Evolutionary PRATTS

[Patashu]

One thing I wonder is whether the concept of a "closed system" is used wrongly by evolutionists. As far as my book "Biological thermodynamics" (D.T.Haynie) is concerned, a closed system is one where matter is not exhanged with the sorroundings, but energy is. So it describes the Earth practically as a closed system. Instead the term "isolated system" is where the system neither exchange matter or energy with the sorroundings.

Perhaps we should start saying "The Earth is not an isolated system" from now on when addressing the 2nd law pratt.

Peter

IIRC the terminology (closed vs isolated) involved depends what field you're talking in.

 

[Patashu]

Isn't it

Not really. Flat-earthism was only believed because there was absolutely no knowledge on the Earth's shape; once it was proved the Earth was round it was quickly discarded. Creationism is different in that the evidence against it is out there but denied by creationists.

That's how I see it. You might be able to draw parallels between creationism and geocentricism, however; they're similar kinds of concepts.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You still here?

The only thing worse that 8 pages of an arrogant, self-indulgent good-bye is 8 pages of lying, arrogant, self-indulgent good-bye.

As I said in my other reply to you, people like you are what ensure that people like us can never leave entirely.

When did you join this board? August of last year? It’s amazing that after six months here, you can think you know what’s reasonable to expect from this forum, or how to react to people like you who prevent the rest of us from having it. Do you even know any of the other people who have reacted the same way during the past two years? USincoginto, Jet Black, OnceDecieved, Troodon, or Mallon? Do any of those names ring a bell?

You’re about as ignorant of this forum as most members who have been here for so little time. What’s unusual in your case is that you’re arrogant enough to prevent you from realizing this.

Hey guys, let's play nice, yeah? I'm not sure if there's some backstory to this drama (can't really see what provoked Blayz's hostile comment, nor Aggies' cooler response), and I'm certainly no mod, but bickering will just get this thread closed

 

[Wiccan_Child]

IIRC the terminology (closed vs isolated) involved depends what field you're talking in.

I was always taught that a closed system is one in which there is no gross energy change. Most things in the universe are open systems, since energy is usually going into or out of them. The universe itself, however, appears to be a closed system.

Though I've never heard of 'isolated' being used in thermodynamical terminology (as 'closed' and 'open' are).

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Not really. Flat-earthism was only believed because there was absolutely no knowledge on the Earth's shape; once it was proved the Earth was round it was quickly discarded. Creationism is different in that the evidence against it is out there but denied by creationists.

That's how I see it. You might be able to draw parallels between creationism and geocentricism, however; they're similar kinds of concepts.

creation is a closer comparison to geocentrism.

 

[Nitron]

Not really. Flat-earthism was only believed because there was absolutely no knowledge on the Earth's shape; once it was proved the Earth was round it was quickly discarded. Creationism is different in that the evidence against it is out there but denied by creationists.

That's how I see it. You might be able to draw parallels between creationism and geocentricism, however; they're similar kinds of concepts.

The roundness on the earth is a fact. Evolution is theory.

Denying evolution is more like denying the existence of atoms.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

When i see creationists use the 2nd law they use it wrong. They take the 2nd law's nickname, entropy, and think that evolution cant produced increased complexity over time because systems break down. The 2nd law is about energy and the energy that fuels evolution comes from the food that fuels reproducing organisms and that energy follows the 2nd law very well. herbivores only get 10% of the available energy from plants and carnivores only get 10% of that.

 

[Aggie]

Hey guys, let's play nice, yeah? I'm not sure if there's some backstory to this drama (can't really see what provoked Blayz's hostile comment, nor Aggies' cooler response), and I'm certainly no mod, but bickering will just get this thread closed

I wouldn’t be so sure of that. The “report” feature seems to be broken now, and moderators tend not to close threads unless someone reports them.

The bickering is because I mentioned in my own thread about this that these sorts of bad pro-evolution arguments have become so common at this board that I’ve lost interest in participating in debates against creationists here, and as long as this remains the case, I’ll only be debating in the Origins Theology section instead. What I haven’t stopped doing (at least not yet) is answering people who reply to me claiming there isn’t any problem with this, or encouraging people like you who seem to be trying to improve it. But it seems Blayz doesn’t think I should say that I’m going to stop debating here, and then not go away entirely.

 

[Split Rock]

Did you read the entire thread? Several people asked me about this there, and I explained it. A few of them acknowledged having used some of these arguments, and using them was a mistake.

You still here?

The only thing worse that 8 pages of an arrogant, self-indulgent good-bye is 8 pages of lying, arrogant, self-indulgent good-bye.

That was really uncalled for. While I agreed with some points that Aggie made in the other thread, I don't agree with his conclusions about evolution supporters in this forum. Nonetheless, you seem to want to prove he was right. Aggie did nothing to deserve such a comment.

 

[Split Rock]

I was always taught that a closed system is one in which there is no gross energy change. Most things in the universe are open systems, since energy is usually going into or out of them. The universe itself, however, appears to be a closed system.

Though I've never heard of 'isolated' being used in thermodynamical terminology (as 'closed' and 'open' are).

This if from a 1979 textbook on Physical Chemistry that I used as an undergrad years ago.

An open system has a boundary through which matter, heat and work are free to pass, whereas the boundary of a closed system does not permit the transport of matter but may allow passage of heat and work. The boundary of an adiabatic system is impermeable to heat and matter... An isolated system has a boundary that transmits neither heat nor work nor matter.

Now it may be that these definitions are not used the same nowadays, but this is where the confusion seems to be coming from.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I wouldn’t be so sure of that. The “report” feature seems to be broken now, and moderators tend not to close threads unless someone reports them.

The bickering is because I mentioned in my own thread about this that these sorts of bad pro-evolution arguments have become so common at this board that I’ve lost interest in participating in debates against creationists here, and as long as this remains the case, I’ll only be debating in the Origins Theology section instead. What I haven’t stopped doing (at least not yet) is answering people who reply to me claiming there isn’t any problem with this, or encouraging people like you who seem to be trying to improve it. But it seems Blayz doesn’t think I should say that I’m going to stop debating here, and then not go away entirely.

Fair enough. I still don't know why Blayz is so hostile though. Oh well.

"Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other!"

The above is a true PRATT, as it is espoused by well-meaning evolutionists who haven't heard the trite-but-true explanation: Hebrew is poetic, and repitition is used to add emphasis. Moreover, Genesis 1 details the creation of the universe, and Genesis 2 begins with a brief recap of the events in Genesis 1.

Personally, I think it is more likely that Genesis 1 and 2 are two different stories about the same vague events, and were retroactively coupled together. But either way, there's an satisfactory explanation that keeps Genesis internally consistent.

 

[Loudmouth]

An oldie but goodie. Long ago I worked in a rather strange environment. Techies that would play charades. We used this once and the other side got it in a reasonable amount of time.

Later on we had visitors from another office. This was tried on them and 30 minutes later they gave up and when told the answer basically said ... What??? Took almost as long to explain what it meant (even if it is no longer accepted).

That's a great story!! I can almost imagine the blank stares as someone lays on the floor in the fetal position.

But much like the 2 LoT argument we need to clarify our arguments. Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny like a slide show of someone's trip to Greece. However, ontogeny does REFLECT phylogeny. Shared ontological stages is strong evidence for evolution.

Were Haeckel's drawings wrong? Yep, sure were. This doesn't change the fact that embryos share common developmental stages. It doesn't change the fact that human fetuses have tails. It doesn't change the fact that dolphin fetuses have leg buds. It doesn't change the fact that both human and fish embryos have pharyngeal pouches.

 

[plindboe]

IIRC the terminology (closed vs isolated) involved depends what field you're talking in.

If we're addressing a claim about a law of thermodynamics the field is already given. So it depends on how it's used in that field. I guess I'll go with my book's definition for now, until someone corrects me.

Peter

 

[sfs]

If we're addressing a claim about a law of thermodynamics the field is already given. So it depends on how it's used in that field. I guess I'll go with my book's definition for now, until someone corrects me.

Peter

The fields in question are chemistry and physics, both of which use thermodynamics. Chemists distinguish between closed and isolated systems. Some physicists use the same convention, while others collapse the two into one class, closed systems.

 

[plindboe]

This if from a 1979 textbook on Physical Chemistry that I used as an undergrad years ago.

Now it may be that these definitions are not used the same nowadays, but this is where the confusion seems to be coming from.

The book I'm using is from 2001, so those definitions are probably still in use. The same is found on wiki: "In physics, a closed system can exchange heat and work, but not matter, with its surroundings."

Peter

 

[plindboe]

The fields in question are chemistry and physics, both of which use thermodynamics. Chemists distinguish between closed and isolated systems. Some physicists use the same convention, while others collapse the two into one class, closed systems.

Thanks for the enlightenment. Wiki does say that "In quantum mechanics confusingly, a closed system is equivalent to an isolated system, and a system that can exchange energy with the surroundings is referred to as an open system[1]." So perhaps this is why so many physicists use it that way.

Peter

 

[sfs]

When i see creationists use the 2nd law they use it wrong. They take the 2nd law's nickname, entropy, and think that evolution cant produced increased complexity over time because systems break down. The 2nd law is about energy and the energy that fuels evolution comes from the food that fuels reproducing organisms and that energy follows the 2nd law very well. herbivores only get 10% of the available energy from plants and carnivores only get 10% of that.

Yes, creationists who refer to the 2nd law almost always get it wrong. But in this thread we're beating up bad pro-evolution arguments, not bad creationist arguments.

 

[Split Rock]

Fair enough. I still don't know why Blayz is so hostile though. Oh well.

"Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other!"

The above is a true PRATT, as it is espoused by well-meaning evolutionists who haven't heard the trite-but-true explanation: Hebrew is poetic, and repitition is used to add emphasis. Moreover, Genesis 1 details the creation of the universe, and Genesis 2 begins with a brief recap of the events in Genesis 1.

Personally, I think it is more likely that Genesis 1 and 2 are two different stories about the same vague events, and were retroactively coupled together. But either way, there's an satisfactory explanation that keeps Genesis internally consistent.

I disagree that this is a PRATT. All because Creationists have an answer does not mean it is a correct one; in this case it is not. Bible scholars who do not have a literalist agenda agree that Gen 1 and 2 were indeed written at different times by different people (do to different word usage and literary styles) and then spliced together later.

 

[sfs]

The roundness on the earth is a fact. Evolution is theory.

Denying evolution is more like denying the existence of atoms.

I don't see a clear distinction between facts and theories. Any beliefs we have about the natural world, above the level of mere sense impressions, are mental models. That includes the roundness of the Earth.

 

[sfs]

Thanks for the enlightenment. Wiki does say that "In quantum mechanics confusingly, a closed system is equivalent to an isolated system, and a system that can exchange energy with the surroundings is referred to as an open system[1]." So perhaps this is why so many physicists use it that way.

Peter

The different usage in physics (especially in QM) probably arose because "matter" isn't really a well-defined category of stuff once you start looking at it closely. Energy, on the other hand, is well defined.