Expand Messages
• For your consideration.. Ever so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate, degrade, or
Message 1 of 13 , Jun 1, 2004

Ever so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these
discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate, degrade,
or fall apart in laymen's terms. This is easy to realize. Even
Carbon Dating requires an assumption that things move from more to
less at a steady rate. The sun is getting colder due to less fuel.
The universe is expanding out. If I run a car, I will run out of gas,
if I don't refuel. That is an important exception. There is one
exception, according to the rule of entropy. That is personal
involvement. We are able to keep things together by outside
involvement in the process. However, without outside help, things
fall apart.

Here is why this is important. If the universe, and everything in it,
is falling apart, degrading, expanding, etc. There must have been
something to fall apart from. Things do not fall together.
Evolutionists try to believe that, but a soda can or a computer will
not build itself if just left alone. Carbon does not automatically
increase. Planets don't increase spin. The universe doesn't come
back together.

Entropy is proof of a creation point, from which everything has come.

http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html
• ... this is spam and you are flogging a book. However, you destroyed your ... involvement in the process. you can have a local decrease in entropy with
Message 2 of 13 , Jun 1, 2004
>Entropy is proof of a creation point, from which everything has come.
>
>http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html

this is spam and you are flogging a book. However, you destroyed your
own argument here:

>" If I run a car, I will run out of gas,
>if I don't refuel. That is an important exception. There is one
>exception, according to the rule of entropy. That is personal
>involvement. We are able to keep things together by outside
involvement in the process. "

you can have a local decrease in entropy with outside energy. The sun
is the outside energy source for the earth. Evolution has all it
needs to proceed as we have observed it.

Susan
--
----
Author of
MURDER ON THE WATERFRONT,
A Countess of Chesterleigh Mystery (June 2004, Hilliard & Harris)
http://www.coganbooks.net
• ... Entropy is a thermodynamic concept. It has nothing to do with things falling apart or being built up. An oak tree self- assembling from an acorn does not
Message 3 of 13 , Jun 2, 2004
On 1 Jun 2004 at 13:50, Ken wrote:

>
> Ever so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these
> discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate, degrade,
> or fall apart in laymen's terms. This is easy to realize. Even

Entropy is a thermodynamic concept. It has nothing to do with
things falling apart or being built up. An oak tree self-
assembling from an acorn does not violate any laws of
thermodynamics. Neither does a human evolving from a bacterium.

> Carbon Dating requires an assumption that things move from more to
> less at a steady rate. The sun is getting colder due to less fuel.

Carbon dating assumes that the decay rate of 14C remains more or
less constant. Since no variation in the decay rates of
radioactive materials of any kind has been observed except under
conditions that would destroy the object to be dated, it's a fair
bet that they don't.

> The universe is expanding out. If I run a car, I will run out of
> gas, if I don't refuel. That is an important exception. There is
> one exception, according to the rule of entropy. That is personal
> involvement. We are able to keep things together by outside
> involvement in the process. However, without outside help, things
> fall apart.

You're blathering. There is NO exception. No process, not even
one will result in the universe's entropy decreasing.

> Here is why this is important. If the universe, and everything in
> it, is falling apart, degrading, expanding, etc. There must have
> been something to fall apart from. Things do not fall together.

The universe is expanding, not "falling apart." It's true, though
that the initial state of it was one of very low entropy, possibly
zero.

> Evolutionists try to believe that, but a soda can or a computer will
> not build itself if just left alone. Carbon does not automatically
> increase. Planets don't increase spin. The universe doesn't come
> back together.

Again, what are you blathering about. Actually, it was originally
thought that the universe WOULD come back together, due to gravity.
It now appears that gravity will not be able to accomplish this.

> Entropy is proof of a creation point, from which everything has
> come.

Possibly, but it's a bit more complex than that. However, Hawking
and Penrose did show that the universe MUST have a beginning.

In any case, the whole argument that biological evolution violates
the 2nd lawe of thermodynamics is either very bad science on the
part of some creationists or its outright fraud on the part of some
who should know better. When challenged to produce one single
event in the hypothetical evolution of man from microbe that
actually entails a violation of the 2nd law, creationists have
consistently failed.

Consider yourself challenged.
• ... [snip] ... Hi, Ken. FYI... The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian Faith by Allan H. Harvey:
Message 4 of 13 , Jun 3, 2004
--- In creationism, "Ken" <writingken@y...> wrote:
> Every so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these
> discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate, degrade,
> or fall apart in laymen's terms.
[snip]
>
> Entropy is proof of a creation point, from which everything has
> come.

Hi, Ken.

FYI...

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian
Faith" by Allan H. Harvey:
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html

"Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

I would also point out the following...

Perhaps you were not aware of this, but biological evolution REQUIRES
entropy. If places in the universe did not have entropic processes
existing, then if there was anything like evolution conceptually it
would be a far different animal than the evolution we have in our
world.

Regards,
Todd Greene
http://www.geocities.com/greeneto
• ... gas, ... it, ... come. ... Didn t he already spam us with this post/advertisement?
Message 5 of 13 , Jun 7, 2004
--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Ken" <writingken@y...> wrote:
>
> Ever so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these
> discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate, degrade,
> or fall apart in laymen's terms. This is easy to realize. Even
> Carbon Dating requires an assumption that things move from more to
> less at a steady rate. The sun is getting colder due to less fuel.
> The universe is expanding out. If I run a car, I will run out of
gas,
> if I don't refuel. That is an important exception. There is one
> exception, according to the rule of entropy. That is personal
> involvement. We are able to keep things together by outside
> involvement in the process. However, without outside help, things
> fall apart.
>
> Here is why this is important. If the universe, and everything in
it,
> is falling apart, degrading, expanding, etc. There must have been
> something to fall apart from. Things do not fall together.
> Evolutionists try to believe that, but a soda can or a computer will
> not build itself if just left alone. Carbon does not automatically
> increase. Planets don't increase spin. The universe doesn't come
> back together.
>
> Entropy is proof of a creation point, from which everything has
come.
• ... So, you ignore the topic and try to attack the messenger. Ahh, the reactions of an empty position. http://providential-plan.com/providence.html
Message 6 of 13 , Jun 8, 2004
--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "torobuedu" <torobuedu@y...> wrote:
> --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Ken" <writingken@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Ever so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these
> > discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate, degrade,
> > or fall apart in laymen's terms. This is easy to realize. Even
> > Carbon Dating requires an assumption that things move from more to
> > less at a steady rate. The sun is getting colder due to less fuel.
> > The universe is expanding out. If I run a car, I will run out of
> gas,
> > if I don't refuel. That is an important exception. There is one
> > exception, according to the rule of entropy. That is personal
> > involvement. We are able to keep things together by outside
> > involvement in the process. However, without outside help, things
> > fall apart.
> >
> > Here is why this is important. If the universe, and everything in
> it,
> > is falling apart, degrading, expanding, etc. There must have been
> > something to fall apart from. Things do not fall together.
> > Evolutionists try to believe that, but a soda can or a computer will
> > not build itself if just left alone. Carbon does not automatically
> > increase. Planets don't increase spin. The universe doesn't come
> > back together.
> >
> > Entropy is proof of a creation point, from which everything has
> come.
> >
> > http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html
>

So, you ignore the topic and try to attack the messenger. Ahh, the
reactions of an empty position.

http://providential-plan.com/providence.html
• ... Similar to how there must be decay for Carbon Dating to work... http://providential-plan.com/providence.html
Message 7 of 13 , Jun 8, 2004
--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene" <greeneto@y...>
wrote:
> --- In creationism, "Ken" <writingken@y...> wrote:
> > Every so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these
> > discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate, degrade,
> > or fall apart in laymen's terms.
> [snip]
> >
> > Entropy is proof of a creation point, from which everything has
> > come.
>
> Hi, Ken.
>
> FYI...
>
> "The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian
> Faith" by Allan H. Harvey:
> http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
>
> "Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism"
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
>
>
> I would also point out the following...
>
> Perhaps you were not aware of this, but biological evolution REQUIRES
> entropy. If places in the universe did not have entropic processes
> existing, then if there was anything like evolution conceptually it
> would be a far different animal than the evolution we have in our
> world.
>
> Regards,
> Todd Greene
> http://www.geocities.com/greeneto

Similar to how there must be decay for Carbon Dating to work...

http://providential-plan.com/providence.html
• ... degrade, ... Even ... more to ... fuel. ... of ... one ... things ... everything in ... been ... computer will ... automatically ... come ... has ... No,
Message 8 of 13 , Jun 9, 2004
--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Ken" <writingken@y...> wrote:
> --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "torobuedu" <torobuedu@y...>
wrote:
> > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Ken" <writingken@y...>
wrote:
> > > For your consideration..
> > >
> > > Ever so often, it is important to point out Entropy in these
> > > discussions. Entropy states that things tend to dissipate,
> > > or fall apart in laymen's terms. This is easy to realize.
Even
> > > Carbon Dating requires an assumption that things move from
more to
> > > less at a steady rate. The sun is getting colder due to less
fuel.
> > > The universe is expanding out. If I run a car, I will run out
of
> > gas,
> > > if I don't refuel. That is an important exception. There is
one
> > > exception, according to the rule of entropy. That is personal
> > > involvement. We are able to keep things together by outside
> > > involvement in the process. However, without outside help,
things
> > > fall apart.
> > >
> > > Here is why this is important. If the universe, and
everything in
> > it,
> > > is falling apart, degrading, expanding, etc. There must have
been
> > > something to fall apart from. Things do not fall together.
> > > Evolutionists try to believe that, but a soda can or a
computer will
> > > not build itself if just left alone. Carbon does not
automatically
> > > increase. Planets don't increase spin. The universe doesn't
come
> > > back together.
> > >
> > > Entropy is proof of a creation point, from which everything
has
> > come.
> > >
> > > > >
>
> So, you ignore the topic and try to attack the messenger. Ahh, the
> reactions of an empty position.
>

No, maybe it was a differnt list. I did respond to it, as did a few
others, and "Ken" dissappeared, no response, nothing to defend his
statement, just spam bam thank you maam.

Kenny, The reason that this doesn't make any sense is that you're
assuming that the earth is a closed system, when in reality, we
recieve a constant supply of energy from the sun. If you want
examples of antientropy all over earth, go watch a seed turn into a
tree, or watch water and CO2 turn into sugar. Or mountain chain
formation (though you'll be there a while).

This theory has been proven nonsense over and over. But you knew
that, and that's why you'll never have the courage to actually
defend your statements, you'll just post and run.
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm Scientists see new species born By Dr David Whitehouse BBC News Online science editor Fruit flies are
Message 9 of 13 , Jun 9, 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

Scientists see new species born

By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

Fruit flies are usually studied in the lab
Scientists at the University of Arizona may have witnessed the birth
of a new species for the first time.
Biologists Laura Reed and Prof Therese Markow made the discovery by
observing breeding patterns of fruit flies that live on rotting cacti in
deserts.

The work could help scientists identify the genetic changes that lead
one species to evolve into two species.

The research is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences.

One becomes two

Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists
studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one
species or two is still debated by biologists.

However, the University of Arizona researchers believe the insects are
in the early stages of diverging into separate species.

The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct
populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.

When the two groups can no longer interbreed they cease exchanging
genes and eventually go their own evolutionary ways becoming separate
species.

Though speciation is a crucial element of understanding how evolution
works, biologists have not been able to discover the factors that initiate
the process.

In fruit flies there are several examples of mutant genes that prevent
different species from breeding but scientists do not know if they are the
cause or just a consequence of speciation.

Sterile males

In the wild, Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae rarely, if
ever, interbreed - even though their geographical ranges overlap.

In the lab, researchers can coax successful breeding but there are
complications.

Drosophila mojavensis mothers typically produce healthy offspring
after mating with Drosophila arizonae males, but when Drosophila arizonae
females mate with Drosphila mojavensis males, the resulting males are
sterile.

Laura Reed maintains that such limited capacity for interbreeding
indicates that the two groups are on the verge of becoming completely
separate species.

Another finding that adds support to that idea is that in a strain of
Drosophila mojavensis from southern California's Catalina Island, mothers
always produce sterile males when mated with Drosophila arizonae males.

Because the hybrid male's sterility depends on the mother's genes the
researchers say the genetic change must be recent.

Reed has also discovered that only about half the females in the
Catalina Island population had the gene (or genes) that confer sterility in
the hybrid male offspring.

However, when she looked at the Drosophila mojavensis females from
other geographic regions, she found that a small fraction of those
populations also exhibited the hybrid male sterility.

The newly begun Drosophila mojavensis genome sequencing project, which
will provide a complete roadmap of every gene in the species, will help
scientists pin down which genes are involved in speciation.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... wrote: ... I agree with you at one level. But I also think that there s more to the story. One thing I find interesting about those who use this
Message 10 of 13 , Jun 14, 2004
--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "torobuedu" <torobuedu@y...>
wrote:

<snip>

> Kenny, The reason that this doesn't make any sense is that you're
> assuming that the earth is a closed system, when in reality, we
> recieve a constant supply of energy from the sun. If you want
> examples of antientropy all over earth, go watch a seed turn into a
> tree, or watch water and CO2 turn into sugar. Or mountain chain
> formation (though you'll be there a while).
>
> This theory has been proven nonsense over and over. But you knew
> that, and that's why you'll never have the courage to actually
> defend your statements, you'll just post and run.

I agree with you at one level. But I also think that there's more to
the story.

One thing I find interesting about those who use this entropy
argument against evolution is that they don't seem to really
understand what the 2nd Law is saying. Since the earth is not a
closed system, we can have local decreases in entropy (increases in
order), while the system that includes the whole solar system will
have a net increase in entropy (decrease in order). They don't seem
to grasp that sunlight hitting the earth and then bouncing back into
space as heat represents that net increase in entropy, and that
chemical reactions can be driven locally which result in a decrease
in entropy without violating the 2nd Law. How else could an acorn
grow into a tree? Wouldn't *that* violate the 2nd Law according to
their flawed understanding of it? But, like I said, the *really*
interesting thing here is the cognitive phenomenon of those who use
this argument and can't seem to grasp what the 1st year student in
high school chemistry can easily understand. And the barrier to this
understanding, I think, are those particular cognitive schema
(conceptual frameworks) which make up the "world view" of the
proponents of creationism/ID. I think such subjective
rationalizations need more research than they are currently getting.

So I also disagree with you on a different level. To simply say that
their viewpoint has been "proven nonsense over and over" is correct
if we're only looking at it in strictly naive realist epistemological
terms (that what is clear to us should be clear to everyone, and that
a subjective perspective is not itself a psychological phenomenon to
be better understood). I think there's more to the story than that.

The fact that it *has* been shown over and over again that they fail
to grasp (or to acknowledge) the 2nd Law is itself an interesting
phenomenon. And it's also a practical problem as well. Because if
we don't correctly understand the dogmatic theological mindset that
produces such behavior, how can we really hope to counter it? "Know
thy enemy" is a good maxim, in my view.

DV
• ... My rule of thumb. Anyone who says that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics understands neither. Exceptions are very rare. -- -- The
Message 11 of 13 , Jun 14, 2004
>One thing I find interesting about those who use this entropy
>argument against evolution is that they don't seem to really
>understand what the 2nd Law is saying.

My rule of thumb. Anyone who says that evolution contradicts the
second law of thermodynamics understands neither. Exceptions are
very rare.
--
--
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
Guide to Taoism_

Paul K.
• ... Yes. That s what I m saying. That they don t understand. But the point is: do we acknowlede this lack of understanding on their part as a psychological
Message 12 of 13 , Jun 15, 2004
--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, Paul Andrew King <paul@m...>
wrote:
> darth_versive wrote:
> >One thing I find interesting about those who use this entropy
> >argument against evolution is that they don't seem to really
> >understand what the 2nd Law is saying.
>
> My rule of thumb. Anyone who says that evolution contradicts the
> second law of thermodynamics understands neither. Exceptions are
> very rare.

Yes. That's what I'm saying. That they don't understand. But the
point is: do we acknowlede this lack of understanding on their part
as a psychological phenomenon that we ourselves (as pro-science
folks) need to understand better, or do we persist in "beating a dead
horse" by using the same logical arguments and scientific reasoning
over and over again which is clearly going "over their heads," and
therefore, which is clearing "having little or no effect" on changing
their behavior? (If you do what you've always done, you'll get what
you've always gotten.)

That's my point. How do we approach their lack of understanding?
The same old way, or in a new way? If we want different results, we
should try a new way.

DV
• ... I think we have to recognise that a few people honestly don t know any better but are prepared to learn. A few more know that it isn t true but rely on
Message 13 of 13 , Jun 15, 2004
>That's my point. How do we approach their lack of understanding?
>The same old way, or in a new way? If we want different results, we
>should try a new way.

I think we have to recognise that a few people honestly don't know
any better but are prepared to learn. A few more know that it isn't
true but rely on equivocation and sophistry to try to pretend
otherwise (I'm thinking of Tim Wallace of the trueorigins.org website
here). Most are probably too arrogant to accept that they could be
wrong. But then there is always the chance that someone who is
honestly undecided could also be reading the posts and might benefit
from the explanation.
--
--
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
Guide to Taoism_

Paul K.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.