Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

Psudopod

Godspeed, Spacebat
Apr 11, 2006
3,015
164
Bath
✟11,638.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
When a mathematician and scientist seeks to create a law of the universe, like the second law, they formulate the law exactly like the Supreme Court--by narrowly tailoring the law to a specific set of facts. To keep the law from coming under attack, they defined the law in such a way as to preclude any possibility that the law would not apply to every conceivable system in the universe. This is a completely reasonable thing to do, and it makes sense.

Your posts make me cry, they really do.

Scientific laws are not made like legal laws. Say it with me again: Laws are mathmatical equations. They do not apply under all conditions. Let's take a really simple example. Hooke's law.

F = -kx, where F is the applied force, x is the distance stretched and k is the spring contstant. Dead simple, linear relationship between force applied to a spring or elastic material and the distance stretched.

And this holds and will hold until you go past the elastic limit. If you constider a spring, you can stretch it hard enough that it does not go back into the spring shape. At this point, Hooke's law no longer applies. And what's even better is you don't have to take my word for it, or wikipedia's word for it. You can go and try this experiment for yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RealityCheck
Upvote 0

Psudopod

Godspeed, Spacebat
Apr 11, 2006
3,015
164
Bath
✟11,638.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
I must disagree that your statement that the 2nd law only works in a closed system.

Has anyone actually said this? The entropy of a closed system always increases, but components of said system may have a decrease in entropy if the overall entropy increases.

Here is the wiki on Gibbs free energy. Please read it at least - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy
 
Upvote 0

TemperateSeaIsland

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi
Aug 7, 2005
3,195
171
Wales, UK
✟21,785.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
By intuition,

And this is fundamentally your problem. The more we learn the more we realize how much intuition sucks at coming up with models on how the universe works.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
By intuition, I know that the laws of the universe are co-equal, co-existent, and interrelated.
Intuition is woefully poor at explaining the universe. We have a much more rigorous art: mathematics.

Therefore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not govern the other laws of the universe. Otherwise, we'd see the laws of the universe unravel before our very eyes, much like Steven King's Dark Tower series (which I hated and don't recommend to anyone). Also, the laws of the universe govern everything within it, so that every physical process, big and small, is governed by the 2nd law and the other physical laws. Admittedly, this is a bald assertion without evidence, but some things can be known without evidence and relied on to a 100% degree of certainty.
Unfortunately, this is not one of them: the Second Law does not apply to everything. You may has well say that classical mechanics applies to subatomic particles, or the theory of abiogenesis applies to automobile manufacturing.

When a mathematician and scientist seeks to create a law of the universe, like the second law, they formulate the law exactly like the Supreme Court--by narrowly tailoring the law to a specific set of facts.
No, they do not. The Second Law was derived by analysing a particular system: namely, thermodynamically closed ones. If you want to see a derivation, finish those thermodynamics classes.

To keep the law from coming under attack, they defined the law in such a way as to preclude any possibility that the law would not apply to every conceivable system in the universe. This is a completely reasonable thing to do, and it makes sense.

In my previous post, I went beyond the strict confines of the 2nd Law as applied by physicists. First, I said the 2nd Law also applies not just to things like heat engines but to every conceivable system with any semblence of order in the entire universe.
An extrapolation that makes absolutely no sense.

Second, I said that 2nd Law effects predominate even when the system is not completely closed.
Another false claim. This can be empiracally disproved.

In point of fact, there is no such thing as a completely closed system. But the 2nd Law has marvelous practical utility despite that fact. So, I gave numerous examples of practical situations of entropy overpowering a non-closed system despite the flow of stuff through the box.
Urgh. As we all explained before, an approximately closed system will approximately follow the Second Law. Not exactly, and there is every possibility that that small 'leak' in the system is sufficient to cause entropy decrease. Furthermore, this corollary only works on systems that are approximately closed. Those that are as open as you can get (the lithospheric plates, for example, or biological systems) follow no such law!

Good gods.

I care far more about the practical application of the law than the simplistic academic construction of the 2nd Law. I must disagree that your statement that the 2nd law only works in a closed system.
You can kick and scream all you want. It has been proven. What you are suggesting is that entropy always increases in every system. That's just... stupid!

It works on a practical level only if the system is "materially closed", and as applied to abiogenesis and the enormous complexity of even a simple protein or DNA segment, the 2nd Law is truly overwhelming. All the sunlight in the universe does nothing to make abiogenesis more likely.
Absolute BS. Energy input is exactly what is required to make abiogenesis occur: it allows the system to decrease its entropy.

:mad:
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
so that every physical process, big and small, is governed by the 2nd law and the other physical laws. Admittedly, this is a bald assertion without evidence,

Woah, there bubs, didn't you just say:

So far, all I'm getting from you guys are posts like this one. You've made a conclusion without an explanation. I'm not interested in posts without analysis and explanation.

So are you saying you aren't interested in your own posts???

That would certainly explain your reticence to test your own grande claims in relation to Temperate's Challenge.

but some things can be known without evidence and relied on to a 100% degree of certainty.

I hope for your sake you never get e-mail scams in your inbox.

When a mathematician and scientist seeks to create a law of the universe, like the second law, they formulate the law exactly like the Supreme Court--by narrowly tailoring the law to a specific set of facts.

Honestly, where do you get this stuff? Do they constrain the system to explain it? Yes. Does that make it such that you, the uninformed on the topic, can come along and redefine it to your liking? No.

To keep the law from coming under attack, they defined the law in such a way as to preclude any possibility that the law would not apply to every conceivable system in the universe.

I really think you should go back and learn where the Second Law comes from. It comes from understanding the efficiency in HEAT ENGINES. Really it is just that fundamental.

Please go read Fermi's book on Thermodynamics. Pay special attention to page 30:

Postulate of Kelvin:
"A transformation whose only final result is to transform into work heat extracted from a source which is at the same temperature throughout is impossible"

Postulate of Clausius:
"A transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible"

In my previous post, I went beyond the strict confines of the 2nd Law as applied by physicists.

And when you go beyond the strict confines of the boundaries of the Law you fall right off the cliff. YOU are not, sorry to tell you this, God. You are a mere person. You may not understand how science is really done or why we even need the Second Law. You extrapolate off into the aether until you are so far removed from the Second Law that you no longer are saying anything related to the second law.

First, I said the 2nd Law also applies not just to things like heat engines but to every conceivable system with any semblence of order in the entire universe.

Indeed, but it starts with heat engines.

I care far more about the practical application of the law than the simplistic academic construction of the 2nd Law.

But see, True_blue, you have to start from an academic understanding of the Second Law.

I must disagree that your statement that the 2nd law only works in a closed system.

Well, please do explain why just about every statement of the Second Law that defines the boundary of a system read something like this:

2. Any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time. This disorder can be expressed in terms of the quantity called entropy. (SOURCE)

The total energy, including heat, in a (closed) system is conserved (SOURCE)

The entropy of an isolated system remains constant or increases. (SOURCE)

For an isolated system, any change over time in S is either positive or zero, that is: ΔS > or = 0 (SOURCE)

Now of course, truly isolated systems are pretty hard to come by, but this is where it becomes important for you to tell us specifically why you think some of these topics are sufficiently closed systems that they somehow mean there is a supernatural force driving them or responsible for them somehow.

We appear to have two competing "hypotheses":

1. True_Blue's Hypothesis: Life is so complex it must violate the Second Law unless there is an external (supernatural) means by which it is sustained.


2. Science's Hypothesis: The fact that life is sustained indicates it is indeed not a sufficiently closed system. Hence it is not in violation of the Second Law.


Here's the data we have for the Science Hypothesis:

A. Energy is constantly being introduced into our bodies.
B. Fuel and matter transfer easily across our "physical boundaries" when we eat and excrete
C. Sunlight provides energy to the earth to drive many of the processes that lie at the base of almost every food-chain.

NOW: Here's a challenge for you (Don't worry, I know you won't or can't take it so I'm not expecting you to rise to this challenge):

PROVIDE evidence that life is a SUFFICIENTLY CLOSED SYSTEM such that it is impossible that it can function owing to its being in violation of the Second Law.

Please show how:

i. There is no energy going into or coming out of a living being.
ii. There is no food going into or coming out of a living being.
iii. The sun is not providing energy to the planet
iv. The ability for animals and plants to metabolize is impossible because there is no increase in entropy in the universe during their metabolism.

I don't actually expect you to be able to prove your point or make a reasonably coherent scientifically robust argument. I suspect you'll come back with more rhetoric, analogies and excuses as to why you don't have to do the same things scientists have to do when they make a claim.

But that's OK. You aren't a scientist and you don't have the scientific discipline to be able to handle that level of "competition". We all have to live with it in our daily lives, but you are insulated from it. You get to spout and pontificate all you like and when the going gets tough you can just walk away from it.


It works on a practical level only if the system is "materially closed", and as applied to abiogenesis and the enormous complexity of even a simple protein or DNA segment, the 2nd Law is truly overwhelming.

This should be easy for you then. Please show how the apparent complexity of life is rendered impossible. Remember, you actually have to "leak test" the system you are looking at to make sure it is sufficiently closed so that the pesky scientists can't come along and point out that there is energy/matter being exchanged through this or that point.

All the sunlight in the universe does nothing to make abiogenesis more likely.

Sorry but you cannot unilaterally discount an energy source in this exercise.

Remember our sun produces 3.8 x 10[sup]26[/sup] joules/second of energy.

The earth receives about 1.74x10[sup]15[/sup] watts of energy from the sun at the upper atmosphere. Approximately 30% is reflected back into space. (SOURCE).

That's a large amount of energy. It cannot be ignored in this exercise. If you wish to ignore it then I highly recommend you don't go out to the beach on a sunny day. It is sufficient energy to drive the weather systems and surface waves on the world's oceans and cause massive burning of the skin without sufficient sunscreen on a sunny day. (Maybe you've never had a sunburn).

Only a force with greater power than the 2nd Law can void entropy and allow the creation of life, and that force is God--a creative, loving, and powerful being.

Yes, we understand, you love God. Excellent. Good for you. Now can you prove that God is the ONLY reasonable explanation? Remember you have to prove the systems you are talking about are sufficiently closed to be clearly in violation of the Second Law without God.

Thaumaturgy, I recognize this thread and this conversation is a spiritual debate more than a scientific debate.

No, it's only spiritual for you because you are incapable of handling the science. For me it's a science debate.

Whenever science is applied to religion, a person's religious convictions kick in, regardless of their viewpoints on science.

Only if they can't handle the science.

It overwhelms a person's capacity to reason objectively.

Only if they can't handle the science.

From the get-go, before I ever posted on CF, I knew that threads such as these would only influence someone who is genuinely undecided, those who have already decided would wither move ever so slightly toward my view or harden their viewpoints even more. Those are my expectations--I do not expect some sort of ideal Platonic discourse.

No, you expected people to just swallow your unevidenced claims whole. Sorry you can't handle the science, but this is what scientists do. If you can't run with the big dogs, as they say, stay on the porch.
 
Upvote 0

TemperateSeaIsland

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi
Aug 7, 2005
3,195
171
Wales, UK
✟21,785.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
thaumaturgy said:
Now of course, truly isolated systems are pretty hard to come by, but this is where it becomes important for you to tell us specifically why you think some of these topics are sufficiently closed systems that they somehow mean there is a supernatural force driving them or responsible for them somehow.

I can't think of a single example of a 100% isolated system tbh.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I can't think of a single example of a 100% isolated system tbh.

My fear is that True_Blue will attempt to use this caveat as another "out" for his explanation, so in an effort to forestall this eventuality I asked him to prove that there is insufficient energy transport across the boundary such that the given reaction cannot be explained by this and must be granted as a true violation of the 2nd Law, since that aspect can be quantified.

He seemed pretty quick to unilaterally declare the mass of solar radiation coming into the earth as insufficient, but then he provides to proof for that claim. So what else will he have to 'conveniently ignore' to make his supernatural claim stick.

We don't have to disprove God, but he most assuredly must positively prove that whatever system he is working with is sufficiently isolated that he perceives a violation of the 2nd Law that can only be superceded by supernatural intervention.

I'm not holding my breath on this. Any more than I'm holding my breath that any creationist on this board will ever provide a scientifically challenging counterpoint.

But I wait with baited breath that I might be proven wrong this time.
 
Upvote 0

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
44
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
And, of course, everytime a DNA strand is made in your body, entropy increases. That doesn't stop then from being put together


I'm glad you make this point. Nothwithstanding the ability of DNA to heal itself and replicate, the data is showing that the genome of the human race will eventually degrade to the point that the human race will go extinct at some point in the future, perhaps within 100,000 years. The influx of human ingenuity into the genome will slow that process, but only delay the inevitable.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s18541.htm
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=51
 
Upvote 0

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
44
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Well, please do explain why just about every statement of the Second Law that defines the boundary of a system read something like this:

Now of course, truly isolated systems are pretty hard to come by, but this is where it becomes important for you to tell us specifically why you think some of these topics are sufficiently closed systems that they somehow mean there is a supernatural force driving them or responsible for them somehow.

NOW: Here's a challenge for you

PROVIDE evidence that life is a SUFFICIENTLY CLOSED SYSTEM such that it is impossible that it can function owing to its being in violation of the Second Law.

Please show how:

i. There is no energy going into or coming out of a living being.
ii. There is no food going into or coming out of a living being.
iii. The sun is not providing energy to the planet
iv. The ability for animals and plants to metabolize is impossible because there is no increase in entropy in the universe during their metabolism.

I don't actually expect you to be able to prove your point or make a reasonably coherent scientifically robust argument. I suspect you'll come back with more rhetoric, analogies and excuses as to why you don't have to do the same things scientists have to do when they make a claim.

But that's OK. You aren't a scientist and you don't have the scientific discipline to be able to handle that level of "competition". We all have to live with it in our daily lives, but you are insulated from it. You get to spout and pontificate all you like and when the going gets tough you can just walk away from it.

This should be easy for you then. Please show how the apparent complexity of life is rendered impossible. Remember, you actually have to "leak test" the system you are looking at to make sure it is sufficiently closed so that the pesky scientists can't come along and point out that there is energy/matter being exchanged through this or that point.

Thaumaturgy, it would be helpful to the discussion if you acknowledged the impossibility of a completely closed system. That would allow us to communicate on the deeper and more fundamental issues of thermodynamics. Too many people are saying my points aren't valid because the given system is not closed. "A closed system is a system in the state of being isolated from the environment. It is often used to refer to a theoretical scenario where perfect closure is an assumption, however in practice no system can be completely closed; there are only varying degrees of closure." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system


I already addressed your challenge, though I am more than happy to reword my earlier points to better communicate. Model the human body or any life form as a heat engine. The inflow of sunlight, nutrients and water into the body means that the body is not a purely closed system. Thus, the body is able to remain alive for an extended period of time. However, the 2nd Law is universally applicable and multifaceted. Thus, entropy is working at multiple levels within the human body, not just its attributes as a heat engine, and acts upon the fundamental orderliness of the body and all of its subsystems, right down to the DNA within each and every cell of the human body. And entropy, notwithstanding any simple scientific equations to the contrary, is nonlinear. Why must entropy be nonlinear? Because all living things die. Over time, entropy catches up to the body notwithstanding the flux of nutrients into it. The inflow of nutrients is only sufficient to delay, but not overcome, the underlying force of entropy acting upon the body. Human beings have one final mechanism at their disposal—inventive ingenuity. Modern medical science acts as an additional “flow” into the thermodynamic box that contains the body, and just like nutrients, acts in a way that slows down the force of entropy. But since entropy grows at an exponential rate over time, eventually the flow of human ingenuity becomes insufficient to sustain the body, and the body dies. The difference between what I've been saying throughout this thread and what some of you think I'm saying relates to the multiple forces of entropy and the multiple objects of the force of entropy. For a cell to form from abiogenesis, the force of entropy that attacks the ORDER of the cell must be overcome. Sunlight and lightning breach a closed system for the purpose of supplying energy to a system, but sunlight and energy do not supply any useful information or organization or inventiveness to a system, and such organization is required for life.

I honestly believe that I have fully and completely addressed your challenge, Thaumaturgy. If you believe one of your points is unresolved, I will be more than happy to elaborate and extend my response.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Your posts make me cry, they really do.

Scientific laws are not made like legal laws. Say it with me again: Laws are mathmatical equations. They do not apply under all conditions. Let's take a really simple example. Hooke's law.

F = -kx, where F is the applied force, x is the distance stretched and k is the spring contstant. Dead simple, linear relationship between force applied to a spring or elastic material and the distance stretched.

And this holds and will hold until you go past the elastic limit. If you constider a spring, you can stretch it hard enough that it does not go back into the spring shape. At this point, Hooke's law no longer applies. And what's even better is you don't have to take my word for it, or wikipedia's word for it. You can go and try this experiment for yourself.

Well to be fair, I recall hearing that one day in the "Hall of Science" the great "Science Council" was convened. I have a brief transcript of that fateful day:

Scientist 1: I have these extra letters here, "F", "k" and "x". I would very much like to use them in a law. I can't really afford any "r's" or "y's" and my constituency is really down on "squared terms" these days...you know the public!

Science Judge: Ah, so we must make a law that uses only F, x and k. Are "inverse relationships" still available to your constituencies?

Scientist 1: Oh yes, they love the whole negative slope thing.

Scientist 2: Well how 'bout x=F-k?

Science Judge: Are you insane? That is going to go over like a lead balloon in the Bible belt! WHy just look at it...it looks like you're trying to say something DIRTY!

Scientist 3: How 'bout F = -kx. that fulfills all the requirements AND we can have it say something about "force"...you know like "Force" is F....

Scientist 1: That works really well for my constituency. But how do we apply this?

Scientist 3: well, x is usually a distance...is there anything where force is related to distance?

Science Judge: Well, it seems to me like when you stretch on a spring it starts to pull back real hard to get back to it's original position.

Scientist 1: Yeah back in my district we call that a "restoring force" and that second part an "equilibrium position".

Scientist 2: Oh yeah! Now we've got some cool fancy words. But what is k?

Science Judge: Well, we don't know other than the number that relates it all together. How 'bout we call it the "spring constant"?

Scientist 4: (Speaking up from the back of the room) In my district we like to pull springs so hard they don't spring back. How will this new fancy pants law play to MY electorate?

Science Judge: No one cares about your electorate, Eugene.

Scientist 4: We'll see about that...I'm going to hold up your recent law that utilizes F, G, two m's and and r squared!

Science Judge: OK OK! Geez! We'll make it only apply up to the ELASTIC LIMIT.

Scientist 3: Elastic limit?

Scientist 2: Don't worry about it...no one will care what that is until they have to apply hooke's law. And who's going to apply this law?

Scientist 1: Well, if we pass this today MY people will apply it every single day! We love springs!

Science Judge: So let it be written, so let it be done!

Ut tensio, sic vis
(Gavel sound, end of session)

And so Hooke's Law was born.

QED.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psudopod
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kyrisch

This Statement Is False
Jun 15, 2008
135
8
New Jersey
✟7,805.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
And entropy, notwithstanding any simple scientific equations to the contrary, is nonlinear. Why must entropy be nonlinear? Because all living things die.

And gravity, notwithstanding F=Gm1m2/R^2 or other such simple equations, is strictly repulsive. Why must gravity make things go up? Because of the following obvious non sequitur, that's why.

For a cell to form from abiogenesis, the force of entropy that attacks the ORDER of the cell must be overcome. Sunlight and lightning breach a closed system for the purpose of supplying energy to a system, but sunlight and energy do not supply any useful information or organization or inventiveness to a system, and such organization is required for life.

1. Entropy is not a force.
2. The basic constituents of life have affinities for one another. Remember hydrogen? That pesky H that seemingly spontaneously ordered itself into pairs of H2? Genetic material and lipid membranes do the same thing. Have you ever seen a "rainbow puddle"? I'm sure you have. And if you had more brain than to chalk it up to GODIDDIT or an inane "oooooh", you would realise that an immiscible substance, like oil, had spilled and spontaneously ordered itself into a membrane. The same thing happens with genetic material inside cells. They can spontaneously self-replicate. It's actually pretty cool.

So let's see: We have a lipid membrane and self-replicating genetic material. This looks like a protobiont, the first cell-like structure posited by the theory of abiogenesis. And all it takes is an atmosphere rich in the right gasses and lots of heat.
 
Upvote 0

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
44
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
QED.[/LEFT]

I recall saying a week or two ago that friction is a non-linear force, and a bunch of folks posted saying I was wrong, citing linear equations describing friction. Those replies died down when I posted sources on the nonlinearity of friction. A linear equation can always be used to model a nonlinear phenomenon. Entropy is likewise nonlinear, and it should be intuitively obvious even if the convention is to use a simple linear equation. Your joke above is mildly amusing, but it doesn't serve to address my earlier points.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
44
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
1. Entropy is not a force.
2. The basic constituents of life have affinities for one another. Remember hydrogen? That pesky H that seemingly spontaneously ordered itself into pairs of H2? Genetic material and lipid membranes do the same thing. Have you ever seen a "rainbow puddle"? I'm sure you have. And if you had more brain than to chalk it up to GODIDDIT or an inane "oooooh", you would realise that an immiscible substance, like oil, had spilled and spontaneously ordered itself into a membrane. The same thing happens with genetic material inside cells. They can spontaneously self-replicate. It's actually pretty cool.

So let's see: We have a lipid membrane and self-replicating genetic material. This looks like a protobiont, the first cell-like structure posited by the theory of abiogenesis. And all it takes is an atmosphere rich in the right gasses and lots of heat.

The replication of genetic material is definitely cool, no question about it. However, this whole thread is devoted to unraveling the assertions you make above. I attribute the coolness of living things to God, not to random chance working against the force of entropy.
 
Upvote 0