How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[BobRyan]

Martin Rees (note the name, no final 'e') (born 23 June 1942) is a British cosmologist and astrophysicist. He is the author of more than 500 research papers, was the Plumian Professor at Cambridge, was President of the Royal Astronomical Society (1992-94), President of the Royal Society (2005-10), and has been Astronomer Royal since 1995, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees . Asteroid 4587 is named after him.

Rather oddly for somebody that BobRyan describes as an atheist, he was awarded the Templeton Prize in 2011; this prize is awarded to a person who 'has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Prize .

Not all agnostics and atheists claim to have made no contribution in print to "life's spiritual dimension".

Martin Rees: "I've got no religious beliefs at all" – interview
from: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/apr/06/astronomer-royal-martin-rees-interview

Ian Sample spoke to the astronomer royal Martin Rees on Tuesday before the announcement that he had won the Templeton Prize. This is a full transcript of the interview

MR: I was obviously rather surprised that I fitted the credentials, but as I see it, it is primarily because my work is on cosmology and astrophysics and they support work of that kind, because of its general interest. If you look at who has won it, I'm the 7th member of the Royal Society for instance. People like Freeman Dyson have won it, so I'm not out of line with the kind of people they have given it to in the past.

MR: Well, I've got no religious beliefs at all. Of course some of the winners have, but I think not all of them.

next.

My point in referencing such atheist "priests of evolutionism" is that Rees and Susskind both argue that "observations in nature" lead to a conclusion for an "intelligent Designer" and they "needed" desperately some "way out" -- so they re-imagined for us - a multiverse escape pod for fellow evolutionist diehards.

 

[Jimmy D]

BobRyan said: ↑
True. But that would be "science" and "observed fact" --

Evolutionism is fiction.

So we expect Asimov to claim the exact opposite when it comes to blind faith evolutionism EVEN though "actual science" tells us that in EVERY reaction if you take the immediate environment and all the reactants - entropy always increases. This is true with ice melting and it is true with ice freezing.

Asimov writes:
You can argue, of course, that the phenomenon of life may be an exception [to the second law]. Life on earth has
Steadily grown more complex, more versatile, more elaborate , more orderly , over the billions of years of the planet’s
existence. From no life at all, living molecules were developed, then living cells, then living conglomerates of cells,
worms, vertebrates , mammals , finally Man. And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most
complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. How could the human brain develop out of the primeval
slime? How could that vast increase in order (and therefore that vast decrease in entropy) have taken place?
-- Isaac Asimov ,In the game of energy and thermodynamics, you can’t even break even, Smithsonian,August1970,p6.

In that article Asimov "appeals to the sun god" to bail blind faith evolutionism out by promoting a lame argument of the "there is a lot of entropy over there on the sun" - so that indeed a pile of dust just may "turn into a rabbit" because a "bomb blows up on the moon" (or in this case fusion reaction took place on the sun)



How "odd" that atheists are not promoting it. Surely if atheists promoted it -we could all accept the citation.

in Christ,

Bob

Let's read on :

You can argue, of course, that the phenomenon of life may be an exception. Life on earth has steadily grown more complex, more versatile, more elaborate, more orderly, over the billions of years of the planet's existence. From no life at all, living molecules were developed, then living cells, then living conglomerates of cells, worms, vertebrates, mammals, finally Man. And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. How could the human brain develop out of the primeval slime? How could that vast increase in order (and therefore that vast decrease of entropy) have taken place?

The answer is it could not have taken place without a tremendous source of energy constantly bathing the earth, for it is on that energy that life subsists. Remove the sun, and the human brain would not have developed or the primeval slime, either. And in the billions of years it took for the human brain to develop, the increase in entropy that took place in the sun was far greater than the decrease that is represented by the evolution required to develop the human brain.

If you knew it was a quote mine when you first used Asimov to support your argument you were lying, Asimov holds the opposite position to you. If you copied it from a creationist website you can be forgiven, you wouldn't be the first to be duped by their misinformation.

 

[BobRyan]

Let's read on :

You can argue, of course, that the phenomenon of life may be an exception. Life on earth has steadily grown more complex, more versatile, more elaborate, more orderly, over the billions of years of the planet's existence. From no life at all, living molecules were developed, then living cells, then living conglomerates of cells, worms, vertebrates, mammals, finally Man. And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. How could the human brain develop out of the primeval slime? How could that vast increase in order (and therefore that vast decrease of entropy) have taken place?

The answer is it could not have taken place without a tremendous source of energy constantly bathing the earth, for it is on that energy that life subsists. Remove the sun, and the human brain would not have developed or the primeval slime, either. And in the billions of years it took for the human brain to develop, the increase in entropy that took place in the sun was far greater than the decrease that is represented by the evolution required to develop the human brain.

If you knew it was a quote mine when you first used Asimov to support your argument you were lying, Asimov holds the opposite position to you. If you copied it from a creationist website you can be forgiven, you wouldn't be the first to be duped by their misinformation.

Isaac Asimov characterized evolution as an increase in entropy. I have the book on my shelf where he says that.

Merely living causes entropy to increase. So a vast history of living things means a vast history of increased entropy,

BobRyan said: ↑
True. But that would be "science" and "observed fact" --

Evolutionism is fiction.

So we expect Asimov to claim the exact opposite when it comes to blind faith evolutionism EVEN though "actual science" tells us that in EVERY reaction if you take the immediate environment and all the reactants - entropy always increases. This is true with ice melting and it is true with ice freezing.

Asimov writes:
You can argue, of course, that the phenomenon of life may be an exception [to the second law]. Life on earth has
Steadily grown more complex, more versatile, more elaborate , more orderly , over the billions of years of the planet’s
existence. From no life at all, living molecules were developed, then living cells, then living conglomerates of cells,
worms, vertebrates , mammals , finally Man. And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most
complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. How could the human brain develop out of the primeval
slime? How could that vast increase in order (and therefore that vast decrease in entropy) have taken place?
-- Isaac Asimov ,In the game of energy and thermodynamics, you can’t even break even, Smithsonian,August1970,p6.

In that article Asimov "appeals to the sun god" to bail blind faith evolutionism out by promoting a lame argument of the form "there is a lot of entropy over there on the sun" - so that indeed a pile of dust just may "turn into a rabbit" because a "bomb blows up on the moon" (or in this case fusion reaction took place on the sun)

How "odd" that atheists are not promoting it. Surely if atheists promoted it -we could all accept the citation.

in that quote I said --

In that article Asimov "appeals to the sun god" to bail blind faith evolutionism out by promoting a lame argument of the form "there is a lot of entropy over there on the sun" - so that indeed a pile of dust just may "turn into a rabbit" because a "bomb blows up on the moon" (or in this case fusion reaction took place on the sun)

next...

 

[BobRyan]

If you knew it was a quote mine when you first used Asimov to support your argument you were lying, Asimov holds the opposite position to you. If you copied it from a creationist website you can be forgiven, you wouldn't be the first to be duped by their misinformation.

Notice the times we get evol statements about "you are lying" or "creationists are stupid" etc?? This constant resort to the Rev 12 principle of ad hominem accusation is stock-and-trade evolutionism.

 

[The Cadet]

I think it's more likely that you really don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

...Yeah. That's totally what's going on here. We, and every other evolutionary biologist on the planet, do not understand the second law of thermodynamics.

But while you're here, and apparently such an expert on the subject, could you help me wrap my head around this equation?

Because I can't for the life of me understand what it's supposed to mean.

Karl Popper (philosopher of science) wrote that Darwinism is not really a scientific theory because natural selection is an all purpose explanation which can account for anything, and which therefore explains nothing.

Karl Popper changed his mind. He was simply wrong about natural selection, and said so himself:

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. . . . [Popper, 1978, p. 344]

I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. . . . [p. 345]

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. [p. 346]
​

Of course, it's not a huge surprise that the man didn't understand the theory; he was not a biologist. Why do you keep citing quotes from decades ago that the authors have long since repudiated?

Patterson never said anything about the meaning of the quote being incorrect - in fact Sunderland never argues that Patterson is anything other than an atheist blind-faith-evolutionist. He merely points out that even among that group - a drop of honesty can be found on some details.

"Honesty"? Look, I'm sorry, but if you're trying to use that quote to imply that we know nothing about evolution, that's simply not true at all. I didn't take biology in high school and I can give you an essay on things I know about evolution that are true*. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now, and it makes absolutely no sense as stated. Hence why my first reaction was not, "Wow, sounds like Evolution has some problems," but rather, "Huh, sounds like another bogus creationist quote mine." And big surprise, it does not accurately represent Patterson's position.

*Here's one freebie: speciation requires for mutations to accumulate within reproductively isolated populations of animals. I find it hard to believe that any schematicist would not know this.

In that article Asimov "appeals to the sun god" to bail blind faith evolutionism out by promoting a lame argument of the form "there is a lot of entropy over there on the sun" - so that indeed a pile of dust just may "turn into a rabbit" because a "bomb blows up on the moon" (or in this case fusion reaction took place on the sun)

The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. That is, if your system is closed, entropy will always increase. The earth is not a closed system. It is constantly getting massive amounts of energy from the sun. Your appeals to ridicule simply are not particularly interesting - yes, a fusion reaction producing massive amounts of energy can in fact lead to a decrease in entropy. If you find this hard to believe, then this is because you don't understand what entropy is.

What's more, the moment you start talking about how improbable specific decreases in entropy are, you've essentially forgotten the point - in order for your argument to work, any decrease in entropy due to sunlight has to be impossible. Once you accept that the earth is an open system, your argument, which I will dub "argument from bad understanding of physics", or AFBUP for short, disappears, because the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems.

 

[Jimmy D]

in that quote I said --

In that article Asimov "appeals to the sun god" to bail blind faith evolutionism out by promoting a lame argument of the form "there is a lot of entropy over there on the sun" - so that indeed a pile of dust just may "turn into a rabbit" because a "bomb blows up on the moon" (or in this case fusion reaction took place on the sun)

next...

Only as a weak attempt to backpedal when you were pulled up on it.

Originally you wrote

True. But that would be "science" and "observed fact" --

Evolutionism is fiction.

So we expect Asimov to claim the exact opposite when it comes to blind faith evolutionism EVEN though "actual science" tells us that in EVERY reaction if you take the immediate environment and all the reactants - entropy always increases. This is true with ice melting and it is true with ice freezing.

Asimov writes:
You can argue, of course, that the phenomenon of life may be an exception [to the second law]. Life on earth has
Steadily grown more complex, more versatile, more elaborate , more orderly , over the billions of years of the planet’s
existence. From no life at all, living molecules were developed, then living cells, then living conglomerates of cells,
worms, vertebrates , mammals , finally Man. And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most
complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. How could the human brain develop out of the primeval
slime? How could that vast increase in order (and therefore that vast decrease in entropy) have taken place?
-- Isaac Asimov ,In the game of energy and thermodynamics, you can’t even break even, Smithsonian,August1970,p6.

It was a dishonest quote. Asimov disagrees with you ridiculous (mis)application of thermodynamics, as does the rest of the scientific community.

"Next..."

 

[The Barbarian]

Can you show even one reaction on earth that takes into account it's immediate local surrounding that does NOT exhibit an INCREASE in entropy??

Reactions don't take anything into account. They aren't sentient. But as you learned, we have all sorts of things that decrease entropy over time. Plants growing from seeds, rocks warming in the sun, rising thermals in the atmosphere, and so on.

Hint: there is not ONE for which science says you have to leave planet earth and factor in a fusion reaction on the sun

I just gave you three. Perhaps you don't know what "entropy" means. What do you think it means?

Many Evangelicals already know these basics

It's true. Even the weirdest sites, like "Answers in Genesis", realize your concept of entropy is wrong:
A system can absorb energy from other parts of the universe so that thermodynamic entropy decreases. How is this possible? The entropy changes of surrounding systems that donate the energy to the system in question have corresponding increases in entropy that more than offset the entropy decrease.
https://answersingenesis.org/physics/second-law-of-thermodynamics/

So the Sun gains entropy, as various entities on the Earth lose entropy. Likewise, the living things around "black smoker" hydrothermal vents in the ocean lose entropy because of the thermal energy obtained from the Earth's interior. The entropy of the Earth's core will eventually increase as radioactivity ceases billions of years from now, unless the Sun goes red giant first and evaporates all of it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Notice the times we get evol statements about "you are lying" or "creationists are stupid" etc?? This constant resort to the Rev 12 principle of ad hominem accusation is stock-and-trade evolutionism.

Is quote mining dishonest? Is taking someone's words and quoting them out of context to support your argument dishonest, especially when they actually hold the opposite position to you.

You did misrepresent Asimov's views so don't cry when you get pulled up on it.

If you're interested in Asimov's views on creationism and evolution have a read through this article.

 

[Loudmouth]

So we expect Asimov to claim the exact opposite when it comes to blind faith evolutionism EVEN though "actual science" tells us that in EVERY reaction if you take the immediate environment and all the reactants - entropy always increases.

Then you need to include the Sun in your equations since high energy photons from the Sun is what drives photosynthesis, and the carbohydrates from photosynthesis drives most of the remaining reactions found in life.

Not one single science experiment happens in the lab where the 'excuse' for claiming that "dirt self assembled into a rabbit" as part of the experiment, is that "a bomb exploded on the moon at the same time".

For thousands of years, no experiments happened in the lab where a powered machine was able to fly. So I guess airplanes are impossible.

Also, not a single experiment has a deity producing life, yet you still believe that. Why the hypocrisy?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can you show even one reaction on earth that takes into account it's immediate local surrounding that does NOT exhibit an INCREASE in entropy??

See that big bright thing in the sky? It affects the immediate local surroundings.

 

[Loudmouth]

My point in referencing such atheist "priests of evolutionism" is that Rees and Susskind both argue that "observations in nature" lead to a conclusion for an "intelligent Designer" and they "needed" desperately some "way out" -- so they re-imagined for us - a multiverse escape pod for fellow evolutionist diehards.

What you are doing is called projection. It's where you take your own faults and project them onto others.

 

[46AND2]

Why not?

does anyone in the "real world" argue that from conception to adulthood we have such a "VAST descrease in entropy" (to quote Asimov on another story) that we need to "appeal to the SUN" to make the chemical equations balance with entropy taken into consideration??

Seriously - that is where evolutionism wants to fall on its sword??

I think it's more likely that you really don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

Er, what do you mean, why not? Isn't it obvious? You said, "EVEN though "actual science" tells us that in EVERY reaction if you take the immediate environment and all the reactants - entropy always increases. This is true with ice melting and it is true with ice freezing."

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not all agnostics and atheists claim to have made no contribution in print to "life's spiritual dimension".



next.

My point in referencing such atheist "priests of evolutionism" is that Rees and Susskind both argue that "observations in nature" lead to a conclusion for an "intelligent Designer" and they "needed" desperately some "way out" -- so they re-imagined for us - a multiverse escape pod for fellow evolutionist diehards.

Sounds like their personal issues. Honestly, if there is a creator of our universe, I would doubt their intelligence. A lot of the physics and biology is wonky.

 

[BobRyan]

In addition to the refrigerator example already given, you do realize, don't you, that what you are arguing means that a human (or any species for that matter) couldn't go from zygote to adulthood?

Why not?

does anyone in the "real world" argue that from conception to adulthood we have such a "VAST descrease in entropy" (to quote Asimov on another story) that we need to "appeal to the SUN" to make the chemical equations balance with entropy taken into consideration??

Seriously - that is where evolutionism wants to fall on its sword??

I think it's more likely that you really don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

Er, what do you mean, why not? Isn't it obvious?

Let's try one of your own fellow evolutionist's posts as an 'example' of 'why not'.

Isaac Asimov characterized evolution as an increase in entropy. I have the book on my shelf where he says that.

Merely living causes entropy to increase. So a vast history of living things means a vast history of increased entropy, regardless that living species increase in the amount of organization and complexity.

Nothing in thermodynamics prohibits an increase in order and organization as long as there is a greater increase in disorder that is made to happen somewhere else. In the case of earth, gobs and gobs of entropy is created and exported via infrared radiation into outer space. All the objections based on thermodynamics are based on complete misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

"actual science" tells us that in EVERY reaction if you take the immediate environment and all the reactants - entropy always increases. This is true with ice melting and it is true with ice freezing."

No need to insert "fusion reaction on the sun - goes HERE" into the equations in "real science" -- but in "junk science" that sort of thing is needed all day long to get those piles of dust to turn into rabbits.

The seed of a plant, the zygote of a human are like matter transforming engines - designed to organize matter around them into the life form that they were created and designed to build. Each step in that transformation obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics - but the reason the outcome is going to higher orders of complexity from the raw-materials in the environment is classic intelligent design.

Just as a human can build a super computer from raw materials in the earth using intelligent design. And yet each step of that process obeys the 2nd LOT.

So then 2LOT as Asimov presents it - tells us that the raw materials do not ever "self organize" into such a super computer - but also tells us that a human can build one as long as every step conforms to the 2LOT.

 

[BobRyan]

Martin Rees (note the name, no final 'e') (born 23 June 1942) is a British cosmologist and astrophysicist. He is the author of more than 500 research papers, was the Plumian Professor at Cambridge, was President of the Royal Astronomical Society (1992-94), President of the Royal Society (2005-10), and has been Astronomer Royal since 1995, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees . Asteroid 4587 is named after him.

Rather oddly for somebody that BobRyan describes as an atheist, he was awarded the Templeton Prize in 2011; this prize is awarded to a person who 'has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Prize .

Not all agnostics and atheists claim to have made no contribution in print to "life's spiritual dimension".

Martin Rees: "I've got no religious beliefs at all" – interview
from: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/apr/06/astronomer-royal-martin-rees-interview

Ian Sample spoke to the astronomer royal Martin Rees on Tuesday before the announcement that he had won the Templeton Prize. This is a full transcript of the interview

MR: I was obviously rather surprised that I fitted the credentials, but as I see it, it is primarily because my work is on cosmology and astrophysics and they support work of that kind, because of its general interest. If you look at who has won it, I'm the 7th member of the Royal Society for instance. People like Freeman Dyson have won it, so I'm not out of line with the kind of people they have given it to in the past.

MR: Well, I've got no religious beliefs at all. Of course some of the winners have, but I think not all of them.

next.

My point in referencing such atheist "priests of evolutionism" is that Rees and Susskind both argue that "observations in nature" lead to a conclusion for an "intelligent Designer" and they "needed" desperately some "way out" -- so they re-imagined for us - a multiverse escape pod for fellow evolutionist diehards.

What you are doing is called projection.

No - in fact that is not true at all.

I am did in that post was point out that the desperate search to explain why Rees would be willing to admit to an "observation in nature" that was not flattering to "belief in evolutionism" cannot be dismissed with the lame "that is because Reese is a christian" as if that solves every problem for evolutionists.

And as it turns out - there are a number of Evangelicals aware of that fact. Which is why not many of them can be found leaping off the cliff into the cavern of blind-faith-evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Why not?

does anyone in the "real world" argue that from conception to adulthood we have such a "VAST descrease in entropy" (to quote Asimov on another story) that we need to "appeal to the SUN" to make the chemical equations balance with entropy taken into consideration??

Seriously - that is where evolutionism wants to fall on its sword??

I think it's more likely that you really don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

Well, lets see you make it from conception to adulthood on a planet without a sun.

 

[sfs]

does anyone in the "real world" argue that from conception to adulthood we have such a "VAST descrease in entropy" (to quote Asimov on another story) that we need to "appeal to the SUN" to make the chemical equations balance with entropy taken into consideration??

As Paul already said -- yes.

Along the same lines, why should evolution from a single cell to a human be qualitatively different when it comes to entropy than the development of an individual human from fertilized egg to adult? The end states are identical, and the two initial states have very similar entropy.

I think it's more likely that you really don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

Wait -- are you claiming to be an expert in thermodynamics?

The seed of a plant, the zygote of a human are like matter transforming engines - designed to organize matter around them into the life form that they were created and designed to build. Each step in that transformation obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics - but the reason the outcome is going to higher orders of complexity from the raw-materials in the environment is classic intelligent design.

Which is to say, the argument has nothing to do with thermodynamics.

So then 2LOT as Asimov presents it - tells us that the raw materials do not ever "self organize" into such a super computer - but also tells us that a human can build one as long as every step conforms to the 2LOT.

There is no version of the 2LOT that says anything about humans having any ability that raw materials don't.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why not?

does anyone in the "real world" argue that from conception to adulthood we have such a "VAST descrease in entropy" (to quote Asimov on another story) that we need to "appeal to the SUN" to make the chemical equations balance with entropy taken into consideration??

Each addition of a base onto an extending DNA molecule is a decrease in entropy. It takes at least 6 billion instances of decreased entropy to copy the genome of a single cell. You started as a single cell. You are now made up of trillions of cells. You do the math.

Seriously - that is where evolutionism wants to fall on its sword??

We are all watching you flail around your sword of entropy, ultimately slashing yourself with those failed strokes.

I think it's more likely that you really don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

Insert facepalm meme here.

"actual science" tells us that in EVERY reaction if you take the immediate environment and all the reactants - entropy always increases. This is true with ice melting and it is true with ice freezing."

You need to add the increase in entropy of the Sun to all of those equations. Have you done so?

No need to insert "fusion reaction on the sun - goes HERE" into the equations in "real science" -- but in "junk science" that sort of thing is needed all day long to get those piles of dust to turn into rabbits.

Then please explain how the oceans decrease in entropy as they form a temperature gradient between the equator and the poles, and do so without using the Sun.

The seed of a plant, the zygote of a human are like matter transforming engines - designed to organize matter around them into the life form that they were created and designed to build. Each step in that transformation obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics - but the reason the outcome is going to higher orders of complexity from the raw-materials in the environment is classic intelligent design.

So let me get this straight . . .

You can go from a single cell to a full sized baby with billions of cells in 9 months. That doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

However, you can't go from a single cell to a full human being in billions of years because that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Do I have that right?

Just as a human can build a super computer from raw materials in the earth using intelligent design. And yet each step of that process obeys the 2nd LOT.

If no reaction can ever cause a decrease in entropy, how could humans violate that law?

 

[BobRyan]

In addition to the refrigerator example already given, you do realize, don't you, that what you are arguing means that a human (or any species for that matter) couldn't go from zygote to adulthood?

Why not?

does anyone in the "real world" argue that from conception to adulthood we have such a "VAST descrease in entropy" (to quote Asimov on another story) that we need to "appeal to the SUN" to make the chemical equations balance with entropy taken into consideration??

Seriously - that is where evolutionism wants to fall on its sword??

I think it's more likely that you really don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

Er, what do you mean, why not? Isn't it obvious?

Let's try one of your own fellow evolutionist's posts as an 'example' of 'why not'.

Isaac Asimov characterized evolution as an increase in entropy. I have the book on my shelf where he says that.

Merely living causes entropy to increase. So a vast history of living things means a vast history of increased entropy, regardless that living species increase in the amount of organization and complexity.

Nothing in thermodynamics prohibits an increase in order and organization as long as there is a greater increase in disorder that is made to happen somewhere else. In the case of earth, gobs and gobs of entropy is created and exported via infrared radiation into outer space. All the objections based on thermodynamics are based on complete misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

"actual science" tells us that in EVERY reaction if you take the immediate environment and all the reactants - entropy always increases. This is true with ice melting and it is true with ice freezing."

No need to insert "fusion reaction on the sun - goes HERE" into the equations in "real science" -- but in "junk science" that sort of thing is needed all day long to get those piles of dust to turn into rabbits.

The seed of a plant, the zygote of a human are like matter transforming engines - designed to organize matter around them into the life form that they were created and designed to build. Each step in that transformation obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics - but the reason the outcome is going to higher orders of complexity from the raw-materials in the environment is classic intelligent design.

Just as a human can build a super computer from raw materials in the earth using intelligent design. And yet each step of that process obeys the 2nd LOT.

So then 2LOT as Asimov presents it - tells us that the raw materials do not ever "self organize" into such a super computer - but also tells us that a human can build one as long as every step conforms to the 2LOT.

As Paul already said -- yes.

And yet the real answer is - no. We have science today that proves that entropy is "observed to increase" in the lab -- with every reaction when the reaction and its immediate environment is taken into account for observing that increase.

This where Paul of Eugene quotes Asimov affirming that very "detail".

Isaac Asimov characterized evolution as an increase in entropy. I have the book on my shelf where he says that.

Merely living causes entropy to increase. So a vast history of living things means a vast history of increased entropy, regardless that living species increase in the amount of organization and complexity.

Nothing in thermodynamics prohibits an increase in order and organization as long as there is a greater increase in disorder that is made to happen somewhere else. In the case of earth, gobs and gobs of entropy is created and exported via infrared radiation into outer space.

 

[BobRyan]

"actual science" tells us that in EVERY reaction if you take the immediate environment and all the reactants - entropy always increases. This is true with ice melting and it is true with ice freezing."

No need to insert "fusion reaction on the sun - goes HERE" into the equations in "real science" -- but in "junk science" that sort of thing is needed all day long to get those piles of dust to turn into rabbits.

The seed of a plant and the zygote of a human are like matter transforming engines - designed to organize matter around them into the life form that they were created and designed to build. Each step in that transformation obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics - but the reason the outcome is going to higher orders of complexity from the raw-materials in the environment is classic intelligent design.

Just as a human can build a super computer from raw materials in the earth using intelligent design. And yet each step of that process obeys the 2nd LOT.

So then 2LOT as Asimov presents it - tells us that the raw materials do not ever "self organize" into such a super computer - but also tells us that a human can build one as long as every step conforms to the 2LOT.

The seed of a plant, the zygote of a human are like matter transforming engines - designed to organize matter around them into the life form that they were created and designed to build. Each step in that transformation obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics - but the reason the outcome is going to higher orders of complexity from the raw-materials in the environment is classic intelligent design.

Just as a human can build a super computer from raw materials in the earth using intelligent design. And yet each step of that process obeys the 2nd LOT.

So then 2LOT as Asimov presents it - tells us that the raw materials do not ever "self organize" into such a super computer - but also tells us that a human can build one as long as every step conforms to the 2LOT.

So let me get this straight . . .

You can go from a single cell to a full sized baby with billions of cells in 9 months. That doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

However, you can't go from a single cell to a full human being in billions of years because that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Do I have that right?

You cannot get an amoeba to turn into a human brain - no matter the entropy.

But a zygote - DESIGNED to do just that - can do it - and an increase in entropy rather than a decrease - exhibited in every reaction as long at the reactants and the immediate environment are taken into account.

Human zygote to human infant represents a decrease in entropy for the organism – but at every step – in every reaction total entropy is seen to increase not decrease when the immediate environment for each reaction is taken into account.

By contrast Asimov's observation about the billions of years taking dust and gas through the mythical "self-organizing steps" of blind faith evolutionism until it reaches the state of "a human brain" - is that this is a 'VAST DECREASE" in entropy over billions of years of time - compensated ONLY -- by fusion reactions on the Sun!! What non-science! What ... "junk science"

Imagine if you had to factor in fusion of 2H--> D, 2D --> 2He3 --> He4 + 2H every time you wanted to find out if ice melting exhibited a decrease in entropy!!

That is precisely the sort of non-science nonsense we get from blind faith evolutionism seeking to factor out its "VAST DECREASE in entropy"!!