Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

About Entropy

Expand Messages
  • Ken
    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
    • 0 Attachment
      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 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
    • Susan Cogan
      ... 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
      • 0 Attachment
        >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)
        Please visit my website:
        http://www.coganbooks.net
      • Dave Oldridge
        ... 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
        • 0 Attachment
          On 1 Jun 2004 at 13:50, Ken wrote:

          > 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 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.
        • Todd S. Greene
          ... [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
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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

            "Thermodynamics for Two, Please" (about entropy and evolution):
            http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/thermo.htm

            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
          • torobuedu
            ... gas, ... it, ... come. ... Didn t he already spam us with this post/advertisement?
            Message 5 of 13 , Jun 7, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- 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, 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

              Didn't he already spam us with this post/advertisement?
            • Ken
              ... 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
              • 0 Attachment
                --- 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, 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
                >
                > Didn't he already spam us with this post/advertisement?

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

                http://providential-plan.com/providence.html
              • Ken
                ... 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
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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
                  >
                  > "Thermodynamics for Two, Please" (about entropy and evolution):
                  > http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/thermo.htm
                  >
                  > 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
                • torobuedu
                  ... degrade, ... Even ... more to ... fuel. ... of ... one ... things ... everything in ... been ... computer will ... automatically ... come ... has ... No,
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jun 9, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- 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,
                    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.
                    > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > Didn't he already spam us with this post/advertisement?
                    >
                    > 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.
                  • Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
                    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
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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.


                      Graduate student Laura Reed
                      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]
                    • darth_versive
                      ... 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
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- 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
                      • Paul Andrew King
                        ... 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
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >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.
                        • darth_versive
                          ... 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
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- 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
                          • Paul Andrew King
                            ... 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
                            • 0 Attachment
                              >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.