Creationism VS Public schools

Does anyone care to throw their definition of the 2nd law out there? Does it not deal with the dispersion of heat and energy over time in an isolated system? Secondly does it not deal with entropy and disorder? Third are their truely any isolated systems out there?

Aceofspades77 said:

Does anyone care to throw their definition of the 2nd law out there?

Click to expand...

Here's one: there does not exist any cyclic process whose only effects are the removal of heat from a single reservoir and the production of positive work.

Does it not deal with the dispersion of heat and energy over time in an isolated system?

Click to expand...

The second law applies to all systems, no just isolated ones. However, it is only in isolated systems that entropy can never decrease.

Secondly does it not deal with entropy and disorder?

Click to expand...

A more or less formal way of considering entropy was formulated by Ludwig Boltzmann, who defined entropy as the logarithm of the number of possible microstates that correspond to the same macrostate. A macrostate is a set of values for what are known as the "state variables" of a system, things like temperature, pressure, and volume. A microstate is a possible configuration for every microscopic element of the system, such as gas molecules.

Equating entropy with macroscopic disorder is, at best, a stretched metaphor.

Third are their truely any isolated systems out there?

Click to expand...

In thermodynamics, one often analyzes a system in conjunction with its "surroundings", effectively taking the entire universe as an isolated system. The corollary is that non-isolated systems, if they decrease in entropy, must "export" an equal or greater amount of entropy to their surroundings.

Aceofspades77 said:

Does anyone care to throw their definition of the 2nd law out there? Does it not deal with the dispersion of heat and energy over time in an isolated system? Secondly does it not deal with entropy and disorder? Third are their truely any isolated systems out there?

Click to expand...

The function of the second law is to define the property entropy, which is a function of state that reaches a maximum at equilibrium in an isloated system. For a spontaneous process the total entropy change of an isolated system (or enclosure) is positive. An entropy change occurs only if there is a heat change when a process is carried out reversibly.
- Taken from: Physical Chemistry with Applications to the Life Sciences, D. Eisenberg and D. Crothers (1979)

AV1611VET said:

Gracchus said:

The Buddha, whose name was Siddhartha, was born into a royal family, so it is quite likely his son was well provided for.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter --- daddy flew the coop. No changing messy diapers, no rocking little Guatama in his arms and getting spit-up on. No being there to help little Gautama get A's and B's in school. No, sir --- child-rearing wasn't his thing. HOWEVER, he did return once little Guatama was grown up.

We have names for people like that over here, you know --- and believe me --- it's not "enlightened."

Click to expand...

How about fathers whose children starve when the father has the power to feed them? How about fathers whose children are killed and maimed when the father has the power to protect them?

AV1611VET said:

Gracchus said:

If you know he wasn't, please provide citations.

Click to expand...

Financially yes --- money is a good substitute for dad's love, isn't it?

Click to expand...

And the loving god who condemns his children to death, misery, poverty, starvation, ignorance, war, disease, molestation, and slavery, is on the other hand a “good father”?

AV1611VET said:

Gracchus said:

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, Jesus was also a wandering teacher, living on alms.

Click to expand...

Um --- no --- He was quite rich thanks to some Wise Men from the East, and some carpentry work in His earlier years. When needed though, even the fish "coughed up" some monetary support for Him. (You see, fish aren't atheists.)

Click to expand...

And if he was rich, why did Peter have to go catch a fish to pay his taxes? Perhaps he owned real estate? Apparently not, because “Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” Matthew 8:20 KJV

And then again “Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” Matthew 19:21 KJV

Are you saying Jesus asks his potential followers to give up more than he has himself? That is obvious hypocrisy. It sounds like something a bleeding heart liberal might say.

Wait! There is more! “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” Acts 2:43 KJV

The early followers formed a commune! Jesus was a RED! Forget the bad father stuff. Jesus was a #@&%!# communist!



Really, AV1611VET, you add to the scripture or ignore it, to fashion a god who looks just like you.

"God created man in his own image, and man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment." -- H.L. Mencken

Aceofspades77 said:

Well actually I don't mind be corrected but not chastised when I have not had a chance to state my opinion and when my idea is not in accordance with your own. But i am willing to continue to debate. Seeing this thread is as good as any.

Click to expand...

My intent was not to chastise in post 24, but simply to correct some misunderstandings. I'm sorry if my rather direct writing style gives the impression that I'm chastising, because that is not what I intent. When I see misconceptions in a science discussion I correct them, and I expect people to do the same for me. It's not always nice for the ego to be corrected, but I always thank people afterwards, because I'd rather learn from my mistakes and feel embarrassed about them than continue to hold any misconceptions.

You might not like to hear it, but the way you expressed the 2nd law in the earlier post, was wrong, pure and simple. Don't beat yourself, or me, up about it. People make mistakes, myself included. The 2nd law is difficult to wrap one's head around. I recently had a course in "Biological thermodynamics" and yet there are still plenty of blanks in my knowledge.

The way you expressed the law in your former post would mean that a seed couldn't grow into a tree. You later added information provided by an intelligence into the mix, but that would rule out entirely mundane processes such as snow flake formation. These things occur naturally and all over the world, so obviously your understanding of the 2nd law must have been incorrect.

But perhaps it would be easier, as you say, to start over, and explain it as simple as possible. The member Split Rock earlier made the point that it would help if you could point out the exact evolutionary mechanism that violates the law. Perhaps that would be a good starting point.

I'll just address a few select quotes:

Aceofspades77 said:

The good old straw men argument, I hate it as much as you.

Click to expand...

That's good to hear.

Aceofspades77 said:

But it seems you yourself have a biased opinion towards evolution as much as I do for creationism.

Click to expand...

We all have bias, it's a natural part of being a human being. But we should always be careful that our bias doesn't deceive us. Bias tends to close minds concerning opposing viewpoints, and open them indiscriminately towards any sources that tells us what we like to hear.

Aceofspades77 said:

I have found just as much useful information from "creation websites" as I have from non creationist.

Click to expand...

I would advice scientific sources only, when learning about science. If there's a non-science agenda, that's a huge warning sign. Likewise I'd be careful about any 911-Truth site if I wanted to learn about the World Trade Center attacks. Sure these sites can look impressive on first sight, especially if they tell you want you want to hear, but it's doubtful you'll learn proper scientific criticisms.

Aceofspades77 said:

Ever heard of Brian green. I've been trying to portray his ideas of the 2nd law but have done it ever so poorly.

Click to expand...

I haven't heard about him. If you have a video or text link where he is expressing his ideas I'd be interested.

Aceofspades77 said:

It seems that you are quick to judge and dismiss my entire belief structure already. I'm willing to be corrected but once correction turns into judgment that does seem to go over to well with anybody I'd think.

Click to expand...

I think you're reading a bit too much into my corrections and criticisms.

Aceofspades77 said:

I have not posed any judgment against you yet have I.

Click to expand...

You mean other than the time you practically called me insane?

Aceofspades77 said:

I do accept my mistakes in fact I consider myself a pretty humble person...

Click to expand...

And despite of this you consider yourself more of an expert than the scientific community. Is that humility? Even in this thread a physicist told you you were wrong, and you simply brushed it off.

Aceofspades77 said:

Looks like you can get just as passionate in your writing as I. I now find reality insane? What happened to our congenial discussion? Nice earning the respect points.

Click to expand...

Notice that you're the one who introduced the word "insane", I merely returned it from whence it came. It wasn't a passionate attack from my side, rather a dispassionate return of your own medicine.

Peter

Now this is the type of answer I not only respect but appreciate. Methodical, informative and helpful. Good on you sixpack. Actually the begining of "all things" is important to my belief structure for it is where all of my ideas originate. In standard quantum mechanics, physics if you had the capicity, could one not only calculate the wherabouts, the comings and goings and history of every particle that has existed? With this in mind could one not trace the path and effects of the second law has on these particles to the begining of history?

Click to expand...

No idea why you want to throw the 2nd Law into this question, but regardless, the answer is no - we could not know the history of every particle and track its motions because particle motion is not entirely deterministic. That is the very nature of QM.

Now, assuming we could do this (and we can't and not just because we don't have a computer large enough but because it would be fundamentally impossible regardless of technology), what do you think the information would tell us?

In Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos he talks about the idea of individual constituents and how they play into disorder(as he's refering to the 2nd law). The idea is that the more particles, constituents or pieces of anything you have, the mathmatical probability of them falling into any sort of coherent order grows expidentially callcullating the overall number of constituents in question. With this in mind how is it that that organisms/working sytems of any kind came to organize themselves into a working machines that produce grow and continue to evolve into more complex organisms? Another question is where did all of the energy of the universe come from to make up all the matter that exists? I'm trying to portray the idea that if we observe highly complex organzied organisms and processes today, did there not have to be high number of available constituents and low entropy at the begining of time to allow for these organisms and working systems to organize into coherent functioning "machines"? I don't understand where the huge pool of resources came from to allow for the universe as we see it today to organize itself into the working processes that we observe. The best example is our earth with it's huge example of living organisms and functioning systems. Just using my commen sense it all seems higly improbable. BTW I'm not asking Brian Greene to agree or disagree with me but rather stating my ideas to this thread.

Aceofspades77 said:

I'm trying to portray the idea that if we observe highly complex organzied organisms and processes today, did there not have to be high number of available constituents and low entropy at the begining of time to allow for these organisms and working systems to organize into coherent functioning "machines"?

Click to expand...

The 2nd law does not prohibit the existence of self-organizing systems. Not by any means- in fact self-organizing systems are everywhere around us. One very obvious one is the simple water crystal. Highly disorganized vapour or liquid water condenses into highly organized fixed patterns, often with enormous complexity. All that is required is to export the entropy somewhere else.

There are self organizing systems that are obvious and then those in the case of biology that I have a hard time understanding. But even then systems work within a certain set of laws that govern the universe. Even grains of sand that organize themselves into clusters in the weightlessness of space from their own gravity is a system that abides by the 2nd law that makes sense to me. How did the first organisms along with their DNA organize themsleves. I liken DNA to computer code as to where the perfect sequence must be in place for the system to work as a whole.

Aceofspades77 said:

There are self organizing systems that are obvious and then those in the case of biology that I have a hard time understanding. But even then systems work within a certain set of laws that govern the universe. Even grains of sand that organize themselves into clusters in the weightlessness of space from their own gravity is a system that abides by the 2nd law that makes sense to me. How did the first organisms along with their DNA organize themsleves. I liken DNA to computer code as to where the perfect sequence must be in place for the system to work as a whole.

Click to expand...

Living systems abide by the 2nd law as well. How exactly the first ones came to be is one of the great unanswered questions of science and the subject of the discipline known as abiogenesis. However, it remains that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not in any sense preclude the advent of life through natural processes.

DNA is not a code. A code is a series of symbols that stand for something else; in other words, an abstraction. The alphabet is a code where the symbols stand for sounds. You can choose different symbols and the code still works just the same as before. DNA is a template, a physical thing. You cannot substitute say, glucose for cytosine and end up with a functionally equivalent system.

We also know that most mutations are neutral- that is to say that in real organisms there is no perfect sequence that must be adhered to. In fact, on average each one of us carries almost two hundred genetic "errors" that came from neither our fathers nor mothers.

Third, I don't believe most abiogenesis researchers today believe the first life forms began with full-fledged DNA, but rather with much smaller self-catalyzing molecules. If fact one of the great questions in abiogenesis today is whether self-replication arose first or whether it was preceded by encapsulation, the production of a primitive cell membrane.

How is a template different from a code or a system used to organize information? And are these genetic errors useful for promoting new adaptable forms of life? Lastly is it observed that genetic errors benefit organisms today or the oppossite or have no effect whatsoever? BTW thx for the replies.

Aceofspades77 said:

I also believe these theories are becoming less and less reliable and stable.

Click to expand...

Ironic, considering evolutionary biology has become more and more useful in real world applied biology.

Also, evolutionary theory has come along way since Darwin's time.

What's ironic is your looping through this thread and providing no explanation to my latest questions. Nice link though I always like signing up to new sites just to read an article. And your signature quote, creationism is not a science but a framework for looking at science. And there are hundreds of scientist who believe in the biblical account of creation who have contributed to their specific area of expertise. I do like your fraggle rock picture though. Yes evolutionary theory has come along way it's more of a cult more now than ever.

Aceofspades77 said:

What's ironic is your looping through this thread and providing no explanation to my latest questions.

Click to expand...

I started at the beginning and simply picked out something I wanted to respond to is all. All I'm really interested in these days is discussing real world biological application and contemporary biotech. Something which evolutionary is a big part of, particularly with respect to bioinformatics.

Nice link though I always like signing up to new sites just to read an article.

Click to expand...

If you have access through a library or university, you can probably read the whole thing. But the abstract was enough to make the point I wanted to convey. Evolution is useful.

And your signature quote, creationism is not a science but a framework for looking at science. And there are hundreds of scientist who believe in the biblical account of creation who have contributed to their specific area of expertise.

Click to expand...

The point is that creationism contributes nothing to various arenas of science. It's just a religious belief, really no different than any others.

It doesn't really matter what those scientists believe. No scientist has ever used creationism to accomplish anything in science ever.

I do like your fraggle rock picture though.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Yes evolutionary theory has come along way it's more of a cult more now than ever.

Click to expand...

If by "cult" you mean "modern biological science with applications in fields like conservation biology, medical research, agriculture, and forestry" then yes, I suppose it's a cult.

AV1611VET said:

That's because your science is god.

Click to expand...

if Science is a God though, then my God is real while yours is most certainly not. My God has a corporal form that I can see and experience.

sigh....

Its pretty sad to think you cant imagine a word without God(s). So much so you think even atheist have gods. Gods are unique to only theology.

PS: i thought nature was our God?

Just like Judaism, Hinduism, and lets say...Bushido has nothing to contribute to science. Where is your reasoning and facts Pete? Once again creationsim, inteligent design ect...is an outlook and a belief structure, a way to look at science. I take the same information that science has provided of which we all have access too and make my own conclusions. And it does not matter what hundreds of P.H.D scientists think? Religious preference or not I have high respect for many scientist wheather I know there deep personel belief structure or not. Why should I care what you think with these type of responses?

Aceofspades77 said:

Yes evolutionary theory has come along way it's more of a cult more now than ever.

Click to expand...

citation needed

Vene said:

citation needed

Click to expand...

A citation for my own quote huh?

Aceofspades77 said:

A citation for my own quote huh?

Click to expand...

No, back up that evolutionary theory is a cult.

Aceofspades77 said:

In Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos he talks about the idea of individual constituents and how they play into disorder(as he's refering to the 2nd law). The idea is that the more particles, constituents or pieces of anything you have, the mathmatical probability of them falling into any sort of coherent order grows expidentially callcullating the overall number of constituents in question. With this in mind how is it that that organisms/working sytems of any kind came to organize themselves into a working machines that produce grow and continue to evolve into more complex organisms? Another question is where did all of the energy of the universe come from to make up all the matter that exists? I'm trying to portray the idea that if we observe highly complex organzied organisms and processes today, did there not have to be high number of available constituents and low entropy at the begining of time to allow for these organisms and working systems to organize into coherent functioning "machines"? I don't understand where the huge pool of resources came from to allow for the universe as we see it today to organize itself into the working processes that we observe. The best example is our earth with it's huge example of living organisms and functioning systems. Just using my commen sense it all seems higly improbable. BTW I'm not asking Brian Greene to agree or disagree with me but rather stating my ideas to this thread.

Click to expand...

"Order" isn't the best way of thinking about entropy. All stable thermodynamical systems are stable because they have maximised their local entropy. Now, one good example of this is a crystal. However, crystals aren't exactly disordered, they're very highly ordered and yet have maximumm entropy.

And when you delve further into thermodynamics, particularly into statistical interpretations (i.e Boltzmann's law that someone mentioned to you earlier) you would then learn that (a) any system HAS TO condense into a final state, and (b) no matter how "improbable" that final state is. This is why the huge improbability arguments are kinda moot - because of how the physics works, the odds of anything else happening as a final state is even more astronomically small than the final state that maximises the entropy.