10956Re: More "thermodynamics" pseudoscience from Don DeLong - by Don
- Jul 2, 2007--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"Todd S. Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote (in part):
> I have no idea why I'm getting this ONLY by
> personal email...
> ...can't take the time to address Don's comments
> right now, so I'll get to it later. Of course,
> anyone else can respond to him as well.
> - Todd
--- Don DeLong wrote (July 2, 2007):
> Todd,And let's see what DeLong has to say that is germane to
> If I had not seen evidence upon evidence, I would think
> it impossible for a person to so blind themself to reality.
> I know that I have made a lot of tongue-in-cheek statements
> to you numb-skulls in the past, but seriously, open your
> eyes. Just for a moment, look, don't try to read anything
> into the facts. Just look at the facts.
> Why do I say that you are blind? Because you have on many
> occasions (such as your last e-mail) claimed that something
> was answered just because either you or one of your
> side-kicks responded. A response does not a refutation make.
> Most of posts that you linked were from when Rick originally
> brought up the subject of Thermodynamics on the Christian
> Evidences list, and responses to that post and subsequent
> responses that included the original post material.
> Finally we get to
> the supposed refutation. But is it? Your rose colored
> glasses would have you to believe that it in fact is. Again,
> remember that a response does not a refutation make. So, let's
> see what Rick had to say germane to the 1st and 2nd Laws of
anything I said.
I (Rick) wrote:
>> 3) 1st Law of Thermodynamics -- "argument fromDeLong replies:
>> ignorance", better known as "god-of-the-gaps"; i.e., if
>> we don't have a scientific explanation for it, God musta
>> did it!
>> DeLong also continues on with his fallacy of equivocation
>> -- biological evolution and biogenesis are two different
>> things. Regardless of how or when Life began, you can
>> observe the processes of biological evolution taking
>> place in existing populations of organisms *right now*.
> Don here - I will not call for Rick's and your (becauseI think DeLong has his own "fallacy of equivocation" charge
> you have included such in an e-mail you sent thereby
> placing your stamp of approval on such) retraction of the
> "fallacy of equivocation" statement because I know that
> it will not come.
to be retracting! Something having to do with Robert's
"Goliath of GRAS", was it not? Yes! It was!
And unlike DeLong, I am prepared to back up my charge,
> Yes, biological evolution and biogenesis ARE twoHuh??? Given "evolution", evolution can not take place?
> [totally] different things. BUT, neither could take
> place given evolution, that is my point exactly.
That doesn't even make any sense. First, DeLong is
misusing the Law of Biogenesis -- biological life only
comes from biological life (insofar as we have ever
observed) -- to say that God must have created life.
But God is not a biological organism. So even with
God creating biological Life, that is just as much a
contradiction of the Law of Biogenesis as biological
life spontaneously arising from non-living matter
(which is "abiogenesis"). So the beginning of biological
life from either paradigm is the same -- and hence one
"fallacy of equivocation": the "life" meant by the Law
of Biogenesis does not apply to the "Life" which is God.
And here is another of DeLong's "equivocation fallacies":
he's obviously calling something "evolution" that is not
biological evolution. He is stuck in his *false dichotomy*
of "Creation" (which he deems to be the God of the Bible)
versus "Evolution" (which he deems to be atheism), which
allows him to equate anything having to do with biological
evolution with atheism, which is not only an equivocation
of terms but is logically false anyway.
In other words, all of science that tells us the Earth is
more than a few thousand years old is considered to be
"evolutionism", and evolutionism is considered to be
"atheism". So when it gets right down to it, DeLong is
guilty of *several* equivocation fallacies here, e.g.,
"geology" = "evolutionism" = "atheism"; "astronomy" =
> Rick has not "answered", "refuted" or any such likeAnd "apparently" DeLong doesn't know enough about
> thing, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. He responded,
> nothing more, nothing else, just responded.
thermodynamics to even understand the response.
I wasn't trying to refute the 1st Law, I was pointing
out that, as far as science is concerned, the 1st Law
does not "prove" the existence of God, or even of a
"Primal Cause". The 1st Law is applicable only to "closed"
"Systems". We don't know that the Universe is a "closed"
System. And even if the Universe *is* a closed system,
we don't have a finite volume for it, nor do we yet have
an equation that quantifies the "Energy" for it. All we
can do is draw imaginary boundaries around parts of it
and quantify the Energy exchanges within those boundaries,
and in so doing we have found that as the "volume" of the
Universe is increasing (expansion), we need something
called "dark energy" to make the equations balance out.
> Todd, where did it (matter) come from? The 1st LawLet's look at a simple definition of the 1st Law, from
> says that it did not/could not come from naturalistic
> means, so, where did it come from? Did matter come from
> nothing? The 1st Law says NO! In fact it could not.
"The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic
system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy
supplied to the system and the work done on the system."
See that constraint -- a "closed system"? So just like
your fallacy above with the Law of Biogenesis, you are
positing "God" as the "Source" -- the "input" into a
Matter is "frozen" Energy. Your question is more properly,
"Where did the Energy come from?" And that is what science
does not know. But science is not going to just say, "God
did it," and let it go at that. Science is going to "look
into the matter" (pun!) and see if they can't figure it out.
And if science *does* figure it out, *poof* -- there goes
your "god-of-the-gaps". Which is why the "god-of-the-gaps"
is frowned upon by non-believers and believers alike; not
only is it a fallacious argument but it confines the acts
of God to areas where we so far lack scientific knowledge.
> Yes, I know that this is a slight changing of thePersonally, I have no intention of trying to prove that
> subject, but since you guys have not answered the fact
> that something can not come from nothing.
"something" can come from "nothing". The question is,
though, what is the nature of that "Something" from
which "Everything" came? My own answer is that it
comes from God, of course, for two reasons (1) I already
know that God exists, and (2) the "God" answer allows
me to bail out without "infinite regress", which is where
the question leads, by simply endlessly asking, "But where
did *that* come from?"..."But then, where did *that* come
But for DeLong to get back to the point of infinite regress,
he is first going to have to get back to the beginning of
the Universe, which is about *two and half million times*
farther back in Time than DeLong thinks it is.
> By the way, I LOVE how you attempt to side-step thatIt could have come from another Universe; it could have
> issue by using, yes using, one of your cohorts to imply
> that it came from God (non-natural means), yet you do not
> believe in God. Interesting. Where did it come from?
come from an oscillation of this Universe; we just don't
empirically *know*. (But I'll leave this part for Todd to
deal with from his own perspective.)
I had written:
>> 4) 2nd Law of Thermodynamics -- argument from DeLong'sDeLong replies:
>> OWN ignorance; the 2nd Law DOES NOT preclude biological
>> evolution. Life on Earth is not a "closed" system, it is
>> constantly gaining energy from the Sun and converting
>> that energy, through photosynthesis, into a form usable
>> by Life. A very simple example is an oak tree: from a
>> single acorn, with the addition of sunlight, comes a
>> large, complex structure that produces many more acorns,
>> which become separate, sunlight-converting, complex
>> structures on their own, which become a forest...
> Don here - Oh, I must be mistaken. I did not knowIt hasn't.
> that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics had been disproved.
> What do you mean that it hasn't? Didn't you just readThe "oak tree example" is an illustration of Energy (in
> Rick's "oak tree" example? It must have been disproved.
the form of sunlight) entering a System (the oak tree).
The 2nd Law applies to "closed" Systems. "Closed" (or
"isolated") means that Energy is not entering the System
from an outside source. The oak tree is not a closed
system, just as life on Earth is not a closed system.
It's a very simple illustration.
> The 2nd Law still says that matter can not/will notLet's look at a simple definition of the 2nd Law, again
> evolve it can only devolve. That is our point exactly.
"The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system
tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."
See that word "isolated"? That means the 2nd Law applies
to "closed" Systems. Life on Earth is not a "closed"
System. The "Life on Earth System" is constantly receiving
Energy from an outside source -- the Sun. If you do not
add energy in the form of sunlight to the acorn, the energy
in the acorn degrades, rather than "evolving" into the
vastly more organized "matter" of a mature oak tree.
> By the way, you might want to tell Rick that he shouldHa ha ha.
> not write any more posts/e-mails because he puts his
> foot in his mouth and does your cause harm every time
> that he tries. Though, I do give him an A for effort.
Another of your "tongue-in-cheek" remarks, DeLong?
> The fact that the "oak tree" drops its acorn and itThat doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with what
> does not sprout a watermelon is exactly what we are
> talking about.
you are claiming about thermodynamics. The way
thermodynamics applies to this is that the Sunlight
Energy is converted from a (simple) acorn to a (complex)
oak tree, which makes thousands and thousands of more
(simple) acorns which grow into (complex) oak trees
which, growing together into a forest, further increases
complexity. All from a single acorn with the energy
input of Sunlight, which ultimately leads to the capture
of more and more sunlight energy into an increasingly
Which proves your objection to biological evolution on
the grounds of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is completely
unsupportable, and comes from a profound misunderstanding
of both thermodynamics and the basic mechanisms of Life
itself -- ALL (virtually) Life on Earth derives its
energy from the Sun. (And it is estimated that only
about 5% of the available energy from the Sun striking
the Earth is photosynthesized and enters the food chain,
so there is PLENTY of potential energy available to the
Earth's "Life System".)
> Of course an acorn is going to produce an oak tree.Not without massive inputs of Energy into the "Oak Tree
System" it's not! The Energy in the acorn is sufficient
to sprout the acorn and let it produce a few leaves.
From then on, all additional Energy has to come *into*
the "Oak Tree System" from an outside source, the
Sun, through the process of photosynthesis. That's what
photosynthesis does -- it captures Sunlight Energy and
converts it into Oak Tree Food, so that the oak tree can
> Just open your eyes. That is all that I am asking.OK, let's open our eyes and look at things realistically
just for a moment: Don DeLong has made an appeal to the
Laws of Thermodynamics.
Yet it is those very Laws of Thermodynamics that tell us,
without a doubt, that the Universe did not, *and could not
have*, suddenly come into existence some 6,000 years ago.
(Or, if it did, then we are in the midst of a "fake
Universe". Does DeLong think he is ready to defend the
"apparent age" concept, where God created fake stars and
fake fossils that never really existed?)
What it all boils down to, Don DeLong, is that if you
are going to going to use the laws of physics in this
Universe as evidence for God, then you are going to have
to use the laws of physics, *in this Universe, as they
are and as it is*, otherwise your "proofs" will not
hold up mathematically. There is no other way around it.
And the laws of physics in this Universe tell us that
the Universe has been here for around 15 billion years
and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. If the laws of
physics were anything different than just what they are,
our existence would not be possible -- so then you can
argue from there into the "anthropic principle". But you
can not use the anthropic principle if you are going to
say the Universe is only a few thousand years old.
> I really wish that you could read into my e-mailsSuch as?
> (at least some of them) the pleading that I am doing
> with you guys. I truly want you to see the truth. You
> guys have been seriously deceived and will not be
> open minded enough to see that there is evidence that
> you have not even begun to consider.
> Don DeLong
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
READ THIS STUFF:
Wikipedia's overview of thermodynamics (pay special
attention to the section about "Systems"):
Law of Biogenesis:
I'm also reincluding a few of the links Todd provided
in his post #10950 -- apparently you (DeLong) didn't
bother to read any of these either:
An Introduction to Entropy and Evolution: The Second Law of
Thermodynamics in Science and in Young-Earth Creationism
by Craig Rusbult
The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context
of the Christian Faith
by Allan H. Harvey
Entropy, God and Evolution
by Doug Craigen
The second law of thermodynamics and evolution
by Frank L. Lambert
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>