the clear intent is something different that simply an account of the days of creation. Now I would be thrilled if someone tomorrow showed how to fit our observations of the creation into a young earth paradigm so that we could simply take it literally, but I do not see that happening.

The biggest problem for my view, as i see it, is how do you get from an earth with no humans to one with humans with souls in a manner consistent with what we believe.

The simplist answer, as I see it, is that at some point two humans were isolated and given souls and we call these two Adam and Eve. This allows for reading of as much as possible as literal and gives us an original two humans who can then have a literal fall and bring sin into the world.

Now I think that it is also possible that at some point God gave a given generation of humans souls at which point they gained the ability to know right from wrong. Adam's fall then becomes symbolic of man's inability to live up to God's standards on his own and his need for forgiving grace from God. It tells of the sinful and disobediant spirit of man. You do lose the original sin this way though.

What is the right answer to all this? I don't know and doubt I will know in this life. We all formulate our beliefs from many sources; the Bible, our parents, our churches, our relationship with God, our experiences, our knowledge, etc. We get somethings right and we get some things wrong. Human nature is that you normally are pretty confident in the correctness of your own position even when others are just as confident in conflicting opinions. We may all be wrong in some cases. So here we are with different views, some right and some wrong. We can discuss those that we each find importent or interesting here and elsewhere and hopefully learn a little about each other. But, at least here, I am glad that we can discuss our differences while we know about our similarities.

 

entrophy applies to information systems (like DNA). So how exactly does entrophy decrease in information systems to increase to total information. this is what evolution requires. evolution has to generate massive amounts of info in the genome, where does this info come from. especially since no known amount of highly specified information has ever spontaneously produced itself. for particle to man evolution, information has to be generated, and evolution says it comes from nowhere. something from nothing like to see that one live.

 

I'll tell you the theory of evolution, so you'll understand how information can increase, according to the theory.

a) We take a given organism that is living along just fine from generation to generation with a given set of genes, or genome, as they say. (Note that there is nothing against thermodynamis in this suppostion, it has been observed to happen)

b) We suppose that some mutations come along in the genes for some of the critters in the population. (Note that there is nothing against thermodynamics in this supposition, it has been observed to happen).

c) By chance, a great many of the mutations do nothing for or against the organisms, a great many are actually harmful to the organisms, and a few - precious few - are actually helpful in the overall reproduction of the individuals. (Note that there is nothing against thermodynamics in this supposition, it is implied in the fact that mutations are random)

At this point, the mutations are strictly speaking new information in the genome, but they represent a degredation in the ability of the genome to express what a good, fit organism is.

d) Over time, those individuals saddled with the harmful mutations wind up having fewer descendents, and those individual blessed with the helpful mutations manage to leave more progeny. In this way, "helpful" mutations come to be more and more prominant in the population, even becoming the norm after many generations; bad mutations become less and less prominant, even being weeded out from the population. There is nothing against thermodynamics in this step; we expect slower antelopes to get eaten, faster antelopes to get away, and so forth.

This process represents, finally, a new, enhanced level of information within the genome of the population.

The process can then be repeated over and over. Over geological ages, whole new species arise by this method.

There, that's how the increased information comes along, and you will note that at no step is thermodynamics any kind of problem for the process.

 

What Paul of Eugene is saing is the latest atheistic mantra, micro-evolution yields macro-evolution. They know that the 2nd Law invalidates macro-evolution so they try to sneak upon it, hoping no one, not even the 2nd Law, will notice. Complete idiocy!

 

How does the Second Law of Thermodynamics forbid macroevolution?

 

Petrel

You will never get a definate answer. There are a lot of words spoken but nothing specific is ever given. It cannot be for if they were ever specific, it would be easy to disprove. But their answers fall into a few standard problems.

First, they undertake a fallacy of equivocation with regards to the word "disorder." They try and confuse the very specific meaning of disorder when used in thermodynamics with the general sense of disorder that most laypeople think of.

Second is and equivocation. This time they try and evivocate the term entropy as used in thermo with the same term as used in information theory but in a different context.

Next, they must ignore that 2LOT only says that the overall entropy must increase while local decreases are allowed.

For another, they trot out information theory but then they must turn around and abandon it when they realize that even a simple duplication mutation is an increase in information under the theory.

There have been some good posts on this very thread that might interest you. Try some of these.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2994/2.html#000017
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2994/3.html#000030
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2994/3.html#000031
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2994/3.html#000032
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2994/3.html#000033

 

posted June 29, 2005 09:33 AM, "If evolution is true" thread

 

I don't believe that abiotic evolution is possible because there's no mechanism in place to harness the solar energy and use it to build more complicated molecules instead of just breaking them down.

However, once we stipulate the existance of a living cell, the situation changes. Then the cellular mechanisms for energy harnessing are present.

I don't think the Second Law can forbid evolution.

 

See, Petrel, OldRegular quotes all of that above in an attempt to make a point by confusing the thermodynamic meaning of disorder with the general meaning of disorder. If you read through the provided links and other places where entropy has been discussed, you will see that all this has been proven to him before yet he contiues with his mistaken assertions.

 

Well I've followed this thread and countless other threads on creation vs evolution for over a year.I've read books and articles on both sides of the issue until it no longer even piques my interest any longer.What it comes down to is this:

In the beginning God.God Said,

Darwin said, It all started out like this..ect..ect..ect...

Who do you believe?

I simply choose after this time and study to believe the Bible version of creation over the Darwin(or any variations therof)account or theory.
It is my firm conviction that evolution is just blowing smoke.I doubr if scientists who are ever changing will ever catch up to God and His Word Who is never changing.

 

Some of us believe both. We look to the Bible for WHO and we are willing to evaluate the evidence for HOW.

 

BINGO!! SLAM DUNK!! HIT ONE OUTTA' THE PARK!!

So simple some people can't grasp it!!

 

The problem here Paul is that the theory that governs the evaluation of the evidence that you choose to believe is in disagreement with the "WHO"'s revelation concerning creation.

Naturalism is the governing philosophy of evolution. God is not bound by the presuppositions of this philosophy.

You are apparently willing to accept a supernatural "WHO"... but only a naturalistic "HOW". But if you accept the supernatural "WHO" of the Bible then there is no reason to demand a naturalistic "HOW".

"WHO" said that He spoke it into existence... not that it evolved. He said He created kinds that reproduced "after their own kind"... not kinds that reproduced until they became another kind.

 

man what theistic evolutionist believe is hilarious, their posts are a great source of humor for me and a lot of people i know, i rate them right up there with the annunaki theroy of origins (they're real close after all).
it's the presuppositions that matter theistic evo's state their presuppositions, and so do Genesis believing creationists. theistic evo's believe that radiometric dating and other uniformitarian dating is accurate and reliable, Genesis believing creationists believe that the palin text of the bible is accurate and reliable.
i never uderstood why people trust dating methods that have been prooven to be upto 99% UNreliable (lava dome from 81 Mt St Helens eruption dated to 500,000 years, for a know date of 11 years from the eruption at the time of the test. and that is just the first of many i found in just a few minutes online.

radiometric dateing is very unreliable, i even found evo's and theistic evo's who agree (conditionally, that is in certian "cases", which then require dating by the stata or fossils or how old they think it is). if theistic evolution is true which version of evolution does it use.

Evolution requires MASSIVE amounts of HIGHLY SPECIFIC INFORMATION not just duplicated information (by that definition down's syndrom is evolution). so far as i have found (online and at my local library) i cannot find anyone who agrees with your assesment of information theroy. most genomes have a "proofreader gene" that prevents mutation (most) from being passed on. Darwin's Black Box refutes most of theistic evo's assertions of small changes make big changes. no fossil evidence of proto-organs, or any proto-systems (lots of artists imaginary renditionings though) has been found.

thankyou and God Bless


www.answersingenesis.org

 

"theistic evo's believe that radiometric dating and other uniformitarian dating is accurate and reliable, Genesis believing creationists believe that the palin text of the bible is accurate and reliable.
i never uderstood why people trust dating methods that have been prooven to be upto 99% UNreliable (lava dome from 81 Mt St Helens eruption dated to 500,000 years, for a know date of 11 years from the eruption at the time of the test. and that is just the first of many i found in just a few minutes online."

You may find it funny but I do not find it funny that many professing Christian leader seem to think that it is OK to misrepresent data such as what you have mentioned. If the truth is on their side, why must they be dishonest.

In the case of the Mt St. Helens, Dr. Austin made two fatal mistakes.

The first is that he selected samples that still contained unmelted crystals called xenocrysts. By thus selecting, he ensured that there would be argon in his sample and that they therefore would date incorrectly.

The second is that he chose an inappropriate sampling method. He used potassium / argon dating. This uses a very long half life. If all of the argon was removed (which it was not since he chose samples with unmelted crystals) the age that would be indicated by the minimum argon detection limit would still be hundreds of thousands to millions of years of age, depending on the capability of the lab. An age of 500,00 years by this method only indicates that the sample is less than or equal to that age. In other words, using K-Ar dating and getting an answer of 500,00 is an answer of zero. Any geologists would know this.

An analogy would be trying to measure the width of your driveway with your car's odometer and coming to the conclusion that your driveway is 0.1 miles across. You know it is not zero and a tenth of a mile is the smallest unit you can measure. So it is with K-Ar dating. It is not good for an eleven year old rock. You must choose an appropriate measure. When done, radiometric dating has performed well on items of known age.

So Austin incorrectly collected samples and misrepresented what the results meant and you accept it without question and pass it along. This is one reason I am so opposed to YE. If it is true, why can they not be truthful?

[ July 19, 2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

Additionally, the more advanced Ar/Ar method has been used to date rocks from Mt. Vesuvius (79 AD) to within 7 years. I would be interested to see the results from Mt. St. Helens using this method. Of course it still would not give the correct answer because the Ar-39 level would be too low to measure accurately. But I bet it would be down in the hundreds of years.