Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[thaumaturgy]

Thaumaturgy, I don't generally use a bare math equation to prove something in the real world

But when a bare math equation is presented as the framework of the underlying principle, then you are bound by it at least to prove your "Unique" application of it doesn't violate some fundamental aspect of it.

--I use real world events to prove the math. [I've always been puzzled by those who try to do otherwise.]

Interesting comment. I am experimentalist first so I can understand that, but in the end I am a scientist so I know that math is the language of our craft and really, if you can't handle the math, be prepared to get battered from pillar to post.

For example, I can't use the velocity equation distance/time to prove my moving car has velocity.

Why not? Do you not understand the terms? Distance/time? That's unfortunate. It's a pretty simple concept. If your car has changed position (moved a distance) over some block of time, that's pretty much the only way to know your car has velocity.

The bare equation itself is not proof of anything.

Pure rhetoric.

The equation E=MC2 has no potency or power to prove anything if in the real world energy and matter were not related to each other via the speed of light.

But the point here is if I claim that I were to convert 1g of material into its energy equivalent and I then claim I produced 1000 terajoules someone would rightly come along and say "No you didn't!" If they point out the fact that we know from nuclear physics that E=mc[sup]2[/sup] means I will only get 89.9 terajoules they can reasonably ask me to show how the well-known equation E=mc[sup]2[/sup] is wrong.

Now I know you're off into your "rhetoric" world and you are going to obsess on proof versus understanding, but if a theory is distilled down into an equation and it has been repeatedly proven, then it is up to you, the challenger, to show either how the equation is failed (by reference to terms or missing terms) or prove by dint of experimental evidence that your model is more correct.

You fail on both accounts.

In this debate, I've made assumptions,

And many of those assumptions have been shown to be wrong.

just as I did in the legal analysis I presented to you. Because I am set in those assumptions, and because you guys are set in your assumptions, there's probably not much room for debate.

Except our assumptions are based in fact. Yours are based in religious zeal and preconceived notions of "gut feeling".

A disagreement cannot be resolved unless there is common ground.

And that common ground in a science debate is SCIENCE.

I would hope that you will eventually accept the assumptions I've described them

Why on earth should I? I know you have no grounding in chemistry for the assumptions you made in the first part of the debate. I know from 12 years worth of geology training that you have no grounding in geology for the tectonics assumptions. I know from my years of chemistry experience as an R&D chemist, you are demonstrably misapplying the Second Law.

So do tell me why I should eventually accept anything you claim?

Especially when you never agree to apply those claims to challenges in which we know the actual provable answer to test to see if your claims have any merit whatsoever?

Face it, you aren't interested in proving anything. You want people to just accept your statement. When they show they know more than you do, you resort to rhetoric. When they insist on your backing up a claim, you ultimately provide yourself an "out".

I must also reaffirm that degrees, titles, tenure, published papers, popular acclaim, eloquence, etc. are not as important as the underlying ideas.

And I must reaffirm that degrees, titles, tenure and published papers means the person has done the actual work on topics you only dream about understanding.

Face it, no one waves their degrees around without it having some bearing on the facts.

Do you know why it is so easy for me, Baggins, US38, Temperate and the other scientists on this board to find example after example and reference after reference that proves your assumptions are flawed?

It's because we know the field. We have facility at finding the facts and know where to look.

It's really almost too easy for us to poke holes in your assumptions. It's fun for us because we do get to keep our feet in the pool.

The ideas have merit, or they do not. Karl Marx was an absolutely brilliant man. I will never, ever be as smart as he is, and I would never be able to complete with him in many areas one might measure intellectual prowess. But I have complete confidence that my ideas on economics, based on Adam Smith and 150 years of failed communism and socialism, are right and that Karl Marx's economic ideas are wrong. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." True knowledge and understanding come from God and nowhere else.

Oh geez, did you get tired of dealing with science so now we have to have a go at "Communism"?

Is that where we are going next in the "Creationist Epistemology Whack-a-Mole Game"?

 

[True_Blue]

It seems liek the definition of entropy you're using from that site is only applicable in a sociological sense, and not to do with thermodynamics, so that definition has no meaning in this argument.

* In classical physics, the entropy of a physical system is proportional to the quantity of energy no longer available to do physical work. Entropy is central to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in an isolated system any activity increases the entropy.

" * In quantum mechanics, von Neumann entropy extends the notion of entropy to quantum systems by means of the density matrix.

* In probability theory, the entropy of a random variable measures the uncertainty about the value that might be assumed by the variable.

* In information theory, the compression entropy of a message (e.g. a computer file) quantifies the information content carried by the message in terms of the best lossless compression rate.

* In the theory of dynamical systems, entropy quantifies the exponential complexity of a dynamical system or the average flow of information per unit of time.

* In sociology, entropy is the natural decay of structure (such as law, organization, and convention) in a social system.

* In the common sense, entropy means disorder or chaos. "
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Entropy

So far on Christian Forums, I have used entropy in every way described above except quantum mechanics. So myself and the contributors of this article state that entropy is valid in many other fields besides the definition provided in the pure classical physics sense. If you disagree, you can't be saying stuff like "True_Blue is an idiot," or "True_Blue isn't a full-time professional scientist like moi," or "it just isn't so that it applies to fields beyond classical physics." No, if you're going to disagree, you ought to tell me WHY entropy and the 2nd Law don't apply in these other realms. Not one of you has done so (at least not to my knowledge). Since physics ultimately governs everything in this universe, it is perfectly clear to me that if chemistry, nature, human beings are subsets of the universe, then everything those things do is governed by the Second Law in all the areas reasonably applied above. That's pretty clear and common sense rationale, in my view. Now, what is your analysis?

 

[Kyrisch]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that Entropy in a system must always increase.

Entropy is a mathematical quantity.

How is the Second Law not a mathematical concept? We're not saying it doesn't apply to other fields, we're saying that the only form in which it applies is the mathematical one, because that is the only law there is!

 

[True_Blue]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that Entropy in a system must always increase.

Entropy is a mathematical quantity.

How is the Second Law not a mathematical concept?

It is a mathematical concept. What responders on this thread aren't getting is that since everything in this universe is properly mathematical, including chemistry, physics, sociology, economics, law, biology, music, etc., entropy is universally applicable.

 

[us38]

It is a mathematical concept. What responders on this thread aren't getting is that since everything in this universe is properly mathematical, including chemistry, physics, sociology, economics, law, biology, music, etc., entropy is universally applicable.

Besides this post being wholly innaccurate, what you don't seem to understand about entropy is that an increase in entropy of a system implies almost nothing as to what's acutally happening in the system. If I give you a box, and tell you that the entropy in the box is increasing, you cannot tell me the details of what's happening in the box just based on how it's entropy is changing. Further, you cannot tell me the specifics of how small portions of the box are changing.

 

[Kyrisch]

[By the 2nd Law, friction and other contrary forces must cause the continents to slow down at a diminishing exponential rate...

Wrong.

US38, the 2nd Law is not an equation--it's an idea.

Wrong.

It is a mathematical concept.

Closer. I fear that you are just moving goalposts, though. So you agree that the Second Law is an equation?

 

[us38]

No, if you're going to disagree, you ought to tell me WHY entropy and the 2nd Law don't apply in these other realms. Not one of you has done so (at least not to my knowledge).

The 2nd law contains no terms for sociological pressures, no terms for futures trading, and no terms precedents in court. If you want to have the 2nd law apply to everything in the world, you get to prove it applies. I've asked you many time to do so, and you haven't even attempted to. Not once. Go ahead, show us how it can apply. Show us that we're all wrong. I'd love to see it, but I have a feeling all you'll post is rhetoric.

There you go. Go prove your case.

 

[True_Blue]

Besides this post being wholly innaccurate, what you don't seem to understand about entropy is that an increase in entropy of a system implies almost nothing as to what's acutally happening in the system. If I give you a box, and tell you that the entropy in the box is increasing, you cannot tell me the details of what's happening in the box just based on how it's entropy is changing. Further, you cannot tell me the specifics of how small portions of the box are changing.

Ok, in the example you give above, all you have to do is draw the thermodynamic box a little smaller and make the boundaries exactly coterminous with the system itself. You can draw the box to encompass all the space a foot around the system. You can draw the box to include all the space a mile away from the system. You can draw the box that exactly encompasses the system itself. You can draw the box to bisect the system and include a little bit of the space. You can draw the box to encompass only as subset of the system. Where we draw the box is done for mathematical convenience. The 2nd Law itself doesn't require the box to be drawn in any particular way.

 

[Kyrisch]

Ok, in the example you give above, all you have to do is draw the thermodynamic box a little smaller and make the boundaries exactly coterminous with the system itself. You can draw the box to encompass all the space a foot around the system. You can draw the box to include all the space a mile away from the system. You can draw the box that exactly encompasses the system itself. You can draw the box to bisect the system and include a little bit of the space. You can draw the box to encompass only as subset of the system. Where we draw the box is done for mathematical convenience. The 2nd Law itself doesn't require the box to be drawn in any particular way.

This only works, however, if the box represents a closed system, which the Earth is not.

 

[us38]

Ok, in the example you give above, all you have to do is draw the thermodynamic box a little smaller and make the boundaries exactly coterminous with the system itself. You can draw the box to encompass all the space a foot around the system. You can draw the box to include all the space a mile away from the system. You can draw the box that exactly encompasses the system itself. You can draw the box to bisect the system and include a little bit of the space. You can draw the box to encompass only as subset of the system. Where we draw the box is done for mathematical convenience. The 2nd Law itself doesn't require the box to be drawn in any particular way.

You've missed the point. You're trying to declare what's going on inside the box knowing only that the entropy of the box is increasing. You can't do that.

 

[Kyrisch]

Regardless of which, we're sort of wayyyy off-topic at this point...

 

[True_Blue]

You've missed the point. You're trying to declare what's going on inside the box knowing only that the entropy of the box is increasing. You can't do that.

For purposes of this discourse, it doesn't matter what's going on inside the box, only that entropy is increasing.

 

[TheGnome]

For purposes of this discourse, it doesn't matter what's going on inside the box, only that entropy is increasing.

Entropy is increasing in the universe, but it's not constant throughout the universe.

The earth gets plenty of energy from the Sun and matter from space. It is an open system. An open system can overcome the effects of the second law temporarily, but the overall system, the universe, will inevitably increase in entropy. Our star only has so much juice, and then it's lights out.

The box is increasing in entropy, but the box isn't uniformly increasing in energy, so you don't really know what's going on in the box. From your poor understanding of the second law, you'd claim that the box is uniformly increasing in energy and declare victory, but you'd be horribly wrong. That's what you're doing in this debate. You're debating like a lawyer, not a scientist. The facts are not interpretable and cannot be changed by the passion of the speaker.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

For purposes of this discourse, it doesn't matter what's going on inside the box, only that entropy is increasing.

Not necessarily. If the box is the Earth, then we cannot say whether entropy is increasing or decreasing: the box isn't 'closed'. Why isn't it closed? Because, dear Watson, there's a great big plasma ball pumping us with energy. The entropy of the Earth could be decreasing. The Second Law tells us that the entropy of a closed system tends to a maximum, but is silent on open systems.

Moreover, if we take the 'box' to be the lithosphere and everything on it (i.e., the land, sea, and organisms thereon), then there are two sources of energy that keep things dynamic and allow entropy to decrease: the Sun, and the Core. Plate tectonics is driven by the energies released by the core and driven to the surface (I'm no geologist, so refer to an expert on this). Indeed, it is this latter energy that allows for life to evolve in the deepest oceans near thermal vents (the immense pressure keeps the hot water from boiling).

Basically, the 'box' we're talking about is not governed by the proven statement "The entropy of a closed system tends to a maximum".

 

[thaumaturgy]

Regardless of which, we're sort of wayyyy off-topic at this point...

Well, we pretty much have to be off topic. That is how the Creationist Mind works.

1. Make big claim.
2. Get shown how claim is in error by someone more knowledgable
3. Realize that someone knows more
4. Change one of the following:
A. Definitions (to suit personal bias)
B. Topic (bring in something you hope the other respondents don't understand)
5. GOTO Step 1, repeat as necessary.

So far True_Blue has started a thread on a proof against abiogenesis using faulty assumptions. When shown how probability works in chemistry and that he has not factored in chemistry into his assumptions, he moved onto plate tectonics. When met by several geologists realized that rhetoric wouldn't pull him through, so moved onto entropy.

Now he's tangling with physical chemists over entropy and refusing to address the thermodynamic fundamentals of entropy before launching off into some metaphorical or "social" entropy.

It's "Creationist Epistemelogical Whack-a-Mole" and it is, apparently, the only way they can think or function.

Because understanding a topic enough to make substantive claims against it usually requires discipline of mind.

 

[us38]

For purposes of this discourse, it doesn't matter what's going on inside the box, only that entropy is increasing.

Right now the box is the size of the universe, and you're trying to dictate what happens in a very, very small part of it (earth). You have made very specific predictions. You claim they follow from the 2nd law, yet you've refused to show that they do. You can't, and you know it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Ok, in the example you give above, all you have to do is draw the thermodynamic box a little smaller and make the boundaries exactly coterminous with the system itself. You can draw the box to encompass all the space a foot around the system. You can draw the box to include all the space a mile away from the system. You can draw the box that exactly encompasses the system itself. You can draw the box to bisect the system and include a little bit of the space. You can draw the box to encompass only as subset of the system. Where we draw the box is done for mathematical convenience. The 2nd Law itself doesn't require the box to be drawn in any particular way.

True_Blue, you are demonstrably wrong on this point. You are making a huge error in this. Here is your error, so you can know it in the future:

You are acting as if it is possible to arbitrarily draw the borders of the system to which the second law applies.

This is patently false. It is, in fact, the biggest error you can make in applying the Second Law. It has to be in an isolated system. Otherwise it is part of some overall larger system.

As has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, the crystallization of ice in your freezer has a negative entropy term for the "reaction". But the key is that your freezer is not an isolated system. It is part of the fridge which is pumping out heat and taking in electricity, so it is part of the larger universe system.

You cannot "arbitrarily" define the boundaries of the system. In order for something to be be analyzed for its compliance with the 2nd Law you have to place the boundaries of the system such that there is not influx of energy across the boundaries.

That is anything but an arbitrary choice.

How do I know that the ice-cube tray is not an isolated system? Because the entropy of crystallization of the ice is negative, ergo something else must be going on. The entropy of some larger system is increasing.

 

[True_Blue]

Entropy is increasing in the universe, but it's not constant throughout the universe.

The earth gets plenty of energy from the Sun and matter from space. It is an open system. An open system can overcome the effects of the second law temporarily, but the overall system, the universe, will inevitably increase in entropy. Our star only has so much juice, and then it's lights out.

The box is increasing in entropy, but the box isn't uniformly increasing in energy, so you don't really know what's going on in the box. From your poor understanding of the second law, you'd claim that the box is uniformly increasing in energy and declare victory, but you'd be horribly wrong. That's what you're doing in this debate. You're debating like a lawyer, not a scientist. The facts are not interpretable and cannot be changed by the passion of the speaker.

I said nothing about uniformity or constancy, Gnome. Of course you are right, but I never said otherwise. I'm gratified that you say that the entire universe is increasing in entropy. This is a very, very important observation, and I hope that you hold fast to that understanding.

 

[Kyrisch]

I said nothing about uniformity or constancy, Gnome. Of course you are right, but I never said otherwise. I'm gratified that you say that the entire universe is increasing in entropy. This is a very, very important observation, and I hope that you hold fast to that understanding.

What happened to your belief that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not valid? Now you're acting like you knew all along. I am so confused right now.

 

[Vene]

Since True_Blue has refused to use his model in Temperate's challenge and has since changed the subject to thermodynamics, is it safe to say his model has been rejected? Or do we need more nonsense from him?