Why the theistic evolution position is both unbiblical and impossible

[hedrick]

Of course increasing entropy applies only to the entire system. Parts of the system can certainly have increased order. It is paid for by, e.g. heat transferred to another part. If this weren't true, you couldn't build a house or clean up your room.

 

[sfs]

There is nothing in nature and/or the universe that we know of that will create matter/mass out of nothing and there is nothing that we know of in nature that can cause mass/matter to become non-existent.

I agrees, there is nothing we know of in nature that can make or destroy mass (either relativistic or rest) out of nothing. (Just leave "matter" out of it, since by the most common physicists' definition of "matter", we can create matter.) Since nothing in stellar evolution involves either the creation or destruction of mass, your reason for mentioning this fact remains obscure.

Remember, you're supposed to be showing that stellar evolution violates the First Law.

Matter(mass)/energy cannot be created nor destroyed by any natural means that mankind is aware of and NO ONE ever observed it coming into being by some big bang,...nor by a little bang, nor any other bang. So you can look down your condescending nose at me all you wish but you are going to lose on this point every time.

Stellar evolution doesn't involve either a big bang or the creation of mass. Why are you talking about them? (And I'm condescending? You might go back and reread this thread and see who's been dishing out the insults.)

I don't need your lesson, sir. I taught it. And furthermore, why would you throw at me the most basic formula of thermodynamics which only describes the process of that well established law?

I threw the most basic formula of thermodynamics at you because you previously misquoted said elementary formula, and because you're suppose to be demonstrating that stellar evolution violates that formula. For some reason you keep failing to do so, instead introducing all sorts of other topics.

If stellar evolution violates the 1st Law, then that equation fails to hold for some part of the process. Now would you please demonstrate it fails to hold?

So the change in entropy equals the heat divided by the temperature in Kelvins. And? That's half of it; but you assiduously avoid the disorder factor and that is where you and those of like persuasion are, in the end of things, going to fall flat on your faces.

Entropy does not appear in the 1st Law. What are you talking about?

No, because I was correct the first time. Tell the readers straight, Mr. PhD...are you a convert of Dr. Peter Atkins & his efforts to change the meaning of entropy? If so, then this explains your utter confusion on the issue. He's the fellow who has been obsessed with changing the definition of entropy/thermodynamics with the end goal of eliminating the disorder/degeneration factor from consideration. What a fool. He wishes to change a long standing defintion that was given us by people like Carnot, Boltzman, and Clausius.

But those brilliant men had some interesting things to tell us about entropy:

quote: 'if you say that entropy is a measure of disorder, and that nature tends toward maximum entropy for any isolated system, then you do have some insight into the ideas of the second law of thermodynamics.'

'One of the ideas involved in the concept of entropy is that nature tends from order to disorder in isolated systems. This tells us that the right hand box of molecules happened before the left.'

Entropy

The issue is not difficult to grasp...at least not for those who have not been brainwashed into missing the point like you have.


Feel welcome to post others now. I don't think there is anything I say that will be beneficial to you.

Still no sign of support for your claim that stellar evolution violates the 1st Law. Why do you keep bringing up entropy when the 1st Law has nothing to do with entropy?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

sfs

I agrees, there is nothing we know of in nature that can make or destroy mass ...

...Still no sign of support for your claim that stellar evolution violates the 1st Law. Why do you keep bringing up entropy when the 1st Law has nothing to do with entropy?

For the other readers: So here is a PhD who is given direct answers from even the experts who helped formulate the laws of thermodynamics and he can't grasp what he is being told. Good grief.

1. He objected originally to what I said about the fact that the 1st law of Thermodynamics would not allow a natural origin for matter. Why has he changed the context of that statement to begin with?

2. He objected to what I said about BOTH the 1st law (Matter/mass cannot be created nor destroyed) AND the 2nd law (in part: defined as the measure of disorder).

The 1st law prevents nature from creating matter and the 2nd law causes all things to become disordered....and THAT flies directly in the face of his so-called stellar evolution belief.

He says, "Just leave "matter" out of it, since by the most common physicists' definition of "matter", we can create matter."

Why? Einstein didn't. He said matter and energy were interchangeable, but he wants us to believe HIM instead of Einstein and those who agreed with him. But no matter how many times I have quoted the leading experts in this field on the matter he doesn't get it.

Quote: "The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change."

The truth is that he doesn't wish to get it. So I give up. I'll let other posters communicate with him. Good luck.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

sfs



For the other readers: So here is a PhD who is given direct answers from even the experts who helped formulate the laws of thermodynamics and he can't grasp what he is being told. Good grief.

1. He objected originally to what I said about the fact that the 1st law of Thermodynamics would not allow a natural origin for matter. Why has he changed the context of that statement to begin with?

2. He objected to what I said about BOTH the 1st law (Matter/mass cannot be created nor destroyed) AND the 2nd law (in part: defined as the measure of disorder).

The 1st law prevents nature from creating matter and the 2nd law causes all things to become disordered....and THAT flies directly in the face of his so-called stellar evolution belief.

He says, "Just leave "matter" out of it, since by the most common physicists' definition of "matter", we can create matter."

Why? Einstein didn't. He said matter and energy were interchangeable, but he wants us to believe HIM instead of Einstein and those who agreed with him. But no matter how many times I have quoted the leading experts in this field on the matter he doesn't get it.

Quote: "The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change."

The truth is that he doesn't wish to get it. So I give up. I'll let other posters communicate with him. Good luck.

This ...this is a trainwreck. To put it simply it's a repackaging of the "I as a Creationist still don't get how entropy works and what a closed/open system is."

 

[Kirkwhisper]

This ...this is a trainwreck. To put it simply it's a repackaging of the "I as a Creationist still don't get how entropy works and what a closed/open system is."

Really? Tell me what a closed system is and where we find one.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Really? Tell me what a closed system is and where we find one.

I can tell what ISN'T a closed system. I'll give a hint, it's a planet, sometimes people called it the third rock from the sun as a sort of slang. And that sun part...pretty important. See during something I like to call, "the daytime" there's this giant star out in space that bombards this planet with energy. That bombardment is why this planet is an open system.

If this is still confusing...well I'm sure a public school somewhere can slide you into a classroom for a short while to explain it.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

I can tell what ISN'T a closed system. I'll give a hint, it's a planet, sometimes people called it the third rock from the sun as a sort of slang. And that sun part...pretty important. See during something I like to call, "the daytime" there's this giant star out in space that bombards this planet with energy. That bombardment is why this planet is an open system.

If this is still confusing...well I'm sure a public school somewhere can slide you into a classroom for a short while to explain it.

I will ignore your smart-alec attitude and stick to the subject.

You didn't answer my question and you are dodging the issue.

Quote: "Closed systems are able to exchange energy (heat and work) but not matter with their environment. A greenhouse is an example of a closed system exchanging heat but not work with its environment." (Wikipedia).

That was easy enough but you didn't even make the effort.

Thanks to your little 'lesson' on the sun's energy that it provides the earth...tell us then, since our world is an open system and fresh supplies of energy are coming from that outward source every single moment of every single day then tell us; will the earth last forever? Does it keep the living organisms from growing old, getting sick or diseased? Does it keep mechanical devices from wearing out and eventually becoming useless? Does that outward flow of energy stop the aging process? Does it stop commonly used things from rusting, rotting, or deteriorating?

If you say 'yes', then you better go get a head examination. If you reply 'no' then you need to revise your views of thermodynamics because you just admitted the disorder factor in the 2nd Law.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Of course increasing entropy applies only to the entire system. Parts of the system can certainly have increased order. It is paid for by, e.g. heat transferred to another part. If this weren't true, you couldn't build a house or clean up your room.

But the total overall entropy is increased even if the system itself has an increased order for a time. Example: the human body. It takes in energy and increases (for a time) in complexity, strength, and growth but the overall entropy increases. In time the body ages, wears out, and dies.

"The second law of thermodynamics states that in general the total entropy of any system will not decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other system." Wikipedia.

Best wishes.

 

[SkyWriting]

Of course increasing entropy applies only to the entire system. Parts of the system can certainly have increased order. It is paid for by, e.g. heat transferred to another part. If this weren't true, you couldn't build a house or clean up your room.

It could be paid for with heat currency, but what energy would put forth the effort to do the work, why, and following what guidelines to accomplish the task?

And can you give an example of lowered entropy. Outside of your intelligence based examples.

 

[sfs]

sfs

For the other readers: So here is a PhD who is given direct answers from even the experts who helped formulate the laws of thermodynamics and he can't grasp what he is being told. Good grief.

Put another way, here's a creationist who's being told by one of the experts he claims to be following that he's misunderstanding the physics, and he won't consider for even a second that he's wrong.

1. He objected originally to what I said about the fact that the 1st law of Thermodynamics would not allow a natural origin for matter. Why has he changed the context of that statement to begin with?

I objected to this statement: "Stellar evolution violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. 'Matter can neither be created nor destroyed' (wikipedia) by any natural process." I then challenged you to support your claim that stellar evolution violates the 1st Law. I am still waiting for you to do so. (You do know that stellar evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang, don't you?) I also pointed out that your statement of the 1st Law was wrong, since it is.

2. He objected to what I said about BOTH the 1st law (Matter/mass cannot be created nor destroyed) AND the 2nd law (in part: defined as the measure of disorder).

The 1st law prevents nature from creating matter and the 2nd law causes all things to become disordered....and THAT flies directly in the face of his so-called stellar evolution belief.

He says, "Just leave "matter" out of it, since by the most common physicists' definition of "matter", we can create matter."

Why? Einstein didn't. He said matter and energy were interchangeable, but he wants us to believe HIM instead of Einstein and those who agreed with him. But no matter how many times I have quoted the leading experts in this field on the matter he doesn't get it.

I said that physicists can create matter, because they can and do, using the most common meaning of "matter" that physicists use (which Einstein of course knew perfectly well).

Look up "matter creation" in Wikipedia, and you'll find a whole article on the subject. It begins, "Matter creation is the process inverse to particle annihilation. It is the conversion of massless particles into one or more massive particles," and goes on to note, "in high-energy particle colliders, matter creation events have yielded a wide variety of exotic heavy particles precipitating out of colliding photon jets."

In other words, matter (as the word is usually understood by physicists) is routinely created in particle accelerators -- which means it really can't be impossible, can it? (I was an experimental particle physicist for ten years, so this is not exactly new to me.)

Quote: "The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change."

Continuing to read in the same Wikipedia article, we come to the section "Exceptions", which states, "The principle of matter conservation may be considered as an approximate physical law that is true only in the classical sense, without consideration of special relativity and quantum mechanics. Another difficulty with the idea of conservation of 'matter' is that 'matter' is not a well-defined word scientifically, and when particles that are considered to be "matter" (such as electrons and positrons) are annihilated to make photons (which are often not considered matter) then conservation of matter does not take place, even in isolated systems."

Conservation of energy is, as far as we know, always true. Conservation of matter is not. So equating conservation of energy with conservation of matter is wrong, which you would know if you read and understood the very article you're quoting.

Stellar evolution conserves energy, and therefore obeys the 1st Law. Whether it conserves "matter" or not is irrelevant, since the 1st Law isn't stated in terms of matter. Now, if you wish to define matter as being identical to mass (and therefore energy), then matter is indeed conserved -- but in that case stellar evolution conserves matter, too.

So I'll ask yet again: please show how stellar evolution violates the 1st Law.

 

[sfs]

It could be paid for with heat currency, but what energy would put forth the effort to do the work, why, and following what guidelines to accomplish the task?

And can you give an example of lowered entropy. Outside of your intelligence based examples.

As I sit here, the pond down the street is slowly and spontaneously freezing. Ice has lower entropy than liquid water, and therefore the entropy of the pond is decreasing. The energy flow that enables this to happen consists of heat flow into the surrounding air (whose entropy is increasing in the process) and photons (far infrared) being emitted into the surroundings (and into space). No intelligent intervention required, no special mechanisms needed.

 

[Ronald]

To SFS,
You're defending micro-evolution, where an adaptive mechism exists in the code of an organism. But the organism does not change into a different organism.

As for Natural Selection: So you think nature has a mind to order these things? That's a joke. How could you believe in God who is sovereign and designed all of creation and be double-minded saying that nature selected these changes by chance mutations? Either God did it or nature did. Make up your mind.

You are the one defending micro-evolution. There's no argument there.

 

[sfs]

To SFS,
You're defending micro-evolution, where an adaptive mechism exists in the code of an organism.

Could you be more specific? I've defended and attacked all sorts of things in this thread, mostly in response to basic scientific errors from other people -- including some from you. In fact, you have one in the sentence I've just quoted. In microevolution, no adaptive mechanism exists within the code of an organism. Rather, microevolution happens when a genetic change occurs to the code of an organism, and then spreads in the population.

But the organism does not change into a different organism.

Of course it changes to a different organism; if it's got different genes, it's different, just as I am a different organism than either of my parents. What it doesn't do is change into a different species.

As for Natural Selection: So you think nature has a mind to order these things? That's a joke.

If you think natural selection requires nature to have a mind that's overseeing the selection, then you don't know what natural selection is. Tell me, if it's below zero outside and you have two groups of rabbits, one with thick fur and one with thin fur, is one group more likely to survive? Does nature have to have a mind for the thick-furred ones to survive better?

How could you believe in God who is sovereign and designed all of creation and be double-minded saying that nature selected these changes by chance mutations? Either God did it or nature did. Make up your mind.

Perhaps your God is not sovereign over nature, but the God of Christianity is. According to the Bible, it is God who sends the rain to fall and the crops to grow, who orders the stars, who causes the sun to shine and who watches the fall even of a sparrow. Did you think those weren't also natural processes?

You are the one defending micro-evolution. There's no argument there.

When someone makes mistakes about microevolution, I correct them about microevolution. When someone makes mistakes about macroevolution, I correct them about that. The same goes for electricity or astronomy or gravity -- whatever bits of science people are currently mangling (provided I know the science in question, that is).

 

[Assyrian]

To SFS,
You're defending micro-evolution, where an adaptive mechism exists in the code of an organism. But the organism does not change into a different organism.

In microevolution, no adaptive mechanism exists within the code of an organism. Rather, microevolution happens when a genetic change occurs to the code of an organism, and then spreads in the population.

Not in the code of the organism, but isn't a major source of variation in microevolution the differing codes of the entire population, with adaptation being a change in their frequency in the population?

 

[SkyWriting]

To SFS,
You're defending micro-evolution, where an adaptive mechism exists in the code of an organism. But the organism does not change into a different organism.

As for Natural Selection: So you think nature has a mind to order these things? That's a joke. How could you believe in God who is sovereign and designed all of creation and be double-minded saying that nature selected these changes by chance mutations? Either God did it or nature did. Make up your mind.

You are the one defending micro-evolution. There's no argument there.

I don't think there is any barrier between micro and macro evolution.
But neither one has the "smarts" to create life out of rocks lying in the sunshine. No matter how long.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't think there is any barrier between micro and macro evolution.
But neither one has the "smarts" to create life out of rocks lying in the sunshine. No matter how long.

The odd thing is, throughout church history, up until the experiments of Francesco Redi in the 17th century and Louis Pasteur in the 19th, that is what Christians thought did happen, that God gave the earth the ability to produce living creatures Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds. They believe the earth still had this power God gave it, and that dirt spontaneously produced grasshoppers and flies, frogs and mice. You can read that in the church fathers like Basil, Ambrose and Augustine.

They had the timescale all wrong, it took billions of years for life to evolve into mice, but the idea that God gave matter the ability to produce life still holds.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

I don't think there is any barrier between micro and macro evolution.
But neither one has the "smarts" to create life out of rocks lying in the sunshine. No matter how long.

It's a simple as this, dear friend:

Geneticists can produce this:

...and this:



But they will never successfully manipulate genes to do this:

or this:

or this:

Why? Because of the laws God imposed upon nature: those organisms that are not of the same kind will not successfully reproduce offspring.

AND...when scientists do attempt to cross those barriers they get results like this:

...or this:

The truth is that if evolution were a fact of nature then it should be just as easy to cross humans and chimps as it is to cross lions & tigers, or horses and donkeys. But alas, they cannot.

 

[Keachian]

Falsities and hyperbole. You really know how to propose creatures that if real would overturn most of the field of biology don't you kirk

 

[SkyWriting]

The odd thing is, throughout church history, up until the experiments of Francesco Redi in the 17th century and Louis Pasteur in the 19th, that is what Christians thought did happen, that God gave the earth the ability to produce living creatures Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds. They believe the earth still had this power God gave it, and that dirt spontaneously produced grasshoppers and flies, frogs and mice. You can read that in the church fathers like Basil, Ambrose and Augustine.

They had the timescale all wrong, it took billions of years for life to evolve into mice, but the idea that God gave matter the ability to produce life still holds.

Why would life evolve into mice?

 

[SkyWriting]

Darwinian evolution of living organisms does not exist and never did. "After his kind' is the rule of nature and always has been. God's Word is true and Darwin was wrong.

Darwin was wrong about a number of things. But we can observe changes in populations. So he was right about that.

Darwin showed that natural selection changed populations. So he was right about that.

"After their own kind" means that children take on the characteristics of their parents. So that's the front half of evolution right there. Some are not as well fit for their environment. I've watched that happen in 2 hours with baby ducks. That's the second half.

So you'll have to be specific on where he was wrong. If you say one kind won't evolve into another, then I'll have to ask you to define the crossover point, so we both can check the data.