Can an explosion produce order?
Sethosayher
argument by a Christian apologist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
"In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
Barker: Well, if you follow current cosmology I guess the big bang
would be one.
Fernandes: But we're trying to argue about the big bang so my question
again is can you give me any empirical evidence for explosions - not
assumptions - for some empirical evidence for explosions producing
states containing more order and complexity? I mean, you're arguing in
a circle if you're saying...
Barker: I can think of one. We run out of milk. And I gotta get some
milk so I drive to the store. There's an explosion happening in that
engine. And it gotten some milk in my refrigerator.
Fernandes: Mmm...
Barker: Well, there's an example, isn't it? It's a controlled
explosion.
Fernandes: You'd have to agree that an engine is designed by
intelligence.
Barker: Yeah, I think so.
Fernandes: So, it's a pretty good theistic argument. Thank you."
---
I'm guessing what he's saying is that the Big Bang is not feasible
because there are no examples of "explosions" creating more order. The
talk.origins site offers some responses - pointing out that Big Bang
was an expansion anyway, and that stellar evolution is an example of
an explosion creating order in the formation of stars. But I'd like
some elaboration on this constantly repeated creationist trope.
Richard Smol
> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
> "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
> Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
>
> Barker: Well, if you follow current cosmology I guess the big bang
> would be one.
Simple: the Big Bang is not an explosion.
RS
Christopher Denney
One example would be sand being fused into glass by an explosion.
The loose sand is pretty disordered, the glass considerably less so.
A meteor hits an otherwise unremarkable surface, can the nice circular
crater it leaves behind be considered more or less ordered/complex?
An explosion adds energy to the area immediately around it. Energy
does work, under the proper circumstances work can be used to make
things more complex than they started. The things that actually get
blown up are usually less complex than they started.
Davej
> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
> "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
> Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
Where in the Bible does it mention the Big Bang? If it isn't in the
Bible then it can't be true. Therefore you tell
Dan Barker that he's already a heretic.
chris thompson
> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
> "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
> Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
>
> Barker: Well, if you follow current cosmology I guess the big bang
> would be one.
>
Silly. "Explosion" is a chemical reaction. It has NO relevance to the
Big Bang.
Chris
alextangent
Barker was suckered.
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
How is glass more complex, though? All you have done is change it's
state with tempeture in much the same way water freezes. Ice is still
water. Is the ice more complex then water now that it is frozen?
Also. The heat fused the glass, not the explosion. The Explosion only
generated the heat. But not all explosions generate enough heat to
fuse sand into glass.
Therefore the explosion must be controled to produce glass each time,
which needs an intelligence.
[\\]
el cid
> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> argument by a Christian apologist:
What's an evolutionist?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
> "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
> Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
If you are going to ask a question about "more", we need a
way to define terms in a way that can be quantified.
What sort of definitions do you want to use for order and
for complexity? There's certainly a temptation to use
entropy for these but there are some traps there.
But clearly you need to define what is meant as there are
some very contradictory notions of order and complexity
within non-technical usage.
> Barker: Well, if you follow current cosmology I guess the big bang
> would be one.
Oh my no.
The big bang is not an explosion, certainly not in any familar
sense.
Also, modern inflationary cosmology has the universe expanding
and cooling with that expansion. This can be modeled with some
assumptions such as energy conservation but one has to realize
that these are extrapolations beyond the range of things we
can know.
It does seem that the inflation was not reversible and so
that would seem to say that entropy was increasing as would
be expected for an expansion but I'm not sure how the cooling
is modeled.
Regardless, it has not be established that the expansion
of the universe measurably resulted in increased order
or complexity even though that may seem contradictory
to non-technical thinking of order and complexity. Unless
these terms are defined in measurable ways, mostly likely
with units of some kind, the question is rather meaningless.
> Fernandes: But we're trying to argue about the big bang so my question
> again is can you give me any empirical evidence for explosions - not
> assumptions - for some empirical evidence for explosions producing
> states containing more order and complexity? I mean, you're arguing in
> a circle if you're saying...
In lay terms, fireworks seem to produce complex and ordered patterns.
In terms of chemical thermodynamics your will probably get a very
different sort of answer. Beware the trap of thinking the concepts
of order and complexity follow simple intuitions.
> Barker: I can think of one. We run out of milk. And I gotta get some
> milk so I drive to the store. There's an explosion happening in that
> engine. And it gotten some milk in my refrigerator.
>
> Fernandes: Mmm...
Hmmm indeed. All that gas well ordered in a gas tank converted
to diffused molecules of CO2 and H2O plus heat have to be
ignored to call it an increase in order. Are we allowed to
ignore everything that is inconvenient when we keep score
of what is ordered and not ordered? That seems like a silly
way to play the game.
> Barker: Well, there's an example, isn't it? It's a controlled
> explosion.
> Fernandes: You'd have to agree that an engine is designed by
> intelligence.
And this would matter how?
> Barker: Yeah, I think so.
> Fernandes: So, it's a pretty good theistic argument. Thank you."
> I'm guessing what he's saying is that the Big Bang is not feasible
> because there are no examples of "explosions" creating more order. The
> talk.origins site offers some responses - pointing out that Big Bang
> was an expansion anyway, and that stellar evolution is an example of
> an explosion creating order in the formation of stars. But I'd like
> some elaboration on this constantly repeated creationist trope.
Nothing about the usage of 'order' and 'complexity' in the little
story are robust enough to measure. They are not easy concepts.
Presuming one uses the conceptions of order one would take from
physics and chemistry, a designed internal combustion engine
burning gas does not produce order in the universe. So I'd say the
whole argument piles misconceptions on top of poor definitions
in bad analogies. However, if you don't know this immediately,
you probably don't want to get into the discussion.
alextangent
More ordered; not necessarily more complex. Ice freezing has decreased
entropy (is more ordered).
I would agree that glass from sand is not a good example of entropy
change, as glass is an unordered non-crystalline solid, as compared with
sand grains, which are commonly quartz crystals, or ordered structures.
I wouldn't want to speculate on whether it might be considered an
ordering or not; I suspect glass is less ordered (or has higher entropy)
than sand.
>
> Also. The heat fused the glass, not the explosion. The Explosion only
> generated the heat. But not all explosions generate enough heat to
> fuse sand into glass.
>
> Therefore the explosion must be controled to produce glass each time,
> which needs an intelligence.
> [\\]
>
The intelligence of volcanoes, which produce obsidian amongst other glasses.
>
Free Lunch
<setho...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
>argument by a Christian apologist:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
>"In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
>PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
>Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
>explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
Barker's answer here should have been that we do not know if the big
band added or decreased order or complexity.
r norman
Check out the Nobel Prize winning work of Prigogine who found that
thermodynamics of irreversible processes can indeed produce order out
of disorder. Read his book "Order Out of Chaos".
teresita
> Simple: the Big Bang is not an explosion.
Here's a deeper thought: The Big Bang never ended.
Still deeper: Call this "Epoch 17" because we are 4.3 * 10^17 seconds
out from the Big Bang. When the universe was one-tenth of it's current
age (4.3 *10^16) call that Epoch 16. When the universe was four seconds
old call that Epoch 0. All of these epochs in logarithmic time can be
plotted on a number line that extends to infinity in both directions.
The number of interactions which occur in each Epoch is a constant,
because the shorter span between epochs is matched by the closer distance
between interacting particles. The universe has a "beginning" in linear
time, but no beginning in logarithmic time.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Garamond Lethe
> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
> "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
> Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
>
> Barker: Well, if you follow current cosmology I guess the big bang
> would be one.
Here's my analysis, for what it's worth.
"Explosion", "order", and "complexity" are not defined (and in some
senses they are orthoganal, and in other senses they are opposites).
Nor am I aware of anyone arguing that explosions cause either one.
And while "explosion" is a reasonable metaphor for the Big Bang, it is
only a metaphor. But to answer the question:
1. Birth of stars. Using my private definition of "order", the
"explosion" that results at ignition leaves the space more "ordered"
than the cloud of gas that was there previously. Likewise, the
remains of a nova are more "ordered" than the star that existed before
the "explosive" nova event.
2. Pele's tears. "Pele�s tears is a geological term for small pieces
of solidified lava drops formed when airborne particles of molten
material fuse into tearlike drops of volcanic glass." [Wikipedia] An
explosion is required to get the lava airborne, and the results are
more "complex" than the previous shape of the material (for my private
definition of "complex").
3. Mantis Shrimp: (This follows from mantis shrimp being an example
for everything. It's in their contract.) Using my private
definition, the cavitation bubble they generate when hunting prey are
explosions, and a well-fed mantis shrimp is both more complex and
(much) more orderly than a hungry mantis shrimp.
From this the conclusion is obvious: define your terms.
teresita
> I'm guessing what he's saying is that the Big Bang is not feasible
> because there are no examples of "explosions" creating more order.
What you call an "explosion" is really the furious rate of interactions
early on slowing rapidly as space between particles in the universe grew.
If we define an "event" as any interaction of subatomic particles (ie an
electron emitting a photon, or absorbing a photon), then in the era that
the universe was between 4.3 x 10^16 and 4.3 x 10^17 seconds old (today),
there were a certain number of events, which we can call n.
In the era preceding this one, when the universe went from 4.3 x 10^15
seconds old to 4.3 x 10^16 seconds old, the number of events, n, was the
same, even though the era only lasted one-tenth as long, because
everything was on average ten times closer together. Less time was
required for one event to trigger the next event.
And so on. When the universe was between 0.5 and 5 seconds old, exactly
the same number of events happened in that tiny universe as happened in
our universe between the time it was 1.6 billion years old and today.
When you get to the nanosecond scale, when the universe was between 4.3 x
10^-10 and 4.3 x 10^-9 seconds old, the universe was only the size of a
bowling ball, there were still 'n' events happening, because everything
was so close together. There might have been creatures living in that
bowling-ball sized universe that thought their universe was enormously
old and huge in scale, even though to us they live only an eyeblink after
the big bang.
There might be creatures who will come long after us, when the universe
is perhaps 4.3 x 10^27 seconds old, who will consider our universe as it
exists today to be the size of one of THEIR bowling balls. Such
creatures would consider us to be living very early in the big bang
explosion.
This situation would be true for all scales.
So if you grasp what I'm saying, there can be both a steady state where
the universe has "always" been here, and always expanding, yet at the
same time one could point to a "beginning" and even think that it was a
big "BANG".
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Christopher Denney
Glass and ice are both more ordered than sand and water respectively,
as they each have structure.
Glass will keep it's structure at the original temperature, whereas
ice will melt when you change it's temperature back to the starting
(unfrozen) temperature.
> Also. The heat fused the glass, not the explosion. The Explosion only
> generated the heat. But not all explosions generate enough heat to
> fuse sand into glass.
In explosions where there is heat sufficient to form glass, the heat
is part of the explosion. Part of the formation of any pattern in the
glass also involves the pressure from the explosion, but that is a
sidebar.
> Therefore the explosion must be controled to produce glass each time,
> which needs an intelligence.
> [\\]
This is a fine example of what we call a non sequitur.
We are not talking about how to manufacture glass, we are talking
about the fact that explosions can release their energy in such a way
as to increase order in a localized fashion.
Boikat
Imbicile.
>
> Also. The heat fused the glass, not the explosion. The Explosion only
> generated the heat. But not all explosions generate enough heat to
> fuse sand into glass.
>
> Therefore the explosion must be controled to produce glass each time,
> which needs an intelligence.
"Desert Glass". Look it up, you ignorant hick.
You have 1 hour and 15 munutes to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
I am RAM, dirt-bag.
Boikat
Christopher Denney
I wasn't trying for a high contrast example, really. Loose sand is
unordered and has no structure, glass is a little ordered is has
structure, it may not be regular, but it holds it form.
Think of still photos of groups of people.
Ice might be like a marching band, all neat rows.
Sand or water is like a crowd milling about.
Glass is more like the marching band when it's doing maneuvers that
haven't resolved into a shape yet. Disorderly order of a kind.
jensp...@hotmail.com
> Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
Speaking physics, order is the excate opposite of complexity, so it
would be pretty hard to point to a process that increase both!
Incidently, the universe prior to the big bang was much more ordered
and much less complex.
Nice example of, why people should refrain from talkin about subjects
of which they have no knowledge.
Apart form that the entire exchange seems to be be so misguided, that
the arguments aren't even wrong.
J.O.
Desertphile
<setho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist
That is like saying "I am a nigger."
> but I'd like some opinions on this
> argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
> "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> PROVING the existence of god. Here's the exchange:
No. It is impossible to prove gods exist. It is impossible to
prove sunlight exists, and for the exact same reasons.
> Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
"Gravity, you fucking retard! Gravity! Have you ever heard of
fucking gravity?! Gravity! GRAVITY!"
See my video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutJLb-c0vs
> I'm guessing what he's saying is that the Big Bang is not feasible
> because there are no examples of "explosions" creating more order. The
> talk.origins site offers some responses - pointing out that Big Bang
> was an expansion anyway, and that stellar evolution is an example of
> an explosion creating order in the formation of stars. But I'd like
> some elaboration on this constantly repeated creationist trope.
If you actually wanted the correct "answer," you would have spent
a few minutes on WikiPedia and read it.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
el cid
> On 2 Jan., 23:16, Sethosayher <sethosay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> > explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
>
> Speaking physics, order is the excate opposite of complexity, so it
> would be pretty hard to point to a process that increase both!
>
> Incidently, the universe prior to the big bang was much more ordered
> and much less complex.
Isn't that a meaningless statement?
By many variant theories, The Big Bang corresponds to the
instantiation
of space-time. There is no "before" The Big Bang if time begins with
The Big Bang. Understanding the initial instances of the universe
requires understanding a great deal more about quantum time, quantum
gravity and physics in general than we realistically do understand.
What is the total energy of the universe? Is space itself negative
energy? Is the total energy of the universe a constant? These things
are not known.
> Nice example of, why people should refrain from talkin about subjects
> of which they have no knowledge.
and perhaps to be more careful about those things they do know
fairly well.
bpuharic
<setho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
>argument by a Christian apologist:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
>"In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
>PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
>Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
>explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
explosions DO produce order. creationists often think they don't, but
they do.
if they DIDNT we wouldnt be able to tell an explosion even happened.
all we'd have is a distribution of matter indistinguihable from from
anything else, such as an earthquake or tornado.
consider the bombing of the federal building in OK city a few years
ago. the authorities were able to determine the power of the blast,
its location, etc.
by analyzing the distribution of the material they were able to tell
how powerful the blast was. if it had been a shaped charge the
distribution would have been different than the open blast that was
actually used.
of course, the order that was present prior to the blast was
destroyed. but that's true of all chemical reactions in isolated
systems; the disorder ALWAYS increases.
the earth/sun system is an isolated system. so the 'explosion' of life
caused by evolution produces an increase in entropy...disorder...in
the environment.
so, yes, explosions do produce order. otherwise we wouldn't know what
an explosion was.
el cid
wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 14:16:43 -0800 (PST), Sethosayher
> > Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> > explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
>
> "Gravity, you fucking retard! Gravity! Have you ever heard of
> fucking gravity?! Gravity! GRAVITY!"
>
> See my video at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutJLb-c0vs
Generally wrong. And having watched your vid, I'd
be more careful about cursing ignorance.
It's been recognized for some time that gravitational collapse
of a uniform cloud of gas produces an increase in entropy.
So that would not be an increase in order.
Some of the gas winds up clustering together at the center
of mass and some winds up dispersed. You can model it this
way. 3 atoms all of the same potential energy are moving,
there is a 3 body collision that drops the kinetic energy
of two to a very low value near the center of mass and
gives the conserved kinetic energy to the third. In a
large system the entropy increases even though you get
a condensed gas cloud at the center of mass. You pay for
this will some of the gas having very high kinetic
energy.
In non-gravitational terms consider a cloud of water vapor
at 1 atmosphere and 80C. This is unstable. Some of the
water vapor will condense to water liquid with an increase
in T and a decrease in pressure. Some happy student can
work out the final state but it will be hotter than 80C
and lower pressure with some liquid water and some in
the vapor phase. It will have a higher entropy.
Mind you, none of this is especially intuitive and very
smart cosmologists have taken time to work it all out,
sometimes making very public, very incorrect claims but
the consensus if now in. Gravitational collapse produces
an increase in entropy --- except it gets dicey again when
you have to deal with warping space-time and what the
volume in question is. But in the bottom line, don't get
too glib about the issue.
heekster
Incorrect. Water freezes into hexagonal crystals, like snowflakes.
Glass is a non-cystalline, amorphous solid. Apples and oranges.
>Ice is still
>water. Is the ice more complex then water now that it is frozen?
>
The ice is more ordered, because it is organized into crystals.
>Also. The heat fused the glass, not the explosion.
Imbecility. No explosion without heat.
> The Explosion only
>generated the heat. But not all explosions generate enough heat to
>fuse sand into glass.
>
Meaningless observation.
>Therefore the explosion must be controled to produce glass each time,
>which needs an intelligence.
Volcanoes, explosions, and meteorites, are not intelligent. Yet all
produce glass. The fact that they lack intelligence is something that
you have in common with them.
heekster
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 14:16:43 -0800 (PST), Sethosayher
><setho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist
>
>That is like saying "I am a nigger."
That may be a dependent statement.
http://www.jiggaboojones.com/
Jim
in order to completely describe it at the atomic level. Each grain of
sand is a crystal, an ordered array of atoms which is relatively easy
to describe. A glass is a supercooled liquid, where each atom could
be anywhere. Thus, since in a bucket of sand you only need to specify
the orientation of each grain to pretty completely locate every atom
whereas in a glass you need to pretty much specify the location of
each atom, a glass is more complex (i.e. less easily described) than
the sand from which it was made. You are thinking at the wrong
scale.
Stuart
Depends. Depends on how one defines complexity, which is why
every time a creotard babbles about *complexity* I ask them to define
it. Then its usually easy to show counter examples.
Stuart
Stuart
> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
> "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
> Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
Sure. "Mushroom Cloud"
>
> Barker: Well, if you follow current cosmology I guess the big bang
> would be one.
>
Big Bang is not an "explosion". Sheesh.
> Fernandes: But we're trying to argue about the big bang so my question
> again is can you give me any empirical evidence for explosions - not
> assumptions - for some empirical evidence for explosions producing
> states containing more order and complexity? I mean, you're arguing in
> a circle if you're saying...
>
> Barker: I can think of one. We run out of milk. And I gotta get some
> milk so I drive to the store. There's an explosion happening in that
> engine. And it gotten some milk in my refrigerator.
>
> Fernandes: Mmm...
>
> Barker: Well, there's an example, isn't it? It's a controlled
> explosion.
How about a natural fission reactor in Gabon? A controlled explosion
designed by Geology.
>
> Fernandes: You'd have to agree that an engine is designed by
> intelligence.
>
> Barker: Yeah, I think so.
>
> Fernandes: So, it's a pretty good theistic argument. Thank you."
I'm not impressed.
Stuart
Kent
> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
> "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
> Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
>
> would be one.
>
> again is can you give me any empirical evidence for explosions - not
> assumptions - for some empirical evidence for explosions producing
> states containing more order and complexity? I mean, you're arguing in
> a circle if you're saying...
>
> Barker: I can think of one. We run out of milk. And I gotta get some
> milk so I drive to the store. There's an explosion happening in that
> engine. And it gotten some milk in my refrigerator.
>
> Fernandes: Mmm...
>
> Barker: Well, there's an example, isn't it? It's a controlled
> explosion.
>
> intelligence.
>
> Barker: Yeah, I think so.
>
> Fernandes: So, it's a pretty good theistic argument. Thank you."
>
>
> I'm guessing what he's saying is that the Big Bang is not feasible
> because there are no examples of "explosions" creating more order. The
> talk.origins site offers some responses - pointing out that Big Bang
> was an expansion anyway, and that stellar evolution is an example of
> an explosion creating order in the formation of stars. But I'd like
> some elaboration on this constantly repeated creationist trope.
Mushroom clouds are rather complex. The wind from an explosion is the
ordered motion of air molecules. It is really a question about the
nature of order and complexity produced by an explosion not if it is
produced.
Inez
I'm not sure that anyone suggests that the big bang created order even
if you want to call it an explosion. I'd say it was more gravity
causing things to pool together and react that causes order, not the
big bang. There is no reason to think that explosions cause matter to
never be orderable again.
Since your quote above doesn't like a man made example of an
explosion, how about an erupting volcano, or a star? Volcanos can
make islands, stars can make the ingredients of planets. I don't see
the problem.
Sethosayher
got into a huge argument yesterday with a creationist and he accused
me of being an "evolutionist" - I was so confrontational that I
eagerly accepted the term.
Also, my first post contained a typo - the Talk Origins site stated
that the big bang was an expansion, as did I. Though Dan Baker did
not, unfortunately.
Asimovs pupil
Actually, the term that is really being discussed is "entropy" not
"order", even if they don't know it themselves.
Entropy is sometimes described in popular-sciency articles as
"disorder" but the problem is that order and disorder are far too
subjective to be useful in a strictly scientific discussion. For
example, suppose a librarian had just carefully arranged the books on
a shelf in order by author. After she leaves, a small child who cannot
read rearranges them by size. Which order is better? To the child, the
order the librarian made was just a mess - big books and small books
just randomly distributed. And of course the librarian feels the same
way about the child's idea of order.
So, the proper way to frame your question is: Can an explosion produce
an overall decrease of entropy? And the answer is, absolutely not.
Sure, small local decreases of entropy can and do happen. A rock lying
on the ground before the explosion may get lifted up to the top of
another rock, so it now has more potential energy (and thus less
entropy) than it had before. But these little effects are swamped by
the increase of entropy to the whole area of the explosion.
The Big Bang is no exception. If the physicists are correct that all
the matter and energy that is in the universe was once gathered
together in one tiny area, then that was absolutely the lowest entropy
level that will ever be or could ever be. Just imagine how much work
would have to be done to gather all that stuff back together again.
All the stars and planets. All the loose hydrogen and helium in
between the galaxies. AND all the stray heat that has radiated out of
all those stars for 14 billion years! That is the measure of how much
entropy has increased in the universe so far.
You may think that there is much more "order" in the universe now, but
all the order you can think of is simply a tiny, localized reduction
of entropy - like lifting a small rock on top of another rock - that
is completely SWAMPED by the increase of entropy the universe has
experienced.
SkyEyes
> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> argument by a Christian apologist:
I call shenanigans. Only a creationist calls non-creationists
"evolutionists."
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Vend
> Barker: Well, if you follow current cosmology I guess the big bang
> would be one.
The Big Bang is not an explosion, it's the process of expansion of the
universe.
It's more similar to the inflation of a toy baloon rather than an
explosion. (The universe would be the baloon wall, with one more
dimension).
It's an open question in cosmology why the universe contains stars and
galaxies rather than an uniform mass of gas, physicists speculate that
quantum mechanics might be involved somehow, but they still not know
exactly.
Anyway, just because we don't know something, 'Goddidit' is not a
valid explanation.
J. J. Lodder
> On Jan 2, 5:16 pm, Sethosayher <sethosay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> > argument by a Christian apologist:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
> >
> > "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> > PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
> >
> > Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> > explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
> >
> > Barker: Well, if you follow current cosmology I guess the big bang
> > would be one.
> >
>
> Silly. "Explosion" is a chemical reaction. It has NO relevance to the
> Big Bang.
More generally, an explosion is any event
in which a large amount of energy is released
in a small volume in a short time.
That still doesn't make the big bang an explosion,
(the universe doesn't contain net energy)
Jan
Mike Dworetsky
> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
> "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
> Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
>
> Barker: Well, if you follow current cosmology I guess the big bang
> would be one.
>
> again is can you give me any empirical evidence for explosions - not
> assumptions - for some empirical evidence for explosions producing
> states containing more order and complexity? I mean, you're arguing in
> a circle if you're saying...
>
> Barker: I can think of one. We run out of milk. And I gotta get some
> milk so I drive to the store. There's an explosion happening in that
> engine. And it gotten some milk in my refrigerator.
>
> Fernandes: Mmm...
>
> Barker: Well, there's an example, isn't it? It's a controlled
> explosion.
>
> Fernandes: You'd have to agree that an engine is designed by
> intelligence.
>
> Barker: Yeah, I think so.
>
> Fernandes: So, it's a pretty good theistic argument. Thank you."
>
> ---
>
> I'm guessing what he's saying is that the Big Bang is not feasible
> because there are no examples of "explosions" creating more order. The
> talk.origins site offers some responses - pointing out that Big Bang
> was an expansion anyway, and that stellar evolution is an example of
> an explosion creating order in the formation of stars. But I'd like
> some elaboration on this constantly repeated creationist trope.
I don't want to waste time watching these videos, etc, but the two
"debaters" sound mighty unqualified to discuss astrophysics, thermodynamical
physics, or theology for that matter. Can anyone fill us in on exactly who
these two people are, and what are their qualifications?
Not an ad hominem, it's just that frankly, they sound like two idiots having
a stupid contest.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Ye Old One
The argument is still-born because the Big Bang was not an explosion.
--
Bob.
jensp...@hotmail.com
> On Jan 2, 7:37�pm, jenspol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 2 Jan., 23:16, Sethosayher <sethosay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> > > explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
>
> > Speaking physics, order is the excate opposite of complexity, so it
> > would be pretty hard to point to a process that increase both!
>
> > Incidently, the universe prior to the big bang was much more ordered
> > and much less complex.
>
> Isn't that a meaningless statement?
Well yes and no. The total state of everything was much easier to
state "prior" to the big bang.
> By many variant theories, The Big Bang corresponds to the
> instantiation
> of space-time. There is no "before" The Big Bang if time begins with
> The Big Bang.
Yes for sure. But thats not really relevant in connection to what
state contains most information, which was my point. I didn�t see any
reason to confuse matters with further complications.
J.O.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Jan 2, 7:37�pm, jenspol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On 2 Jan., 23:16, Sethosayher <sethosay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
>> > explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
>>
>> Speaking physics, order is the excate opposite of complexity, so it
>> would be pretty hard to point to a process that increase both!
>>
>> Incidently, the universe prior to the big bang was much more ordered
>> and much less complex.
>
>Isn't that a meaningless statement?
>
>By many variant theories, The Big Bang corresponds to the
>instantiation
>of space-time. There is no "before" The Big Bang if time begins with
>The Big Bang. Understanding the initial instances of the universe
>requires understanding a great deal more about quantum time, quantum
>gravity and physics in general than we realistically do understand.
lee smolin has done some work on how we can examine our universe for
signs of what happened before the big bang.
Dan Listermann
"Sethosayher" <setho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1404674a-351a-496d...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
> "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
> explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
>
> would be one.
>
> Fernandes: But we're trying to argue about the big bang so my question
> again is can you give me any empirical evidence for explosions - not
> assumptions - for some empirical evidence for explosions producing
> states containing more order and complexity? I mean, you're arguing in
> a circle if you're saying...
>
> Barker: I can think of one. We run out of milk. And I gotta get some
> milk so I drive to the store. There's an explosion happening in that
> engine. And it gotten some milk in my refrigerator.
>
> Fernandes: Mmm...
>
> Barker: Well, there's an example, isn't it? It's a controlled
> explosion.
>
> Fernandes: You'd have to agree that an engine is designed by
> intelligence.
>
> Barker: Yeah, I think so.
>
> Fernandes: So, it's a pretty good theistic argument. Thank you."
>
> ---
>
> I'm guessing what he's saying is that the Big Bang is not feasible
> because there are no examples of "explosions" creating more order. The
> talk.origins site offers some responses - pointing out that Big Bang
> was an expansion anyway, and that stellar evolution is an example of
> an explosion creating order in the formation of stars. But I'd like
> some elaboration on this constantly repeated creationist trope.
>
While an explosion creates a lot of disorder, it is hard to avoid some level
of order no matter what happens. There will be less order after an
explosion, but there will be order, so the answer to your question is yes.
.
Burkhard
> "Sethosayher" <sethosay...@gmail.com> wrote in message
What if the explosion goes off at the headquarter of an anarchist
cell, killing its members? ;o)
Rolf
As has been pointed out by others, the BB was not an explosion.
Besides, as far as I can tell there was and still is so much energy
available in the universe that for the foreseeable future ww will see all
sorts of order and disorder coming and going, fortunately for us.
Just think of the energy output of the Sun, and see what order it create
here on Earth.
Kermit
As you point out, the big bang wasn't an explosion; it's an ongoing
expansion.
Speaking for myself, if my house were expanded, it would become more
ordered.
Kermit
TomS
<1404674a-351a-496d...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Sethosayher
stated..."
>
>DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
>argument by a Christian apologist:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
>"In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
>PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
>Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
>explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
>
>Barker: Well, if you follow current cosmology I guess the big bang
>would be one.
I think that we can summarize the major problems thus:
The Big Bang was not an explosion. The expression "Big Bang" could be
confusing, and the person who coined the expression was Fred Hoyle,
who was opposed to the idea.
"Order" and "complexity" are informal, subjective terms, in many cases
describing opposite properties of a system. Increase in order is often
decrease in complexity; and decrease in order, increase in complexity.
There are other factors involved in the Big Bang, such as gravity,
which help produce the results. It isn't only the initial expansion.
Explosions can produce an increase in complexity or an increase in
order.
Even if the argument were persuasive, at best what it would mean is
that there is something wrong with the concept of the "Big Bang" as
it is currently formulated, and that is not demonstration of any
alternative explanation for such phenomena as the observed expansion
of the universe. ("What is your alternative, and how does it account
for the observations?")
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Mark Isaak
> You have 1 hour and 15 munutes to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I
> am RAM, dirt-bag.
By saying you are, he has already proved you are not. When has ASI ever
been right about anything?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Joe Cummings
Ignite a mixture of methane and air.
Run the mixture of air and methane up a tube, ignite it and you get a
continuous explosion or a flame.
This is what happens in a Bunsen burner.
Is there any elementary chemistry text book that does NOT have a picture
of the ordered flame of a Bunsen burner?
I invite Madman to boil some water over a Bunsen burner , make some coffee
and think about it.
Joe Cummings
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> On Jan 2, 3:43�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 2, 4:41�pm, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
> > > > "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> > > > PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
> > > > Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> > > > explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
>
> > > > would be one.
>
> > > > again is can you give me any empirical evidence for explosions - not
> > > > assumptions - for some empirical evidence for explosions producing
> > > > states containing more order and complexity? I mean, you're arguing in
> > > > a circle if you're saying...
>
> > > > Barker: I can think of one. We run out of milk. And I gotta get some
> > > > milk so I drive to the store. There's an explosion happening in that
> > > > engine. And it gotten some milk in my refrigerator.
>
> > > > Fernandes: Mmm...
>
> > > > Barker: Well, there's an example, isn't it? It's a controlled
> > > > explosion.
>
> > > > Fernandes: You'd have to agree that an engine is designed by
> > > > intelligence.
>
> > > > Barker: Yeah, I think so.
>
> > > > Fernandes: So, it's a pretty good theistic argument. Thank you."
>
> > > > ---
>
> > > > I'm guessing what he's saying is that the Big Bang is not feasible
> > > > because there are no examples of "explosions" creating more order. The
> > > > talk.origins site offers some responses - pointing out that Big Bang
> > > > was an expansion anyway, and that stellar evolution is an example of
> > > > an explosion creating order in the formation of stars. But I'd like
> > > > some elaboration on this constantly repeated creationist trope.
>
> > > The loose sand is pretty disordered, the glass considerably less so
>
> > How is glass more complex, though? All you have done is change it's
> > state with tempeture in much the same way water freezes. Ice is still
> > water. Is the ice more complex then water now that it is frozen?
>
> as they each have structure.
> Glass will keep it's structure at the original temperature, whereas
> ice will melt when you change it's temperature back to the starting
> (unfrozen) temperature.
All one has done is to change the state of both elements. That have
not gained order.
>
> > Also. The heat fused the glass, not the explosion. The Explosion only
> > generated the heat. But not all explosions generate enough heat to
> > fuse sand into glass.
>
> In explosions where there is heat sufficient to form glass, the heat
> is part of the explosion. Part of the formation of any pattern in the
> glass also involves the pressure from the explosion, but that is a
> sidebar.
>
> > Therefore the explosion must be controled to produce glass each time,
> > which needs an intelligence.
> > [\\]
>
> This is a fine example of what we call a non sequitur.
> We are not talking about how to manufacture glass, we are talking
> about the fact that explosions can release their energy in such a way
> as to increase order in a localized fashion.- Hide quoted text -
I addressed the "explosion" element. You did not however. Besides, an
explosion is a reaction. So is the formation of the glass. You have
not gained anything complex from the result of a chemical reaction and
it's reactions. The best you can do is show a rearrangement.
.
> - Show quoted text -
tim.anderson
Imagine a group of soldiers sitting in a bus. Then imagine an
explosion occurs outside of the bus. The soldiers immediately leap out
of the bus and deploy themselves in battle order.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by the rather imprecise term of
"order".
John Stockwell
> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> argument by a Christian apologist:
1. The big bang was not an explosion in the sense of chemicals
reacting, and blowing up.
2. The universe was at its highest state of order (lowest state
of entropy) at the moment of the big bang, It has been increasing
disorder ever since
3. The richness of phenomena in the universe is not evidence of
order, but is rather disorder.
4. Don't talk about thermodynamics issues unless you know what
you are talking about. Biological systems are examples of
nonequilibrium thermodyamic systems, which are quite capable
of generating rich structures at the expense of their environment.
-John
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> On Jan 2, 7:45�pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
[...]
> > "Gravity, you fucking retard! Gravity! Have you ever heard of
> > fucking gravity?! Gravity! GRAVITY!"
> >
> > See my video at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutJLb-c0vs
> Generally wrong. And having watched your vid, I'd
> be more careful about cursing ignorance.
> It's been recognized for some time that gravitational collapse
> of a uniform cloud of gas produces an increase in entropy.
Certainly.
> So that would not be an increase in order.
That depends on what you mean by "order." You can, of course,
define "disorder" to mean "entropy." But then in cases in which
gravity dominates, you lose all connection with the intuitive
meaning of the word.
> Some of the gas winds up clustering together at the center
> of mass and some winds up dispersed. You can model it this
> way. 3 atoms all of the same potential energy are moving,
> there is a 3 body collision that drops the kinetic energy
> of two to a very low value near the center of mass and
> gives the conserved kinetic energy to the third. In a
> large system the entropy increases even though you get
> a condensed gas cloud at the center of mass. You pay for
> this will some of the gas having very high kinetic energy.
This is true. And you can choose to define "order" in such a way
that a star surrounded by thin hot gas is less "ordered" than a
somewhat cooler uniform cloud of gas. But this is certainly
not what most people would mean by the word.
[...]
> Mind you, none of this is especially intuitive and very
> smart cosmologists have taken time to work it all out,
> sometimes making very public, very incorrect claims but
> the consensus if now in. Gravitational collapse produces
> an increase in entropy
Yes. The point is that equating entropy with "disorder" can be
very misleading. There are simple examples in which it makes
sense to think of entropy as a measure of disorder, but there
are many others in which it doesn't.
Steve Carlip
Friar Broccoli
>
.
> Yes. �The point is that equating entropy with "disorder" can be
> very misleading. �There are simple examples in which it makes
> sense to think of entropy as a measure of disorder, but there
> are many others in which it doesn't.
I like to think of entropy as a measure of the energy that is not
available to do work, but then I become confused with near perfect
crystals which are thought to be ordered, but do not (as far as I can
tell) necessarily represent any increased work potential. Am I
missing something obvious here?
Christopher Denney
You are incorrect.
> > > Also. The heat fused the glass, not the explosion. The Explosion only
> > > generated the heat. But not all explosions generate enough heat to
> > > fuse sand into glass.
>
> > In explosions where there is heat sufficient to form glass, the heat
> > is part of the explosion. Part of the formation of any pattern in the
> > glass also involves the pressure from the explosion, but that is a
> > sidebar.
>
> > > Therefore the explosion must be controled to produce glass each time,
> > > which needs an intelligence.
> > > [\\]
>
> > This is a fine example of what we call a non sequitur.
> > We are not talking about how to manufacture glass, we are talking
> > about the fact that explosions can release their energy in such a way
> > as to increase order in a localized fashion.- Hide quoted text -
>
> I addressed the "explosion" element. You did not however. Besides, an
> explosion is a reaction. So is the formation of the glass. You have
> not gained anything complex from the result of a chemical reaction and
> it's reactions. The best you can do is show a rearrangement.
What is ordering, but rearrangement?
jensp...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> I don't want to waste time watching these videos, etc, but the two
> "debaters" sound mighty unqualified to discuss astrophysics, thermodynamical
> physics, or theology for that matter. �Can anyone fill us in on exactly who
> these two people are, and what are their qualifications?
>
> Not an ad hominem, it's just that frankly, they sound like two idiots having
> a stupid contest.
That�s pretty much the same impression I got.
Kind of scary thought, that some people will sit down listen to this
sort of thing and think, - hey now I�m really gone a learn some wise
stuff.
J.O.
William Morse
> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
> "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
> Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
>
> Barker: Well, if you follow current cosmology I guess the big bang
> would be one.
>
> Fernandes: But we're trying to argue about the big bang so my question
> again is can you give me any empirical evidence for explosions - not
> assumptions - for some empirical evidence for explosions producing
> states containing more order and complexity? I mean, you're arguing in
> a circle if you're saying...
>
> Barker: I can think of one. We run out of milk. And I gotta get some
> milk so I drive to the store. There's an explosion happening in that
> engine. And it gotten some milk in my refrigerator.
>
> Fernandes: Mmm...
>
> Barker: Well, there's an example, isn't it? It's a controlled
> explosion.
>
> Fernandes: You'd have to agree that an engine is designed by
> intelligence.
>
> Barker: Yeah, I think so.
In this Fernandes is incorrect and Barker should not have agreed. An
engine is not designed by intelligence - there are in fact no examples
of anything designed by intelligence. There are only things evolved with
or without the aid of intelligence. The watch, that "classic" example of
design, was a result of a long series of incremental improvements, often
with competing alternate mechanisms, only one of which survived.
Intelligence was involved in the process, as opposed to the "blind
watchmaker" of natural selection, but the intelligence did not sit down
with a blank sheet of paper and invent a fully functioning modern watch.
It took four hundred years and a pantload of trial and error - or
should I say evolution?
Nick Keighley
> On Jan 2, 6:43�ｿｽpm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 4:41�ｿｽpm, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Jan 2, 2:16�ｿｽpm, Sethosayher <sethosay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm guessing what he's saying is that the Big Bang is not feasible
> > > > because there are no examples of "explosions" creating more order. The
> > > > talk.origins site offers some responses - pointing out that Big Bang
> > > > was an expansion anyway, and that stellar evolution is an example of
> > > > an explosion creating order in the formation of stars. But I'd like
> > > > some elaboration on this constantly repeated creationist trope.
>
> > > One example would be sand being fused into glass by an explosion.
> > > The loose sand is pretty disordered, the glass considerably less so
glass looks pretty disordered to me. At the molecular level.
> > How is glass more complex, though? All you have done is change it's
> > state with tempeture in much the same way water freezes. Ice is still
> > water. Is the ice more complex then water now that it is frozen?
yes. Ice is a crystal. Glass is simply frozen disorder. Energy has to
be extracted to turn water at 0C into ice at 0C. This energy
corresponds to the increased entropy of the ice crystals. The rest of
the world gets slightly more disorganised (increased entropy) by this
energy.
> The glass is more complex because you need to specify more variables
> in order to completely describe it at the atomic level.
I think you pretty well have this backward. If all the atoms are
aligned in the same way we call it ordered. If they are in disarray
they are disordered.
I'd say the sand and the glass were about evens. But if you consider
the sand to be crystals then the sand is more organised.
> Each grain of
> sand is a crystal, an ordered array of atoms which is relatively easy
> to describe.
low entropy high order.
> �ｿｽA glass is a supercooled liquid, where each atom could
> be anywhere.
high entropy low order.
I think you're swopping your entropies about. If thermodynamic and
infomation entropy are exchangeable then I think entropy corresponds
to the inverse of information. So /disordered/ things have more
information. Disorder is more surprising therefore it contains more
information.
> Thus, since in a bucket of sand you only need to specify
> the orientation of each grain to pretty completely locate every atom
> whereas in a glass you need to pretty much specify the location of
> each atom,
so, yes.
> a glass is more complex (i.e. less easily described)
so pounding a diamond into dust makes it more complex? You swopped
ordered and complex somewhere along the line.
> than
> the sand from which it was made. �ｿｽ You are thinking at the wrong
> scale.
you are playing ducks and drakes with "complexity"
Nick Keighley
> It's been recognized for some time that gravitational collapse
> of a uniform cloud of gas produces an increase in entropy.
[speaking as one who knows only a little physics] given the 2LoT,
wouldn't it have been bloody surprising if it had done anything else?
> So that would not be an increase in order.
>
> Some of the gas winds up clustering together at the center
> of mass and some winds up dispersed. You can model it this
> way. 3 atoms all of the same potential energy are moving,
> there is a 3 body collision that drops the kinetic energy
> of two to a very low value near the center of mass and
> gives the conserved kinetic energy to the third. In a
> large system the entropy increases even though you get
> a condensed gas cloud at the center of mass. You pay for
> this will some of the gas having very high kinetic
> energy.
>
> In non-gravitational terms consider a cloud of water vapor
> at 1 atmosphere and 80C. This is unstable. Some of the
> water vapor will condense to water liquid with an increase
> in T and a decrease in pressure. Some happy student can
> work out the final state but it will be hotter than 80C
> and lower pressure with some liquid water and some in
> the vapor phase. It will have a higher entropy.
>
> Mind you, none of this is especially intuitive and very
> smart cosmologists have taken time to work it all out,
> sometimes making very public, very incorrect claims but
> the consensus if now in. Gravitational collapse produces
> an increase in entropy
doesn't *everything* produce an increase in entropy?
> --- except it gets dicey again when
> you have to deal with warping space-time and what the
> volume in question is. But in the bottom line, don't get
> too glib about the issue.
Nick Keighley
> On 1/2/2010 22:29, Richard Smol wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 11:16 pm, Sethosayher<sethosay...@gmail.com> �wrote:
> >> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> >> argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShF9XTwHdiQ
>
> >> "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> >> PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
> >> Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> >> explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
my answer would be "no". Though if I dug around for something obscure
I believe there are industrial welding techniques that use explosives.
The BB didn't produce order. The energy generated by stars does
though. So its more the settling out after the BB that generates local
entropy decreases.
> >> Barker: Well, if you follow current cosmology I guess the big bang
> >> would be one.
>
> > Simple: the Big Bang is not an explosion.
>
> > RS
>
> Barker was suckered.
I thought he was just an idiot.
Nick Keighley
and "produce".
the soldiers are highly trained, and well fed lumps of low entropy. A
rather larger explosion would tend to produce a much more disorderly
sight.
Richard Smol
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 14:29:54 -0800, Richard Smol wrote:
> > Simple: the Big Bang is not an explosion.
>
Indeed. We're still int he middle of it.
RS
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Please share with us your private definition of _order_.
>>
>> > Also. The heat fused the glass, not the explosion. The Explosion only
>> > generated the heat. But not all explosions generate enough heat to
>> > fuse sand into glass.
>>
>> In explosions where there is heat sufficient to form glass, the heat
>> is part of the explosion. Part of the formation of any pattern in the
>> glass also involves the pressure from the explosion, but that is a
>> sidebar.
>>
>> > Therefore the explosion must be controled to produce glass each time,
>> > which needs an intelligence.
>> > [\\]
>>
>> This is a fine example of what we call a non sequitur.
>> We are not talking about how to manufacture glass, we are talking
>> about the fact that explosions can release their energy in such a way
>> as to increase order in a localized fashion.- Hide quoted text -
>
>I addressed the "explosion" element. You did not however. Besides, an
>explosion is a reaction. So is the formation of the glass. You have
>not gained anything complex from the result of a chemical reaction and
>it's reactions. The best you can do is show a rearrangement.
In that case, your allegation that there is greater order is undercut by
your argument about what order is.
john wilkins
> On Jan 2, 3:16 pm, Sethosayher <sethosay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> > argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> 1. The big bang was not an explosion in the sense of chemicals
> reacting, and blowing up.
>
> 2. The universe was at its highest state of order (lowest state
> of entropy) at the moment of the big bang, It has been increasing
> disorder ever since
> 3. The richness of phenomena in the universe is not evidence of
> order, but is rather disorder.
I saw a lecture recently in which it was noted that the entropy of the
universe was low at the big bang and this is a puzzle, given the
reversibility of the physical laws.
Don Cates
It is my (probably overly simplistic) impression that the idea of the
'entropy of the universe' is somewhat... um, problematical.
What with expansion, ill/un defined boundaries, relativistic effects,
and probably other things, it just doesn't make sense (mathematical and
otherwise) to speak of total/universal entropy at any time in its history.
Or am I more profoundly ignorant here that I thought?
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
TomS
<34adaace-1dd9-44d4...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Nick
Keighley stated..."
To discuss this somewhat seriously:
What is being said is that there are situations which involve an
explosion and result in "order".
And you are saying that there are other situations which involve
an explosion and result in "disorder".
So, *if* the Big Bang were an event involving an explosion, then
the mere fact that it involves an explosion would not be enough
either to rule out an increase in "order", or to rule out a decrease.
el cid
The general concept of entropy as energy that is not available to do
work has a small problem with units but you might want to look up
exergy in wiki.
There's a further problem in considering a crystal as necessarily
low entropy because you've restricted yourself to thinking of atoms
as if they were behaving like ideal gas particles with effectively
no chemical energy in bonding. I'm struggling for words here but
the crystal lattice sort of order in most of the crystals you
might be familiar with is generally minor compared to the effects
related to the chemical bonds. There are some good statistical
mechanical models to account for the lattice organization versus
pairwise interactions. I'd have to dig out notebooks that are 25+
years old to put real numbers on things but I expect a "cunning
rascal"
such as yourself could easily find tutorials on the net.
Stuart
> John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 3:16 pm, Sethosayher <sethosay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> > > argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> > 1. The big bang was not an explosion in the sense of chemicals
> > reacting, and blowing up.
>
> > 2. The universe was at its highest state of order (lowest state
> > of entropy) at the moment of the big bang, It has been increasing
> > disorder ever since
> > 3. The richness of phenomena in the universe is not evidence of
> > order, but is rather disorder.
>
> I saw a lecture recently in which it was noted that the entropy of the
> universe was low at the big bang and this is a puzzle, given the
> reversibility of the physical laws.
>
Its more general than that. Physical Law is time reversible
(even the Schroedinger Equation of QM) but in thermodynamics
one speaks of irreversible processes.
I have to say, though, that I'm puzzled as to why the speaker was
puzzled.
Stuart
Stuart
John Stockwell
> John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 3:16 pm, Sethosayher <sethosay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> > > argument by a Christian apologist:
>
> > 1. The big bang was not an explosion in the sense of chemicals
> > reacting, and blowing up.
>
> > 2. The universe was at its highest state of order (lowest state
> > of entropy) at the moment of the big bang, It has been increasing
> > disorder ever since
> > 3. The richness of phenomena in the universe is not evidence of
> > order, but is rather disorder.
>
> I saw a lecture recently in which it was noted that the entropy of the
> universe was low at the big bang and this is a puzzle, given the
> reversibility of the physical laws.
Yes. That is one of the great problems in physics because all
of the laws of quantum mechanics are time reversible. Yet,
macroscopically we have a notion of an "arrow of time", so
the average over phenomena in a statistical mechanics sense,
yields an increasing entropy.
Ye Old One
Life is just a chemical reaction.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Friar Broccoli
I haven't looked it up, but as I recall it is just a measure of
the efficiency with which an agent can convert thermodynamic
order to disorder. For obvious reasons organisms appear to
have been selected to maximize exergy.
> There's a further problem in considering a crystal as necessarily
> low entropy
I find this statement ambiguous. You might be saying you agree
with me that a diamond, for example, should be considered
thermodynamically disordered because it has no work potential.
Is that what you are saying?
> because you've restricted yourself to thinking of atoms
> as if they were behaving like ideal gas particles with effectively
> no chemical energy in bonding. I'm struggling for words here but
> the crystal lattice sort of order in most of the crystals you
> might be familiar with is generally minor compared to the effects
> related to the chemical bonds. There are some good statistical
> mechanical models to account for the lattice organization versus
> pairwise interactions. I'd have to dig out notebooks that are 25+
> years old to put real numbers on things but I expect a "cunning
> rascal" such as yourself could easily find tutorials on the net.
First, I do not consider myself to be cunning. My intelligence
is, in my view, not great and what there is of it is extremely
flat footed ... but to the issue:
It seems to me that for thermodynamically_disorder/entropy to
be meaningful it must tie back to a single core concept and not
contradict that concept. Maybe I have chosen badly, but the
concept I am trying to tie entropy to is the non-availability
of work potential. I have read lots of statistical analysis of
entropy (and occasionally even briefly imagine that I
understood them) and I don't have any problem with such
analysis, but if the end output of such an analysis contradicts
the initial fundamental concept it seems to me there is a
problem.
For reasons I do not at this moment understand, people seem to
think that the statistical analysis leads to the conclusion
that a diamond is thermodynamically ordered. I wouldn't have a
problem with that except that there is no possible way of
extracting work from a diamond, as you can from say
gasoline/oxygen or anything else that can be used to create a
spontaneous reaction. It seems to me that since diamonds are
(possibly) less susceptible to forming spontaneous reactions
than a pile of burned ash they should be considered
thermodynamically disordered.
Obviously I am looking at something the wrong way.
Can you tell me what it is?
Boikat
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:15:23 -0800, Boikat wrote, to All-Seeing-I:
>
> > You have 1 hour and 15 munutes to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I
> > am RAM, dirt-bag.
>
> By saying you are, he has already proved you are not. �When has ASI ever
> been right about anything?
Good point.
Boikat
John Wilkins
<adbd117a-7158-4582...@s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Stuart <bigd...@gmail.com> wrote:
He was being puzzled for rhetorical purposes:
el cid
>
> �I haven't looked it up, but as I recall it is just a measure of
> �the efficiency with which an agent can convert thermodynamic
> �order to disorder. �For obvious reasons organisms appear to
> �have been selected to maximizeexergy.
Perhaps you recall the Gibbs free energy equation
deltaG = deltaH - T deltaS
You'll note that the entropy contribution depends on T (thus
my comment about units). dH and dS are also T dependent.
> > There's a further problem in considering a crystal as necessarily
> > low entropy
>
> �I find this statement ambiguous. �You might be saying you agree
> �with me that a diamond, for example, should be considered
> �thermodynamically disordered because it has no work potential.
> �Is that what you are saying?
No, at least I wouldn't use those words.
And you can burn diamonds. In theory, one could fire a
power plant with diamonds instead of coal, in fact, it
would be cleaner.
> > because you've restricted yourself to thinking of atoms
> > as if they were behaving like ideal gas particles with effectively
> > no chemical energy in bonding. I'm struggling for words here but
> > the crystal lattice sort of order in most of the crystals you
> > might be familiar with is generally minor compared to the effects
> > related to the chemical bonds. There are some good statistical
> > mechanical models to account for the lattice organization versus
> > pairwise interactions. I'd have to dig out notebooks that are 25+
> > years old to put real numbers on things but I expect a "cunning
> > rascal" such as yourself could easily find tutorials on the net.
> �First, I do not consider myself to be cunning. �My intelligence
> �is, in my view, not great and what there is of it is extremely
> �flat footed ... but to the issue:
I was confused about who I was responding to and was joking about
Don Cates and his N*k*sian nickname.
> �It seems to me that for thermodynamically_disorder/entropy to
> �be meaningful it must tie back to a single core concept and not
> �contradict that concept.
Unfortunately, this does not mean the concept will readily
translate to imagery that matches to accessible analogies.
> �Maybe I have chosen badly, but the
> �concept I am trying to tie entropy to is the non-availability
> �of work potential. �I have read lots of statistical analysis of
> �entropy (and occasionally even briefly imagine that I
> �understood them) and I don't have any problem with such
> �analysis, but if the end output of such an analysis contradicts
> �the initial fundamental concept it seems to me there is a
> �problem.
The problem you have is common to many students.
The root issue is that you have to go beyond visible notions
of order and disorder and break it down into less tractable
variability in the distribution of energy in a system.
Water can evaporate producing gas molecules that are, at
a first glance, more disordered than a liquid. Ice can
melt and produce liquid which is more disorded than ice.
Place some ice in a vacuum sealed container and what states
do you get? Well, it depends on the temperature and pressure.
Yes, I said vacuum but that's a starting condition, as the
ice sublimates (and melts and evaporates) pressure increases.
You wind up with a state where entropy is maximized (truism).
What you need to think about is how many ways can the available
energy be distributed throughout the system. The water vapor
has more internal energy per molecule than the ice or liquid.
In very simple terms, starting with liquid at 0C, you can
think that the trade to make vapor requires you to also make
some ice meaning you get some higher entropy at the expense
of some lower entropy. From memory, statistical mechanics
is the best way to picture the ultimate equilibrium but as
I've not done it in a long time, I'm stopping now before
I fumble the discussion.
> �For reasons I do not at this moment understand, people seem to
> �think that the statistical analysis leads to the conclusion
> �that a diamond is thermodynamically ordered. �I wouldn't have a
> �problem with that except that there is no possible way of
> �extracting work from a diamond, as you can from say
> �gasoline/oxygen or anything else that can be used to create a
> �spontaneous reaction. �It seems to me that since diamonds are
> �(possibly) less susceptible to forming spontaneous reactions
> �than a pile of burned ash they should be considered
> �thermodynamically disordered.
>
> �Obviously I am looking at something the wrong way.
> �Can you tell me what it is?
On obvious problem is in what is considered to be the
system. Is it just diamond or is it diamond plus O2?
And ultimately, if you are going to make CO2 you need
to consider how much CO2 you have as well.
Also, while we use macro senses of order, the driving
issue is the available states energy states and compositions
of all the species involved, at least the relevant ones
which can matter when some of the kinetics are very
slow --- such as for oxidation of diamonds.
Somehow, I doubt this is helping much.
Friar Broccoli
my first stabs at doing it with CSS, so this reply does no justice to
yours. (Tomorrow I will try [and fail] to read nothing in T.O.)
.
> > �I find this statement ambiguous. �You might be saying you agree
> > �with me that a diamond, for example, should be considered
> > �thermodynamically disordered because it has no work potential.
> > �Is that what you are saying?
>
> No, at least I wouldn't use those words.
> And you can burn diamonds. In theory, one could fire a
> power plant with diamonds instead of coal, in fact, it
> would be cleaner.
Above all, I want to thank you for catching this little bit of
stupidity. Probably won't make any difference but it removes one
source of error (among so many).
.
It might have been useful. I "accidentally" purchased the idiots
guide to entropy statistics ("Entropy Demystified" by Arieh Ben-Naim)
which I didn't read because I thought it wasn't dealing with the "real
stuff". The next time this question is really bugging me I will
probably start with that.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Sethosayher" <setho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1404674a-351a-496d...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> DISCLAIMER: I'm an evolutionist, but I'd like some opinions on this
> argument by a Christian apologist:
>
>
> "In his debate with Phil Fernandes, Dan Barker gave an argument
> PROVING the existence of God. Here's the exchange:
>
> Fernandes: Okay, Dan, first can you give me any empirical evidence for
> explosions producing states containing more order and complexity?
>
> Barker: Well, if you follow current cosmology I guess the big bang
> would be one.
Whose Barker? Some wino othey picked up off the street?
The "Big Bang" was NOT like ANY "explosion here on earth.
Barker must be in on it, because he completely bought into the warped and
loaded question from an ignorant creationist.