| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2005 06:07:09 AM |
| Object: |
Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
From the article:
-------------------------------
Evolution is adequate to explain many of the puzzles of how living things
develop. It is not a complete theory, and possibly it can never be to the
satisfaction of all parties to this controversy. But it is simply mindless for
boards of education to pose a theory of intelligent design to compete with
evolution in the biology textbooks. For one thing, what if there are three or
three thousand or three million plausible explanations for the riddles of life?
Many advocates of creationist theory are quite sincere in their beliefs. They
are entitled to hold those beliefs if they wish. But they have no business
trying to bootstrap their religious beliefs into an educational system which at
its best does not do an adequate job in science education.
-------------------------------
Read it at
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050126/OPINION02/501260302/-1/OPINION
or http://tinyurl.com/66jy5
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 02:26:15 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
If
you start with
with single celled organisms that over time replicated into
multi-celled, multi-
functioning entitities there must be a mechanism to account for this
apparent
decrease in entopy.
who sez it's a decrease in entropy? the sun, which drives life on
earth, is creating a massive increase in entropy by heating the space
around it, including the earth.
Bob, You are making my case. You have said that the sun is increasing
disorder. I agree - it is burning out and someday the universe will be
a homogenous random soup at a static energy level. I also agree that
it drives life on earth because of a process called photosynthesis
wherein
a "code" within the chlorophylln converts the energy to a higher order.
Without that code, the energy from the sun would only accelerate decay
and randomness on the earth - entropy increase.
My crude illustration earlier is a valid application of thermodynamics.
Add
energy to a pile of bricks, say drop a bomb on them, and you increase
the
disorder - a skyscraper does not result. Add that same energy through
a
"code" such as a blueprint and you will get your skyscraper.
Steve
you have focused SOLELY on the SECOND law while ignoring the FIRST
LAW.
By all means, let's bring it in. It assures us that the universe is a
closed
system, not an open one. If you want to assert that order evolved on
the
earth at the expense of order somewhere else in the universe, you see
the problem. Where did the pre-existing order come from? I don't have
a scientific answer, do you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 03:29:18 PM |
|
|
Just thought I'd chime in (I've been reading the thread with interest, and
thought it was about time someone else said something...)
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1107548775.321754.193400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Bob wrote:
If
you start with
with single celled organisms that over time replicated into
multi-celled, multi-
functioning entitities there must be a mechanism to account for this
apparent
decrease in entopy.
who sez it's a decrease in entropy? the sun, which drives life on
earth, is creating a massive increase in entropy by heating the space
around it, including the earth.
Bob, You are making my case. You have said that the sun is increasing
disorder. I agree - it is burning out and someday the universe will be
a homogenous random soup at a static energy level. I also agree that
it drives life on earth because of a process called photosynthesis
wherein
a "code" within the chlorophylln converts the energy to a higher order.
Without that code, the energy from the sun would only accelerate decay
and randomness on the earth - entropy increase.
Okay, you need to be a lot clearer about what does and doesn't constitute a
'code' in your view. If you're just saying that physical structure has an
impact on how objects behave, then you're saying something very trivial.
Because in this example you're talking about a physical molecule,
chlorophyll, whose mechanism is very well studied and understood, whereas in
this example:
My crude illustration earlier is a valid application of thermodynamics.
Add
energy to a pile of bricks, say drop a bomb on them, and you increase
the
disorder - a skyscraper does not result. Add that same energy through
a
"code" such as a blueprint and you will get your skyscraper.
you're talking about something entirely different. In fact, I don't even
know *what* you're saying here. Whether I have a blueprint or not is going
to make no difference to what results from dropping a bomb on a pile of
bricks, and you can't 'add energy through a blueprint'. What I *think*
you're saying is that the manner in which energy is added has an effect on
the order produced: in particular, that we need to add energy to a system in
an ordered way if we want to create an ordered system. Well, for one thing
this is contradicted by numerous examples, such as crystal formation as has
already been pointed out numerous times. It's perfectly possible to create
order without adding any energy at all: low-energy states tend, in general,
to be *more* ordered, not less. If a system is open and able to lose energy,
then it's likely to become more ordered.
But in any case, you don't seem to be making any kind of coherent point. If
you allow that photosynthesis provides a means to lock away the energy of
sunlight in an ordered form, then you've immediately solved your supposed
problem: you have a source of 'order' on Earth. Cellular mechanisms
similarly allow us to extract energy locked into plants to create the local
order that allows us to move around, reproduce, and generally not rot. And
given that abiogenesis is not an issue under discussion, I can't see what is
left of your argument. (Incidentally, this doesn't imply that I think
abiogenesis *does* contradict thermodynamics, just that it's not relevant to
this discussion, whatever that is)
Of course, none of this addresses an even more central issue, which is that
the 2nd law doesn't even say what you think it says: it doesn't refer to a
closed system but to *two* closed systems which combine into one. In a
closed system, entropy is constant, not increasing, and certainly it can
increase locally without any paradox at all. It's only when two closed
systems are combined into one that entropy is certain to increase. (I highly
recommend Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen, 'The Collapse of Chaos' for a very
clear exposition of this)
you have focused SOLELY on the SECOND law while ignoring the FIRST
LAW.
By all means, let's bring it in. It assures us that the universe is a
closed
system, not an open one. If you want to assert that order evolved on
the
earth at the expense of order somewhere else in the universe, you see
the problem. Where did the pre-existing order come from? I don't have
a scientific answer, do you?
And suddenly the question has shifted again, this time to the Big Bang. But
there's no paradox there either. We don't need pre-existing order. We need
pre-existing energy / matter. The creation of local order then occurs as a
result of clumping, without any recourse to a 'code': random fluctuations
will do the trick just fine.
Danny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 03:03:05 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2005 12:26:15 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
If
you start with
with single celled organisms that over time replicated into
multi-celled, multi-
functioning entitities there must be a mechanism to account for this
apparent
decrease in entopy.
who sez it's a decrease in entropy? the sun, which drives life on
earth, is creating a massive increase in entropy by heating the space
around it, including the earth.
Bob, You are making my case. You have said that the sun is increasing
disorder. I agree - it is burning out and someday the universe will be
a homogenous random soup at a static energy level. I also agree that
it drives life on earth because of a process called photosynthesis
wherein
a "code"
there is no 'code' and putting a meaningless concept in quotation
marks does not cause it to exist.
within the chlorophylln converts the energy to a higher order.
Without that code, the energy from the sun would only accelerate decay
and randomness on the earth - entropy increase.
begging the question. the ONLY forces at work here are the INCREASE in
entropy caused by the sun and the DECREASE in entropy caused by
material changes as a result of photosynthesis. there is NO code at
work. none.
you creationists keep forgetting that entropy is a STATE function. it
is possible to have a DECREASE in entropy caused by photosynthesis
while having an overall INCREASE in entropy due to the sun's heating
of the universe.
NO code is involved. none. nada. zip. zilch.
My crude illustration earlier is a valid application of thermodynamics.
Add
energy to a pile of bricks, say drop a bomb on them, and you increase
the
disorder - a skyscraper does not result.
absolutely WRONG. again, it's why you creationists haven't a CLUE
about thermodynamics and why you rely on magic
keep repeating this to yourself
entropy is a state function
entropy is a state function
entropy is a state function
blowing up bricks would cause a RELATIVE increase in entropy, but
there would STILL be order present. explosions DO cause order to
happen, otherwise we would not be able to tell an explosion happened.
Add that same energy through
a
"code" such as a blueprint and you will get your skyscraper.
photosynthesis is chemistry. period. there is NO code present OTHER
than chemical kinetics and chemical thermodynamics. none.
Steve
you have focused SOLELY on the SECOND law while ignoring the FIRST
LAW.
By all means, let's bring it in. It assures us that the universe is a
closed
system, not an open one. If you want to assert that order evolved on
the
earth at the expense of order somewhere else in the universe, you see
the problem. Where did the pre-existing order come from? I don't have
a scientific answer, do you?
??? you yourself just STATED what the pre-existing order was
IT WAS THE SUN.
did you forget the sun exists?
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 05:07:14 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2005 12:26:15 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Bob, You are making my case. You have said that the sun is increasing
disorder. I agree - it is burning out and someday the universe will be
a homogenous random soup at a static energy level. I also agree that
it drives life on earth because of a process called photosynthesis
wherein
a "code" within the chlorophylln converts the energy to a higher order.
Without that code, the energy from the sun would only accelerate decay
and randomness on the earth - entropy increase.
Chlorophyll is not a code. Or, if you define "code" to include it,
then everything in the universe is a code.
I am curious how you account for the formation of amino acids on the
surface of asteroids. Are codes involved?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
07 Feb 2005 07:47:35 PM |
|
|
Mark Isaak wrote:> Chlorophyll is not a code. Or, if you define "code"
to include it,
then everything in the universe is a code.
I am curious how you account for the formation of amino acids on the
surface of asteroids. Are codes involved?
Mark, I don't know the answer to that last question. But without the
2nd law, it wouldn't be a riddle to solve, would it? I don't know the
chemistry involved in chlorophylln. Someone with more knowledge in
that field can address it. I'm sure that it is a highly complex
process; so complex man has never been able to create such a machine,
or even copy it from nature. If you don't like the word "code", there
is an organizing complexity in the DNA structure, in the cell
machinery, even in the electromagnetic stuctures within an atom, and in
the electro-chemical structure of molecules. So is that what you mean
that I'm saying everything in the universe is a code?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
13 Feb 2005 11:19:19 AM |
|
|
On 7 Feb 2005 17:47:35 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
Chlorophyll is not a code. Or, if you define "code"
to include it,
then everything in the universe is a code.
I am curious how you account for the formation of amino acids on the
surface of asteroids. Are codes involved?
Mark, I don't know the answer to that last question. But without the
2nd law, it wouldn't be a riddle to solve, would it? I don't know the
chemistry involved in chlorophylln. Someone with more knowledge in
that field can address it. I'm sure that it is a highly complex
process; so complex man has never been able to create such a machine,
or even copy it from nature. If you don't like the word "code", there
is an organizing complexity in the DNA structure, in the cell
machinery, even in the electromagnetic stuctures within an atom, and in
the electro-chemical structure of molecules. So is that what you mean
that I'm saying everything in the universe is a code?
There is organizing complexity in a hydrogen atom, assuming
"organizing complexity" means something that can organize something
complex. Organizing complexity is ubiquitous.
The bottom line is, So what?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
14 Feb 2005 03:28:00 AM |
|
|
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 7 Feb 2005 17:47:35 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
Chlorophyll is not a code. Or, if you define "code"
to include it,
then everything in the universe is a code.
I am curious how you account for the formation of amino acids on the
surface of asteroids. Are codes involved?
Mark, I don't know the answer to that last question. But without the
2nd law, it wouldn't be a riddle to solve, would it? I don't know the
chemistry involved in chlorophylln. Someone with more knowledge in
that field can address it. I'm sure that it is a highly complex
process; so complex man has never been able to create such a machine,
or even copy it from nature. If you don't like the word "code", there
is an organizing complexity in the DNA structure, in the cell
machinery, even in the electromagnetic stuctures within an atom, and in
the electro-chemical structure of molecules. So is that what you mean
that I'm saying everything in the universe is a code?
I see the mangling of meaning here. words are not used the same way by
both people. one of the texts is vague and general hand waving. It
even deprecates itself. But that does not change the aggregate meaning
from ZERO. To be meaningful the organization of the the text has to be
realigned. Then the "antecedents" will match the overt text.
if you wnat to discus information theory, The definitions of CODE and
information are not the common definitions. CODE in this sense is not
a program or programming language. It is the abstraction of a process.
if an atom emits a photon and that photon is reabsorbed, the abstract
process computes the state. which exists not because it was emitted and
not because it was absorbed, but because the event happened. any
activity takes in information processes it and emits information
by this definition a black hole takes in mass and re-emits that
information consequence completely rearranged.
The universe may be viewed as a giant computer.
a minor point but the programing is not due to a designer. all atomic
processes have this property. -- information in : information out.
This is why I said that text had ZERO meaning.
josephus
There is organizing complexity in a hydrogen atom, assuming
"organizing complexity" means something that can organize something
complex. Organizing complexity is ubiquitous.
The bottom line is, So what?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
11 Feb 2005 09:35:05 AM |
|
|
On 7 Feb 2005 17:47:35 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:> Chlorophyll is not a code. Or, if you define "code"
to include it,
then everything in the universe is a code.
I am curious how you account for the formation of amino acids on the
surface of asteroids. Are codes involved?
Mark, I don't know the answer to that last question. But without the
2nd law, it wouldn't be a riddle to solve, would it? I don't know the
chemistry involved in chlorophylln. Someone with more knowledge in
that field can address it. I'm sure that it is a highly complex
process; so complex man has never been able to create such a machine,
or even copy it from nature. If you don't like the word "code", there
is an organizing complexity in the DNA structure
for creationists it seems, the word 'complexity' means 'a way to say
god did it without saying god did it'.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
14 Feb 2005 03:11:27 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Mark, I don't know the answer to that last question. But without
the
2nd law, it wouldn't be a riddle to solve, would it? I don't know
the
chemistry involved in chlorophylln. Someone with more knowledge in
that field can address it. I'm sure that it is a highly complex
process; so complex man has never been able to create such a
machine,
or even copy it from nature. If you don't like the word "code",
there
is an organizing complexity in the DNA structure
for creationists it seems, the word 'complexity' means 'a way to say
god did it without saying god did it'.
Complexity is complexity. Deal with it. You are the one who keeps
bringing god up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
14 Feb 2005 06:35:53 PM |
|
|
On 14 Feb 2005 13:11:27 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
Mark, I don't know the answer to that last question. But without
the
2nd law, it wouldn't be a riddle to solve, would it? I don't know
the
chemistry involved in chlorophylln. Someone with more knowledge in
that field can address it. I'm sure that it is a highly complex
process; so complex man has never been able to create such a
machine,
or even copy it from nature. If you don't like the word "code",
there
is an organizing complexity in the DNA structure
for creationists it seems, the word 'complexity' means 'a way to say
god did it without saying god did it'.
Complexity is complexity. Deal with it. You are the one who keeps
bringing god up.
says the guy who refers to 'complexity' and 'codes' and 'thermo' at
the drop of a hat, not understanding any of them
he is, after all, a creationist. keeping good company with voodoo
priests, astrologers, necromancers and other practitioners of the
occult arts.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 01:56:58 PM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
So, now that we agree that the formation of 'order or complexity'
does
not violate the 2nd law, explain to me again why you think evolution
violates the 2nd law.
I eagerly await your reply.
Jay, Just when I'm ready to throw in the towel in despair you give me
new hope.
There are many mechanisms being advanced to explain how you go from a
big
bang to say, a human being. OK, you have ruled out discussion of
anything
before the first life form. Most evolutionists posit some very
"simple" life form
for a starting point, am I correct? However, it is turning out that
nothing is
very simple. Where Denton says that evolutionists and creationists are
beginning
to parallel each other, I wonder if this is what he had in mind. If
you start with
with single celled organisms that over time replicated into
multi-celled, multi-
functioning entitities there must be a mechanism to account for this
apparent
decrease in entopy. Mutations, natural selection, cross-breeding, and
so on.
I think there is a basic problem here. I think all the proposed
mechanisms only
appear feasible when looked at in isolation - like not seeing the
forest for the trees.
There are serious problems now beginning to be recognized with each
mechanism
in being sufficient to explain macro-evolution. Without going into
great detail
and probably getting over my head, I'll stop at that. In a word,
evolution represents
change. Thermodynamics describes change. But one is a change up. The
other
is a change down. There is the contradiction to me.
Before anyone replies this is tired old creationist hype, that is not a
real answer.
You have segued into a new question. Can you see that the question of
whether known mechanisms (mutation, selection, etc.) are able to account
for the history of life is different from the question of whether
accounting for that history by those mechanisms is a violation of the
2nd law of thermodynamics?
Of course you know that a local decrease in entropy is perfectly OK if
it's coupled with a larger increase in entropy in some other part of the
system, right? Well, all those known processes work that way. Life works
that way. Thermodynamics, at least, is not a problem here.
Your new question is a separate matter. I don't know about the serious
problems that are beginning to be recognized, but perhaps you could
mention some of them, preferably with citations to the authors that
raised them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 05:00:23 PM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
So, now that we agree that the formation of 'order or complexity'
does
not violate the 2nd law, explain to me again why you think
evolution
violates the 2nd law.
I eagerly await your reply.
Jay, Just when I'm ready to throw in the towel in despair you give me
new hope.
And everytime you get new hope I'm ready to throw the towel in despair.
Maybe there is a law of conservation of hope/despair that the total
amount must remain constant in a closed system ;-}
There are many mechanisms being advanced to explain how you go from a
big
bang to say, a human being. OK, you have ruled out discussion of
anything
before the first life form. Most evolutionists posit some very
"simple" life form
for a starting point, am I correct?
Yes, you are correct, in the sense that the first life forms were
simple relative to life as it currently exists.
However, it is turning out that
nothing is
very simple.
So, show mean anyone who said that understanding how life formed is
simple. It is a very hard problem. Let me ask you, would you say that
Newton's formulation of the law of universal gravitation was simple or
complex? Let me repeat, is his inverse square law simple or complex.
I'm not asking if current theory of gravity is simple, but would you
consider it a simple formula? In addition, are you aware that that
simple formula, when applied to real world situations can get very
complex? For example, predicting the future effects if you have only 3
objects, to understand all the gravitational interactions. So it may
be possible that the formation of life can be described with a simple
formula, but the actual interactions are complex because there are a
lot of components. It may be that given these initial ingredients,
under these conditions, then life will almost always arise. We may
discover that one day. It is also possible, that we may never discover
what ingredients and conditions yields life. First, that has nothing
to do with evolution and secondly, are you saying scientists shouldn't
investigate it.
Where Denton says that evolutionists and creationists are
beginning
to parallel each other, I wonder if this is what he had in mind.
So do I. Let me know if you find out.
If
you start with
with single celled organisms that over time replicated into
multi-celled, multi-
functioning entitities there must be a mechanism to account for this
apparent
decrease in entopy. Mutations, natural selection, cross-breeding,
and
so on.
I think there is a basic problem here. I think all the proposed
mechanisms only
appear feasible when looked at in isolation - like not seeing the
forest for the trees.
There are serious problems now beginning to be recognized with each
mechanism
in being sufficient to explain macro-evolution.
None from the scientific community that I am aware of that has
undergone review. There is dispute as to how much each mechanism
contributes (along with other proposed mechanisms), or the effects they
play, but I don't know anyone whose says that they are insufficien to
explain 'macro-evolution'. BTW, please define what is Macro Evolution
and why you think it can't be explained. Nor why you think that the
same mechanism that works for MicroEvolution has limits or stops.
Without going into
great detail
and probably getting over my head, I'll stop at that. In a word,
evolution represents
change. Thermodynamics describes change. But one is a change up.
The
other
is a change down. There is the contradiction to me.
I haven't a clue what you are trying to say. I don't know what you
mean by change up and change down. I suspect you are trying to say
that evolution somehow violates thermodynamics but I don't see how that
is the case. Life reproduces and the descendents differ from its
parents, some live long enough to reproduce, others become meals, all
eventually die and decompose into the ecosystem. How does that violate
the 2nd law?
Before anyone replies this is tired old creationist hype, that is not
a
real answer.
I've tried to give you real answers. If you don't think they are real
answers, please point out my errors, and be specific.
Thanks,
---Jay
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Keighley" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
03 Feb 2005 02:39:36 AM |
|
|
my post is addressed to Steve, but I was unable to find his original
post. Thanks google!
Happy Dog wrote:
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message
I did not accept the premise of your
question about the sun and the earth because both answers are
equally
correct from Einstein's point of view, which I accept.
for someone with a degree in physics your knowledge of science is
astonishingly poor. Do you *really* belive that relativity makes no
distinction between the sun going round the eath and the earth going
round
the sun? Try thinking about what the other planets are doing.
Your version of thermodynamics doesn't seem to allow "complexity" to
increas anywhere. Disorder can never be reduced (according to you).
Heat can never flow from a cooler to hotter (according to you). Do you
own a refrigerator?
I don't mind that you occaisonally make mistakes with your science. We
all
do that. I havn't "practised" physics since I graduated, I am not a
professional. But I would have thought a degree in the subject would
have cultivated an interest. It isn't that you are wrong that bothers
me, but you seem incapable of simple reasoning on the subject.
Ignorance is fixable. Willful stupidity is beyond help.
I do remember
your examples of how evolution could be falsified. I don't think I
replied to them - at least I can't find your original post. I
remember
you said if a "cat-dog" fossil was found, it would falsify the
theory.
I didn't go down than road because I felt you missed my point about
transitional forms.
cats and dogs had a common ancestor. It probably didn't look
particularly cat or dog like. I'm not aware of the state of the cat
fossil record. It is quite possible we have little or nothing.
Fossilation is very hit and miss.
--
Nick Keighley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
03 Feb 2005 06:29:16 PM |
|
|
I did not accept the premise of your
question about the sun and the earth because both answers are
equally
correct from Einstein's point of view, which I accept.
for someone with a degree in physics your knowledge of science is
astonishingly poor. Do you *really* belive that relativity makes no
distinction between the sun going round the eath and the earth going
round
the sun? Try thinking about what the other planets are doing.
From Einsteins point of view you can take any point as your point of
reference, whether it be the sun, the earth, a star in the Milky Way,
and correlate all the other movements of all bodies in the universe to
that point of reference. The math, of course, is simpler as a point of
reference if you pick the sun when you are talking about the motions of
the planets, or a point on the earth if you are talking about the
motion of cars or other objects that are also rotating with the earth
and revolving around the sun with the earth. You can be on a train
speeding past a junction, or you can just as correctly assume the train
is standing still and the tracks and the objects attached to the earth
are speeding past a stationary train and be just as correct
scientifically and mathematically.
Your version of thermodynamics doesn't seem to allow "complexity" to
increas anywhere. Disorder can never be reduced (according to you).
Heat can never flow from a cooler to hotter (according to you). Do
you
own a refrigerator?
There is only one version of thermodynamics and it's not mine. It does
allow for an increase in complexity if three conditions are met: 1/ an
outside source of energy 2/ a process be it physical, chemical,
nuclear 3/ an "intelligent" code that converts the effects of the
energy into greater order
One significant problem with macro-evolution is explaining how a highly
complex informational code could originate by natural processes.I don't
mind that you occaisonally make mistakes with your science.
It isn't that you are wrong that bothers
me, but you seem incapable of simple reasoning on the subject.
Ignorance is fixable. Willful stupidity is beyond help.
Thank you.
I do remember
your examples of how evolution could be falsified. I don't think
I
replied to them - at least I can't find your original post. I
remember
you said if a "cat-dog" fossil was found, it would falsify the
theory.
No, I didn't. Someone else did. I don't understand why Frogman said
that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 10:37:11 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1107476956.056090.324560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Your version of thermodynamics doesn't seem to allow "complexity" to
increas anywhere. Disorder can never be reduced (according to you).
Heat can never flow from a cooler to hotter (according to you). Do
you
own a refrigerator?
There is only one version of thermodynamics and it's not mine. It does
allow for an increase in complexity if three conditions are met: 1/ an
outside source of energy 2/ a process be it physical, chemical,
nuclear 3/ an "intelligent" code that converts the effects of the
energy into greater order
What textbook did you get this from? Any thermo textbook should be
able to be used to support your argument (there being only one version
of thermo). How about a common one such as Physical Chemistry,
by Peter Atkins? Don't worry if the textbook you consulted is different,
I probably have it.
Tracy P. Hamilton
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 11:26:15 AM |
|
|
Tracy Hamilton wrote:
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1107476956.056090.324560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Your version of thermodynamics doesn't seem to allow "complexity"
to
increas anywhere. Disorder can never be reduced (according to
you).
Heat can never flow from a cooler to hotter (according to you). Do
you
own a refrigerator?
Actually, my understanding of thermodynamics is that heat indeed cannot
flow from cooler to hotter. The refrigerator works by making a liquid
convert to a gas (low pressure) in the coils inside the refrigerator.
The cold gas absorbs heat from the *warmer* inside air of the
refrigerator. The gas is then compressed into a liquid (which makes
the temperature rise to above room temperature) and releases this heat
to the now cooler room air. But the other points are valid.
There is only one version of thermodynamics and it's not mine. It
does
allow for an increase in complexity if three conditions are met: 1/
an
outside source of energy 2/ a process be it physical, chemical,
nuclear 3/ an "intelligent" code that converts the effects of the
energy into greater order
What textbook did you get this from? Any thermo textbook should be
able to be used to support your argument (there being only one
version
of thermo). How about a common one such as Physical Chemistry,
by Peter Atkins? Don't worry if the textbook you consulted is
different,
I probably have it.
Tracy P. Hamilton
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 12:12:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Tracy Hamilton wrote:
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1107476956.056090.324560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Your version of thermodynamics doesn't seem to allow
"complexity"
to
increas anywhere. Disorder can never be reduced (according to
you).
Heat can never flow from a cooler to hotter (according to you).
Do
you
own a refrigerator?
Actually, my understanding of thermodynamics is that heat indeed
cannot
flow from cooler to hotter. The refrigerator works by making a
liquid
convert to a gas (low pressure) in the coils inside the refrigerator.
The cold gas absorbs heat from the *warmer* inside air of the
refrigerator. The gas is then compressed into a liquid (which makes
the temperature rise to above room temperature) and releases this
heat
to the now cooler room air. But the other points are valid.
It is possible for heat to flow from cooler to hotter in a local open
system, at the
expense of an outside system. You have done a good job of illustrating
that.
The compressor does work, by adding energy to the local system, and is
in turn
driven by electricity, that is generated probably by burning fossil
fuels which result
in an overall increase in entropy in the environment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 03:08:35 PM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
hersheyh@indiana.edu wrote:
Tracy Hamilton wrote:
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1107476956.056090.324560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Your version of thermodynamics doesn't seem to allow
"complexity"
to
increas anywhere. Disorder can never be reduced (according to
you).
Heat can never flow from a cooler to hotter (according to
you).
Do
you
own a refrigerator?
Actually, my understanding of thermodynamics is that heat indeed
cannot
flow from cooler to hotter. The refrigerator works by making a
liquid
convert to a gas (low pressure) in the coils inside the
refrigerator.
The cold gas absorbs heat from the *warmer* inside air of the
refrigerator. The gas is then compressed into a liquid (which
makes
the temperature rise to above room temperature) and releases this
heat
to the now cooler room air. But the other points are valid.
It is possible for heat to flow from cooler to hotter in a local open
system, at the
expense of an outside system. You have done a good job of
illustrating
that.
The compressor does work, by adding energy to the local system, and
is
in turn
driven by electricity, that is generated probably by burning fossil
fuels which result
in an overall increase in entropy in the environment.
Certainly. It takes energy to compress the gas generated by the
removal of heat inside the refrigerator into a boiling liquid. But the
heat inside the refrigerator is still flowing from hotter (the inside
of the fridge) to colder (the cold liquid ammonia or other material).
And heat is still flowing from hotter to colder from the outside coils.
The compressor (and the energy it uses) arranges conditions so that
the cycle works. But heat is still flowing from hotter to colder both
inside and outside the refrigerator. Unless you have Maxwell's demon,
that is the only way it can flow.
http://www.mansfieldct.org/schools/mms/staff/hand/heatrefrig.htm
http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/physics20/heat/how_refrig_works.htm
But you can google on "how does a refrigerator work" to find many other
places where this is explained.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 03:47:16 PM |
|
|
<hersheyh@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:1107551315.879422.127280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Steve wrote:
[snip]
It is possible for heat to flow from cooler to hotter in a local open
system, at the
expense of an outside system. You have done a good job of
illustrating
that.
Whereas you have not shown where the
concept of code is used in thermodynamics.
The compressor does work, by adding energy to the local system, and
is
in turn
driven by electricity, that is generated probably by burning fossil
fuels which result
in an overall increase in entropy in the environment.
Certainly. It takes energy to compress the gas generated by the
removal of heat inside the refrigerator into a boiling liquid. But the
heat inside the refrigerator is still flowing from hotter (the inside
of the fridge) to colder (the cold liquid ammonia or other material).
And heat is still flowing from hotter to colder from the outside coils.
The compressor (and the energy it uses) arranges conditions so that
the cycle works. But heat is still flowing from hotter to colder both
inside and outside the refrigerator. Unless you have Maxwell's demon,
that is the only way it can flow.
http://www.mansfieldct.org/schools/mms/staff/hand/heatrefrig.htm
http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/physics20/heat/how_refrig_works.htm
But you can google on "how does a refrigerator work" to find many other
places where this is explained.
Not only that, but thermodynamic theory was developed from
experiments using machinery, yet oddly enough, there is nothing
about "code" in the theory.
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 11:57:25 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins Steve <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
[...]
There is only one version of thermodynamics and it's not mine.
That's true.
It does
allow for an increase in complexity if three conditions are met:
1/ an outside source of energy 2/ a process be it physical, chemical,
nuclear 3/ an "intelligent" code that converts the effects of the
energy into greater order
Let me be blunt: you have been lied to about this.
I am a professional physicist, working on, among other things, the
thermodynamics of gravitating systems. I can tell you with complete
certainty that your item 3 is *not* part of thermodynamics.
Here's a suggestion, since you have a degree in physics. Go back and
look at the textbook you used for thermodynamics -- or, for that matter,
any other thermodynamics textbook -- and try to find sections about
"intelligent" codes or "greater order" in energy. You won't find them.
Then go to the nearest university library and look through research
papers on complexity and thermodynamics, and look for the same things.
You won't find them.
Then ask yourself why you thought they would be there, and what this
means about what you have been told about evolution.
Incidentally, since you also said you hadn't heard of Prigogine, you
might want to look at his Nobel Prize lecture (he won the chemistry prize
in 1977) on the emergence of order in thermodynamics. You can find it at
http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1977/index.html. You will see
a great deal of discussion about thermodynamics and increasing complexity.
You will not see anything about code, intelligent or otherwise. Once again,
ask yourself why you thought this was part of thermodynamics.
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 12:33:44 PM |
|
|
It does
allow for an increase in complexity if three conditions are met:
1/ an outside source of energy 2/ a process be it physical,
chemical,
nuclear 3/ an "intelligent" code that converts the effects of the
energy into greater order
Let me be blunt: you have been lied to about this.
I will be grateful to hear the reply of someone with your expertise.
You believe
there are processes where there is a decrease in entropy, do you not?
Thermodynamics can be described in terms of order and disorder, can it
not?
Can you explain for laymen reading this board, how introducing energy
into a local
open system can account for increasing order or complexity without a
"code"?
Actually, without a "code", entropy is accelerated by an increase of
energy. If
you disagree, can you provide an example comprehesible to a reasonable
reader?
Your own answers as a specialist will be more helpful than citing
authorities.
Thanks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 02:16:45 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1107542024.881620.51790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It does
allow for an increase in complexity if three conditions are met:
1/ an outside source of energy 2/ a process be it physical,
chemical,
nuclear 3/ an "intelligent" code that converts the effects of the
energy into greater order
Let me be blunt: you have been lied to about this.
I will be grateful to hear the reply of someone with your expertise.
You believe
there are processes where there is a decrease in entropy, do you not?
Thermodynamics can be described in terms of order and disorder, can it
not?
Can you explain for laymen reading this board, how introducing energy
into a local
open system can account for increasing order or complexity without a
"code"?
For example: The chemical reaction
6 CH2O + UV light (outside energy) + clay ----> sugar + clay
Actually, without a "code", entropy is accelerated by an increase of
energy. If
you disagree, can you provide an example comprehesible to a reasonable
reader?
Can you understand the words formaldehyde, light and sugar? I didn't
use the word code anywhere. Can you explain how the concept of a code would
explain anything about this process?
Are you going to weasel out by defining code to include any natural
mechanism, thus making it an add-on concept with no foundation?
(which is what we have been trying to tell you).
Your own answers as a specialist will be more helpful than citing
authorities.
Thanks.
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 06:05:40 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Steve <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
[...]
I will be grateful to hear the reply of someone with your expertise.
You believe there are processes where there is a decrease in entropy,
do you not?
A local decrease in entropy. There are no processes -- except for
*extremely* rare random fluctuations -- in which total entropy
decreases.
Thermodynamics can be described in terms of order and disorder,
can it not?
It cannot, if by "order" you mean the word in the commonly used and
intuitive sense. Describing entropy as disorder is often a useful
analogy, but it is sometimes very misleading. For example, which is
more "orderly," a uniform cloud of hydrogen or a star surrounded by
a little hot gas and some emitted light? I suspect that almost anyone
asked this question would answer that the star is more orderly. But
it is the uniform cloud of hydrogen that has lower entropy.
Can you explain for laymen reading this board, how introducing energy
into a local open system can account for increasing order or complexity
without a "code"?
Sure. Here's one from my field, which I've already referred to:
Take a large, uniform cloud of hydrogen, and put it in outer space,
far from any external influence. If it's dense enough, it will
undergo gravitational collapse. As it does so, it will tend to
flatten out into a pancake, with a center that eventually becomes
dense enough to ignite fusion and form a star. If there are enough
random impurities in the original cloud, they will be centers of
local gravitational collapse, and will form planets. The radiation
and solar wind from the star will eventually blow away the rest of
the gas.
So you've gone from a uniform cloud of gas with random impurities
to a star orbited by planets. The energy is the gravitational
potential energy of the gas. What's the "code"?
Here's another, from a lab I once worked in as a grad student:
Take a box whose bottom is covered with tiny ball bearings, and shake
it at a constant rate. The ball bearings form stable particle-like
mounds ("oscillons") that can attract and repel each other, pair up
with each other, and combine into elaborate chains and lattices (see
http://www.aip.org/png/html/oscillon.htm for some pictures).
The energy is the energy it takes to shake the box at a constant rate.
What's the "code"?
There are hundreds of other examples, from fluid flows to liquid crystal
behavior to periodic chemical reactions. In fact, "entropically driven"
processes, in which entropy increase (what you would call "disorder")
is used to drive self-assembly and structure, is being considered for
industrial application in the construction of nanomaterials.
Let me turn the question around. Why do you think a "code" is always
necessary? I can understand the "common sense" appeal of that idea, but
you have a physics degree. What led you to think that this was part of
thermodynamics, or that it was a fundamental law?
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 01:36:17 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2005 10:33:44 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
It does
allow for an increase in complexity if three conditions are met:
1/ an outside source of energy 2/ a process be it physical,
chemical,
nuclear 3/ an "intelligent" code that converts the effects of the
energy into greater order
Let me be blunt: you have been lied to about this.
I will be grateful to hear the reply of someone with your expertise.
You believe
there are processes where there is a decrease in entropy, do you not?
Thermodynamics can be described in terms of order and disorder, can it
not?
yes. but 'agents' are unnecessary.
Can you explain for laymen reading this board, how introducing energy
into a local
open system can account for increasing order or complexity without a
"code"?
there is no CODE necessary. the forces of nature are sufficient. a
cooler temperature suffices for an energy transfer. no AGENT or CODE
is necessary. none. all that's required is a TEMPERATURE gradient...
and if a saturated solution is cooled below a certain temperature, the
electrostatic intermolecular forces will BY THEMSELVES cause order to
occur. NO agent is necessary. no CODE is necessary. all that is
required is the ENERGY balance (1st law of thermo) between TEMPERATURE
and ELECTROSTATIC interactions. that's it.
you are introducing unnecessary concepts into thermo.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 02:11:09 PM |
|
|
there is no CODE necessary. the forces of nature are sufficient. a
cooler temperature suffices for an energy transfer. no AGENT or CODE
is necessary. none. all that's required is a TEMPERATURE gradient...
I did not ask what "suffices for an energy transfer" but for an energy
transfer with a decrease of entropy.
and if a saturated solution is cooled below a certain temperature,
the
electrostatic intermolecular forces will BY THEMSELVES cause order to
occur. NO agent is necessary. no CODE is necessary. all that is
required is the ENERGY balance (1st law of thermo) between
TEMPERATURE
and ELECTROSTATIC interactions. that's it.
Are "the electrostatic intermolecular forces" at a higher state of
order
than the resulting order? Call it by a different name if you wish, but
don't
obscure the pre-existing order that is necessary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 03:07:08 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2005 12:11:09 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
there is no CODE necessary. the forces of nature are sufficient. a
cooler temperature suffices for an energy transfer. no AGENT or CODE
is necessary. none. all that's required is a TEMPERATURE gradient...
I did not ask what "suffices for an energy transfer" but for an energy
transfer with a decrease of entropy.
a decrease in entropy is ENTIRELY possible if the overall entropy
(universe + system) increases. it is WRONG to say that entropy ALWAYS
decreases in a spontaneous reaction. wrong.
and if a saturated solution is cooled below a certain temperature,
the
electrostatic intermolecular forces will BY THEMSELVES cause order to
occur. NO agent is necessary. no CODE is necessary. all that is
required is the ENERGY balance (1st law of thermo) between
TEMPERATURE
and ELECTROSTATIC interactions. that's it.
Are "the electrostatic intermolecular forces" at a higher state of
order
than the resulting order? Call it by a different name if you wish, but
don't
obscure the pre-existing order that is necessary.
here is where your understanding of thermo leads you to ask a question
that wrecks your argument.
a hot solution is at a higher state of disorder than a cold one. the
entropy is higher when it's hot than when it's cold. when it cools off
the entropy DECREASES. so, no, the electrostatic intermolecular forces
are at a LOWER state of order than they are after the solution cools.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fencingsax" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 03:13:08 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 4 Feb 2005 12:11:09 -0800, "Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote:
there is no CODE necessary. the forces of nature are sufficient. a
cooler temperature suffices for an energy transfer. no AGENT or
CODE
is necessary. none. all that's required is a TEMPERATURE
gradient...
I did not ask what "suffices for an energy transfer" but for an
energy
transfer with a decrease of entropy.
a decrease in entropy is ENTIRELY possible if the overall entropy
(universe + system) increases. it is WRONG to say that entropy ALWAYS
decreases in a spontaneous reaction. wrong.
and if a saturated solution is cooled below a certain temperature,
the
electrostatic intermolecular forces will BY THEMSELVES cause order
to
occur. NO agent is necessary. no CODE is necessary. all that is
required is the ENERGY balance (1st law of thermo) between
TEMPERATURE
and ELECTROSTATIC interactions. that's it.
Are "the electrostatic intermolecular forces" at a higher state of
order
than the resulting order? Call it by a different name if you wish,
but
don't
obscure the pre-existing order that is necessary.
here is where your understanding of thermo leads you to ask a
question
that wrecks your argument.
a hot solution is at a higher state of disorder than a cold one. the
entropy is higher when it's hot than when it's cold. when it cools
off
the entropy DECREASES. so, no, the electrostatic intermolecular
forces
are at a LOWER state of order than they are after the solution cools.
Now that's interesting. Because with the Heat Death of the universe,
there will be no heat. In other words it will be cold. And to get to
that point it will cool off. In other words, according to you,
entropy will decrease. Unless I misunderstand words like "hot" and
"cold"
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
04 Feb 2005 03:30:13 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2005 13:13:08 -0800, "Fencingsax" <Christocbd@gmail.com>
wrote:
Bob wrote:
a hot solution is at a higher state of disorder than a cold one. the
entropy is higher when it's hot than when it's cold. when it cools
off
the entropy DECREASES. so, no, the electrostatic intermolecular
forces
are at a LOWER state of order than they are after the solution cools.
Now that's interesting. Because with the Heat Death of the universe,
there will be no heat. In other words it will be cold. And to get to
that point it will cool off. In other words, according to you,
entropy will decrease. Unless I misunderstand words like "hot" and
it is incorrect to say there will be no heat. the energy density will
be very very low, but the universe will not be at absolute zero. if
there is an energy gradient...i. e. if there is a hot spot, or if the
universe is not at equilibrium, there will be a spot where local
entropy could still change.
since entropy is defined as the sum transfer of energy from a hot
object to a cool one at a certain temperature for each, if there is no
temp gradient, entropy can not change.
that is not true for a hot cup of tea heating the environment. there,
a temp gradient exists. the sum of the transfer of heat (which is
constant over a short period of time) from the hot cup to the cooler
environment leads to an increase in entropy.
you are confusing heat energy with gravitational energy. presumably
local energy gradients in temperature and gravity will have dissipated
in heat death.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
07 Feb 2005 08:01:45 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
a decrease in entropy is ENTIRELY possible if the overall entropy
(universe + system) increases. it is WRONG to say that entropy ALWAYS
decreases in a spontaneous reaction. wrong.
Bob, This is probably one statement we can agree on. In your previous
post, I think you may have confused energy and order. I saw the sun as
an outside source of energy to the local system of the earth, not a
source of order. Energy input without some conversion mechanism (I'm
trying to avoid the word "code") accelerates entropy increase, doesn't
it? (not the other way around) On an explosion creating order - you
see that an explosion happened by the contrast of randomness among the
surrounding order, where order would be expected to exist, don't you?
I won't beg the point - there is currently a science of chaos - where
it seems that some chaos is order in disguise, butterfly effect and all
that - that's out of my league.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Happy Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Editorial: Attack on scientific literacy |
07 Feb 2005 11:31:20 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <rsteveslater@mac.com> wrote
Bob wrote:
a decrease in entropy is ENTIRELY possible if the overall entropy
(universe + system) increases. it is WRONG to say that entropy ALWAYS
decreases in a spontaneous reaction. wrong.
Bob, This is probably one statement we can agree on. In your previous
post, I think you may have confused energy and order. I saw the sun as
an outside source of energy to the local system of the earth, not a
source of order. Energy input without some conversion mechanism (I'm
trying to avoid the word "code") accelerates entropy increase, doesn't
it? (not the other way around) On an explosion creating order - you
see that an explosion happened by the contrast of randomness among the
surrounding order, where order would be expected to exist, don't you?
No. And this has been explained to you before. It's easy to detect an
explosion *because* explosions create order (of a specific type).
I won't beg the point - there is currently a science of chaos - where
it seems that some chaos is order in disguise, butterfly effect and all
that - that's out of my league.
No, Steve, none of this is out of your league. What is out of your league
is the ability to think outside a Christ-constructed box. You are now
reduced to the point of asking stupid "god of the gaps" questions. You are
just recycling the creationist crap you've already posted.
moo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
