Shalom Ronin,
After reading your posts on thermodynamics and entropy, I see absolutely no evidence indicating that thermodynamics woven in the entropy factor can explain the origin of a physical universe from nothingness and the origination of life from dead matter; therefore, the pseudoscientific research papers you presented are based purely upon a person's faith based interpretation of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. Those papers are really sketched in a VOODOO explanation of the thermodynamic laws of nature because there are no historic scientific observations that confirm your conclusions. The weight of scientific evidences indicates that if the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, thus implying the universe had a beginning. A further consequence of the second law is that when the universe began, it was more organized and complex than it is todaynot in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory. Although the universe appears to be in a state of expansion, it did not expand from a chaotic or disorderly explosion.
Creationists have long acknowledged ¾ in fact emphasized ¾ that order can and does increase in certain special types of open systems, but this is no proof that order increases in every open system! The statement that "the earth is an open system" is a vacuous statement containing no specific information, since all systems are open systems. The Second Law of Thermodynamics could well be stated as follows: "In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system."
You wrote>>>"The fact that the universe can reverse the entropic process leads to possibilities previously ignored when assessing which of the three models (open, closed, or flat) most probably represents the future of the universe. After analyzing the models, the conclusion reached here is that the open model is only an expanded version of the closed model and therefore is not open, and the closed model will never collapse to a big crunch and, therefore, is not closed. Which leaves a modified flat model, oscillating forever between limited phases of expansion and contraction (a universe in "dynamic equilibrium") as the only feasible choice."
My response>>>There exist no hard scientific evidence that the universe can reverse its increasing entropy long enough to cause an imaginary evolution with in the universe. For example, even if the universe conceivably could oscillate, it could never have been oscillating for an infinite time. The laws of thermodynamics compel the maximum diameter of the universe to increase from cycle to cycle. Thus, such a universe could look forward to an very long future woven in a finite past because the entropy predicts that each contraction and expansion would become weaker and weaker over time, indicating that the universe could only be trillions of years old rather than billions. Therefore, thermodynamics does not give a logical and satisfactory answers to the question of naturalistic
evolution of the cosmos. In addition, the roots of the oscillating universe theory originated from the soils of eastern mystical religious philosophy, but not from the established facts of science.
In summation, the evolution model cannot yet even explain the Second Law, but the creation model predicts it! The creationist is not embarrassed or perplexed by entropy, since it is exactly what he expects. The creation model postulates a perfect creation of all things completed during the period of special creation in the beginning. From this model, the creationist naturally predicts limited horizontal changes within the created entities (e.g., variations within biologic kinds, enabling them to adapt to environmental changes). If "vertical" changes occur, however, from one level of order to another, they would have to go in the downward direction, toward lower order. The Creator, both omniscient and omnipotent, made all things perfect in the beginning. No process of evolutionary change could improve them, but deteriorative changes could disorder them.
Not only does the creation model predict the entropy principle, but the entropy principle directly points to creation. That is, if all things are now running down to disorder, they must originally have been in a state of high order. Since there is no naturalistic process which could produce such an initial condition, its cause must have been supernatural. The only adequate cause of the initial order and complexity of the universe must have been an omniscient Pro-grammer, and the cause of its boundless power an omnipotent Energizer. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, with its principle of increasing entropy, both repudiates the evolution model and strongly confirms the creation model.
