Entropy
K C
laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
common language, things fall apart.
That being said, the fact that the world is, has been, and continues
to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
the created world.
In fact, it would be against the law of entropy to believe that the
world would move from imperfection (chaos) into a more perfect
form...ie people's bodies don't go from unfit to fit without added
effort (an outside force to the system).
This is just one scientific law backing creationism.
http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html (30 Days of Providence)
Boikat
"K C" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com...
> I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
> laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> common language, things fall apart.
"perfect" is not a scientific concept.
>
> That being said, the fact that the world is, has been, and continues
> to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
> reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
> the created world.
>
What? "Cabon deteriation" What the hell is that?
"Atmosphere depletion"? Are we running out of atmosphere? Citation?
> In fact, it would be against the law of entropy to believe that the
> world would move from imperfection (chaos) into a more perfect
> form...ie people's bodies don't go from unfit to fit without added
> effort (an outside force to the system).
You must not understand entropy, or what you are really talking about, the
second law of thermodynamics. FYI, that little ditty deals wth energy
transfer. Further FYI, there is this thingy in the sky called "the Sun",
which is supplying a hell of a lot of free energy.
>
> This is just one scientific law backing creationism.
>
Wrong.
> http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html (30 Days of Providence)
It only took me 30 seconds (Less, actually) to see that this is a tired,
old, often repeted and refuted, argument.
Boikat
>
Dave T.
Seppo Pietikainen
> I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
> laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> common language, things fall apart.
I can quite well understand that (ie. talking about things you understand
nothing about), usually, it is the best way to establish a religious cult
based on ignorance.
>
> That being said, the fact that the world is, has been, and continues
> to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
> reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
> the created world.
How would you describe how the world is falling apart? What do you mean
by "carbon deterioration"? So far as I understand, carbon still remains
carbon. Have I been led to a major misunderstanding by those ungodly
evolutionists?
>
> In fact, it would be against the law of entropy to believe that the
> world would move from imperfection (chaos) into a more perfect
> form...ie people's bodies don't go from unfit to fit without added
> effort (an outside force to the system).
I'm utterly incapable of responding to a request of this level of understanding
of thermodynamics, and I simply must bow out for a while :-)
Something tells me that you'll get your answer, before you even want it.
>
> This is just one scientific law backing creationism.
>
> http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html (30 Days of Providence)
>
Seppo P.
Dana Tweedy
> laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> common language, things fall apart.
BZZZZZZZZ! Wrong. "Scientific laws" say nothing about things being
'perfect'. In any case the phrases "more perfect" and "less perfect" are
oxymorons.
>
> That being said, the fact that the world is, has been, and continues
> to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
What "carbon deterioration"? What "atmosphere depletion"? The world is
not 'falling apart', where do you get the idea that it is?
> reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
> the created world.
No, there was no "perfect form" to "fall from". Conditions vary, and some
are cyclical.
>
> In fact, it would be against the law of entropy to believe that the
> world would move from imperfection (chaos) into a more perfect
> form.
Wrong. Please read up on the laws of thermodynamics and try again.
>..ie people's bodies don't go from unfit to fit without added
> effort (an outside force to the system).
>
> This is just one scientific law backing creationism.
No, it's a misunderstanding of a scientific law. Creationism, as it depends
on a supernatural being, is contradicted by all physical laws.
>
> http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html (30 Days of Providence)
That's nice, but I prefer Pratchett.
DJT
>
Thomas H. Faller
So everything is just getting worse and worse, and you're waiting for what?
Some future time when you think everything will be better? Some
future time when you think you will be in heaven? Well heaven will
have to be a whole lot worse than anything today, and it will just get worse
then, won't it? Oh, you say it won't because God will supply some
outside energy and make things perfect again? Let me ask - how much
energy does perfection take? And to keep perfection from degrading
forever? Infinite amounts?
If God has infinite amounts of perfection ready, why does he withhold it
from you today? Why should the sin of one couple on one planet in
the tiniest part of the universe force the rest over the edge?
Maybe entropy isn't your best subject. Maybe guilt is.
Tom Faller
AC
K C <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
> laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> common language, things fall apart.
This isn't any scientific law that I am aware of. This sounds more like
someone who has badly misunderstood thermodynamics.
>
> That being said, the fact that the world is, has been, and continues
> to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
> reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
> the created world.
>
> In fact, it would be against the law of entropy to believe that the
> world would move from imperfection (chaos) into a more perfect
> form...ie people's bodies don't go from unfit to fit without added
> effort (an outside force to the system).
>
> This is just one scientific law backing creationism.
>
> http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html (30 Days of Providence)
Your whole premise follows from your own misunderstanding of 2LoT. I'm
sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Don't worry, it's curable. Try
actually reading a book by a physicist on the subject.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
David
So how would explain the fact that plants can fix carbon dioxide into
organic molecules?
I suppose your scientific teachers (Th.D.'s no doubt) skipped over that
one.
Moral: Don't believe everything that you are told or read. Use your
brain are a tool not a sponge.
David
Tracy Hamilton
> laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> common language, things fall apart.
>
> That being said, the fact that the world is, has been, and continues
> to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
> reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
> the created world.
>
> In fact, it would be against the law of entropy to believe that the
> world would move from imperfection (chaos) into a more perfect
> form...ie people's bodies don't go from unfit to fit without added
> effort (an outside force to the system).
Congratulations! You have disproved Creation using Entropy.
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Mike Goodrich
> K C <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
>> laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
>> common language, things fall apart.
>>
>> That being said, the fact that the world is, has been, and continues
>> to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
>> reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
>> the created world.
>>
>> In fact, it would be against the law of entropy to believe that the
>> world would move from imperfection (chaos) into a more perfect
>> form...ie people's bodies don't go from unfit to fit without added
>> effort (an outside force to the system).
>>
>> This is just one scientific law backing creationism.
>>
>> http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html (30 Days of Providence)
>
> So how would explain the fact that plants can fix carbon dioxide into
> organic molecules?
Because that plant was designed to perform that function and constitutes
an irreducibly complex system?
Moral: Better get your thinking cap on, or get a new one in case your
old is defective ...
cheers
Dave T.
"Mike Goodrich" <m...@ip68-106-88-75.hr.hr.cox.net> wrote in message
news:409bcaba...@ediacara.org...
So are you agreeing that it violates the 2nd law?
Dave
And yet again, we see someone who apparently doesn't understand the
slightest bit about what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics really means.
For the rebuttals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_4.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_5.html
DS
Yuor comment is a little outdated K C, in more ways than one. Maybe
your post got hung up at the server somewhere?
Anyway, what The Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLoT) quantifies for us
is the intuitive understanding that, generally speaking, energy
spreads out from high to low. Hot things cool down, cold things heat
up.
In words and using thermal concepts, we would say that in an
arbitrarily large, bounded and closed, system, the sum and sole end
result will not be the transfer of heat from cold objects to hot
objects without an external input of work.
Air conditioners and other heat pumps get around this by providing an
input of work. Thermodynamically, an internal combustion engine and an
AC are sort of mirror images of each other. With an engine you put in
heat and you get work out, with a heat pump you out work in and you
get heat out.
In more precise words we would say that the entropy in a closed and
bounded system is highly unlikely to decrease without an external
input of enrgy.
Entropy S is the heat change of an object divided by the total heat of
the system in which it resides. In SI units, that's joules/degree K.
The creationist trick (And there always is one isn't there KC?) is to
equate the defined term entropy, with the vague term order, forget the
math, and then subtley go on to use order in the colloquial manner
meaning grossly organized, and conclude that an increase in physical
arrangement from dis-order to order-such as straightening up your
childs room-violates the SLoT because it decreases entropy. <deep
breath>
Then, since evolution implies order arises from disorder, evolution
also violates the SLoT.
It's rubbish of course. Entropy is a ratio of heat change to heat
content, and until a creationist cares to tell us what the temperature
and heat content are of the process of evolution, the SLoT no more
applies to evo than it applies to rock-n-roll.
What allows life to go 'uphill' against entropy is the same thing
which allows tornados and whirlpools to go 'uphill' and form localized
pockcets of 'order <God I cringe when I use that term for entropy>.
Ultimately, either the sun or geothermal heat is used by living
organisms. The rest of us biota simply steal those stores all the way
up the food chain.
~DS~
Lieutenant Kizhe Katson
Sure, whatever floats your boat. Lots of people have odd hobbies.
However, it's usually a good idea to understand what you're talking
about....
>.......According to scientific
> laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect.
....'cuz that ain't entropy you just described. For one thing there
is no scientific concept of "perfect", so we really can't talk about
things being more or less perfect.
Perhaps you should consider reading up on the concept of entropy,
before talking about it some more?
>....In
> common language, things fall apart.
>
> That being said, the fact that the world is, has been, and continues
> to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
> reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
> the created world.
>
> In fact, it would be against the law of entropy to believe that the
> world would move from imperfection (chaos) into a more perfect
> form...ie people's bodies don't go from unfit to fit without added
> effort (an outside force to the system).
>
> This is just one scientific law backing creationism.
>
> http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html (30 Days of Providence)
-- Kizhé
Chris Thompson
Mike, are you really some incognito Nobel Laureate biologist? It
sometimes seems you must be. No one can possibly be so wrong so many
times in a row on so many different topics without knowing exactly what
they're doing, can they? I mean, even my worst students get about 10%
on an all multiple choice exam.
Look up photosynthesis in algae, Mike. Then read up about
photosynthesis in bacteria. No one can possibly imagine carbon fixation
to be irreducibly complex.
Chris
--
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
Chris Thompson
news:2g1octF...@uni-berlin.de:
> K C wrote:
>> I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
>> laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
>> common language, things fall apart.
>
> I can quite well understand that (ie. talking about things you
> understand nothing about), usually, it is the best way to establish a
> religious cult based on ignorance.
>>
>> That being said, the fact that the world is, has been, and continues
>> to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
>> reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
>> the created world.
>
> How would you describe how the world is falling apart? What do you
> mean by "carbon deterioration"? So far as I understand, carbon still
> remains carbon.
PHYSICIST DECLARES EVOLUTION DISPROVEN!
"It's still carbon"!
;)
K C
I'll use this post to respond to the other responses, rather than
explode this thread among each strand.
It's easy to see that my detractors in this thread are running in
fear. They protest, attack, and defame...all without responding once
to the point.
According to entropy, molecules seperates..energy dissipates..and so
on. Carbon Dating is BASED upon this concept, as it measures the
deterioration of carbon's elemental decay in order to get dates.
This throws the non-creationists into an uproar. If things are
deteriorating....from what are they doing so. It's easy to understand
why they are afraid. It is hard to declare evolution moving from less
perfect beings to more perfect beings if everything else is moving
from more complex to less.
This world will one day end. Are you ready for the next - eternity?
K C
I'll use this post to respond to the other responses, rather than
Dave T.
news:<e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> > I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
> > laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> > common language, things fall apart.
> >
> > That being said, the fact that the world is, has been, and continues
> > to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
> > reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
> > the created world.
> >
> > In fact, it would be against the law of entropy to believe that the
> > world would move from imperfection (chaos) into a more perfect
> > form...ie people's bodies don't go from unfit to fit without added
> > effort (an outside force to the system).
> >
> > This is just one scientific law backing creationism.
> >
> > http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html (30 Days of Providence)
>
> I'll use this post to respond to the other responses, rather than
> explode this thread among each strand.
>
> It's easy to see that my detractors in this thread are running in
> fear. They protest, attack, and defame...all without responding once
> to the point.
Did you even *bother* to read any of the citations that were given in
response to your post?
Jdguil
>Date: 5/7/2004 9:54 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com>
>
>I like talking about the concept of entropy.
Can you define entropy?
According to scientific
>laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
>common language, things fall apart.
Well, that's not the definition of entropy, and it is not any scientific law.
It is a very ignorant misapprehension of the second law of thermodynamics. If
I could give you some examples that prove your statement is false would you
possibly consider that fact that you really are ignorant on this subject, and
then would you go read some real science about entropy and the laws of
thermodynamics?
Example 1: A drop of water releases heat and forms a snowflake. Its entropy
just decreased, and its order just increased. The crystal structure is now
'more perfect' than before. No intelligent designer required.
Example 2: Water evaporates from a salty puddle. A salt crystal forms. Its
entropy decreases as the evaporating water removes heat from the puddle, and
the disorderly dissolved salt molecules takes on a 'more perfect' form as a
perfectly orderly salt crystal. No intelligent designer required.
Example 3: Molten magma in a volcano cools off, thus its entropy decreases. As
it cools a perfect quartz crystal forms. No intelligent designer required.
>
>That being said, the fact that the world is, has been, and continues
>to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
>reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
>the created world.
If it continues to fall apart, then why do new things keep forming? You were
about 10 pounds at birth, almost blind, couldn't walk, couldn't talk, couldn't
type, couldn't read, couldn't even clean yourself after eliminating wastes. So
in a few decades of falling apart you are now how much less perfect?
>
>In fact, it would be against the law of entropy to believe that the
>world would move from imperfection (chaos) into a more perfect
>form...ie people's bodies don't go from unfit to fit without added
>effort (an outside force to the system).
>
>This is just one scientific law backing creationism.
Since there is no such 'law of entropy' as you have described, it surely
would back the ignorance of creationism.
>
>http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html (30 Days of Providence)
Is this your book?
Regards,
Jim
Mark VandeWettering
>> So how would explain the fact that plants can fix carbon dioxide into
>> organic molecules?
>
> Because that plant was designed to perform that function and constitutes
> an irreducibly complex system?
Nothing can violate the 2LoT, whether it was designed or not.
Oh, and "irreducibly complex" is a meaningless term. You might as well
use "obdurate obfuscation" instead.
> Moral: Better get your thinking cap on, or get a new one in case your
> old is defective ...
Physician, heal thyself.
Mark
>
>
> cheers
>
Mark VandeWettering
>> So how would explain the fact that plants can fix carbon dioxide into
>> organic molecules?
>
> Because that plant was designed to perform that function and constitutes
> an irreducibly complex system?
Nothing can violate the 2LoT, whether it was designed or not.
Oh, and "irreducibly complex" is a meaningless term. You might as well
use "obdurate obfuscation" instead.
> Moral: Better get your thinking cap on, or get a new one in case your
> old is defective ...
Physician, heal thyself.
Mark
>
>
> cheers
>
Dave T.
news:<e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> > I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
> > laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> > common language, things fall apart.
> >
> > That being said, the fact that the world is, has been, and continues
> > to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
> > reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
> > the created world.
> >
> > In fact, it would be against the law of entropy to believe that the
> > world would move from imperfection (chaos) into a more perfect
> > form...ie people's bodies don't go from unfit to fit without added
> > effort (an outside force to the system).
> >
> > This is just one scientific law backing creationism.
> >
> > http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html (30 Days of Providence)
>
> I'll use this post to respond to the other responses, rather than
> explode this thread among each strand.
>
> It's easy to see that my detractors in this thread are running in
> fear. They protest, attack, and defame...all without responding once
> to the point.
>
> According to entropy, molecules seperates..energy dissipates..and so
> on. Carbon Dating is BASED upon this concept, as it measures the
> deterioration of carbon's elemental decay in order to get dates.
What are you talking about? Carbon-14 decays. So what? If I take an ice
cube out of the fridge, it melts. This doesn't disprove biological
evolution.
>
> This throws the non-creationists into an uproar. If things are
> deteriorating....from what are they doing so. It's easy to understand
> why they are afraid. It is hard to declare evolution moving from less
> perfect beings to more perfect beings if everything else is moving
> from more complex to less.
So anytime something moves from less to more "complex" is it a result of
divine intervention? Is my refridgerator powered by GOD (TM)?
foo
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc9nknt.2...@keck.vandewettering.net...
> In article <409bcaba...@ediacara.org>, Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> >> So how would explain the fact that plants can fix carbon dioxide into
> >> organic molecules?
> >
> > Because that plant was designed to perform that function and constitutes
> > an irreducibly complex system?
>
> Nothing can violate the 2LoT, whether it was designed or not.
False! The 2LoT is only inviolate in a statistical sense; that said an
irreducibly complex system like a plant does not violate it even in a
statistical sense,
Glenn
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote in message
news:YPNmc.86214$Uz1....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "K C" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com...
> > I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
> > laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> > common language, things fall apart.
>
> "perfect" is not a scientific concept.
>
http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/~chem130a/sauer/outline/thirdlaw.html
"The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a pure perfect
crystal is 0 at 0 K: S(0K) = 0. At 0K the atoms in a pure perfect crystal
are aligned perfectly and do not move. Moreover, there is no entropy of
mixing since the crystal is pure. For a mixed crystal containing the atomic
or molecular species A and B, there are many possible arrangements of A and
B and there is therefore entropy associated with the arrangement of the
atoms/molecules."
Or Manchester.
http://www.phy.umist.ac.uk/Teaching/PastExams/MoreExams1/00-1/2/P302_99-00/
"Maxwell's equation for the distribution of the speeds of molecules in a
perfect gas takes the form:"
Frank Reichenbacher
"foo" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message news:xCSmc.10524$%o1.6204@lakeread03...
So you're saying that a perpetual motion machine is possible?
Frank
>
>
>
puppe...@hotmail.com
> laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> common language, things fall apart.
Geeze! Again? I have an alternative, also wrong, statement of
the 2nd law. The number of people who misunderstand it never
decreases over time.
Entropy is not the same as disorder. With a great deal of very
hard work, on both your part and mine, I could show you how entropy
is related to information. Not to disorder. I very much doubt you
are prepared for the trip, but if you are, I'm willing. Will you
commit to stick with it and learn something?
In addition, the second law refers either to closed systems, or
to the total entropy of the universe. In open systems, such as
the Earth very assuredly is, entropy can go up, down, or remain
the same. There's this thing called the sun that provides us
with huge amounts of energy we can waste.
And just one more thing to think about. If the 2nd law had anything
to say about the impossibility of life comming into existence,
or with evolution, then it would say that life was impossible
under all conditions. Now, since living things reproduce on a
very frequent basis, there seems to be a pretty large hole in
your claims. A cow can convert non-living things (digested grass
is broken down into non-living molecules before being absorbed)
into a new baby calf. If a cow can do an action, then that action
does not violate any physical laws. The 2nd law does not say entropy
can decrease as the result of living things doing stuff. It says
entropy cannot decrease at all. So very clearly indeed, very
massively clearly, the 2nd law does not preclude evolution,
nor non-living things becoming living.
Socks
Alan Morgan
One might argue that, properly stated, the 2LoT is a statistical law.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
David
So according to you the only way energy can be harnessed is if the
system is designed? QED Creation is proved! How could I have been so
blind?
> Moral: Better get your thinking cap on, or get a new one in case your
> old is defective ...
If the cap fits...
Cheers David
Chris Krolczyk
Hardly.
See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html
or
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
As to why.
Oh, and while we're at it, why are you so fond of posting
these little fundamentalist homilies to such worthy
newsgroups as alt.sex.stories, alt.education and
alt.politics? You couldn't be a...a...*religious
spammer*, could you?
-Chris Krolczyk
Xaonon
<m...@nospam-for-me.net> teithant i thiw hin:
> "foo" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message news:xCSmc.10524$%o1.6204@lakeread03...
>
> > False! The 2LoT is only inviolate in a statistical sense; that said an
> > irreducibly complex system like a plant does not violate it even in a
> > statistical sense,
>
> So you're saying that a perpetual motion machine is possible?
Can you toss an honest coin heads 10^23 times in a row? There's no physical
mechanism preventing, for instance, all the high-energy air molecules to
collect on one side of a room and all the low-energy ones on the other side,
giving a Maxwell's Demon temperature difference without the demon. It'll
just take a squillion times longer than the age of the universe to happen.
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
http://xaonon.dyndns.org/ Guaranteed content-free since 1999. No refunds.
"This is the most disturbing surprise Barry Bostwick has pulled on us since
that robot dragonfly came out of his nose on `Lexx'." -- James "Kibo" Parry
Matt Silberstein
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net>:
>
>"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote in message
>news:YPNmc.86214$Uz1....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "K C" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com...
>> > I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
>> > laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
>> > common language, things fall apart.
>>
>> "perfect" is not a scientific concept.
>>
>Better tell Berkeley then.
>
>http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/~chem130a/sauer/outline/thirdlaw.html
>"The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a pure perfect
>crystal is 0 at 0 K: ? S(0K) = 0. At 0K the atoms in a pure perfect crystal
>are aligned perfectly and do not move. Moreover, there is no entropy of
>mixing since the crystal is pure. For a mixed crystal containing the atomic
>or molecular species A and B, there are many possible arrangements of A and
>B and there is therefore entropy associated with the arrangement of the
>atoms/molecules."
>
>Or Manchester.
>
>http://www.phy.umist.ac.uk/Teaching/PastExams/MoreExams1/00-1/2/P302_99-00/
>"Maxwell's equation for the distribution of the speeds of molecules in a
>perfect gas takes the form:"
Wow, you found a misleading error. Yes, "perfect" is used to
refer to *non-existent* thing, it is pure concept, if you will.
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by arsonists who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors.
www.candles-museum.com
Jon Fleming
wrote:
Wow, You couldn't get a clue if you were drenched in clue
pheromones, dancing in a clue field in the middle of clue mating
season, wearing a clue suit, and shouting, "Clooo! Cloooo!
The decay of carbon-14 is indeed subject to the laws of thermodynamics
..... let's see your calculations of the entropy of an assemblage of
carbon atoms before and after one decays.
Boikat
"Mike Goodrich" <m...@ip68-106-88-75.hr.hr.cox.net> wrote in message
news:409bcaba...@ediacara.org...
And you objective evidence that plants were designed?
>
> Moral: Better get your thinking cap on, or get a new one in case your
> old is defective ...
>
>
Irony.
Boikat
Glenn
"Matt Silberstein" <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
news:755o901cm5lue8fra...@4ax.com...
Boikat
news:<e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> > I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
> > laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> > common language, things fall apart.
> >
> > That being said, the fact that the world is, has been, and continues
> > to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
> > reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
> > the created world.
> >
> > In fact, it would be against the law of entropy to believe that the
> > world would move from imperfection (chaos) into a more perfect
> > form...ie people's bodies don't go from unfit to fit without added
> > effort (an outside force to the system).
> >
> > This is just one scientific law backing creationism.
> >
> > http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html (30 Days of Providence)
>
>
> I'll use this post to respond to the other responses, rather than
> explode this thread among each strand.
>
> It's easy to see that my detractors in this thread are running in
> fear. They protest, attack, and defame...all without responding once
> to the point.
> According to entropy, molecules seperates..energy dissipates..and so
> on. Carbon Dating is BASED upon this concept, as it measures the
> deterioration of carbon's elemental decay in order to get dates.
>
Not really, and besides, you do know that new C-14 is being produced every
minute, do you not?
> This throws the non-creationists into an uproar. If things are
> deteriorating....from what are they doing so. It's easy to understand
> why they are afraid. It is hard to declare evolution moving from less
> perfect beings to more perfect beings if everything else is moving
> from more complex to less.
>
Two things. "Non-creationists" are not afraid of your babbling, and one
cagain, "poerfection" is not a scientific term.
> This world will one day end. Are you ready for the next - eternity?
Yes. How about you? Do you think God will reward stupidity?
Boikat
Boikat
news:<e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> > I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
> > laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> > common language, things fall apart.
> >
> > That being said, the fact that the world is, has been, and continues
> > to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
> > reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
> > the created world.
> >
> > In fact, it would be against the law of entropy to believe that the
> > world would move from imperfection (chaos) into a more perfect
> > form...ie people's bodies don't go from unfit to fit without added
> > effort (an outside force to the system).
> >
> > This is just one scientific law backing creationism.
> >
> > http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html (30 Days of Providence)
>
> I'll use this post to respond to the other responses, rather than
> explode this thread among each strand.
>
> It's easy to see that my detractors in this thread are running in
> fear. They protest, attack, and defame...all without responding once
> to the point.
>
Every one of them pointed out your error. That is not an "attack". Every
one of them pointed out that you did not understtand the 2LoTD, that is not
defamation.
<snip pontification of "I'm right, you're wrong">
Boikat
Boikat
"Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
news:glennsheldon-yCSmc.1098$Tj.3...@news.uswest.net...
Those are ideal circumstance for specific situations. KC's assertions were
general.
Boikat
Bobby D. Bryant
> I like talking about the concept of entropy.
Then why don't you talk about that, rather than the nonsense you actually
are talking about?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
VoiceOfReason
> In article <1gdeyzn.uqe9sd17bfl82N%NOday...@hotmail.com>, David wrote:
> > K C <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > So how would explain the fact that plants can fix carbon dioxide into
> > organic molecules?
>
>
>
> Because that plant was designed to perform that function and constitutes
> an irreducibly complex system?
I see. So order from disorder is impossible, but if we *do* observe
it, then it must be from the intelligent designer? That sounds like
doubletalk, not science.
> Moral: Better get your thinking cap on, or get a new one in case your
> old is defective ...
How can one so unversed in this topic be so arrogant? Do you
regularly deal with people uneducated enough to fall for this type of
thing?
VoiceOfReason
> Ned i bach <109nueu...@corp.supernews.com>, Frank Reichenbacher
> <m...@nospam-for-me.net> teithant i thiw hin:
>
> > "foo" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message news:xCSmc.10524$%o1.6204@lakeread03...
> >
> > > False! The 2LoT is only inviolate in a statistical sense; that said an
> > > irreducibly complex system like a plant does not violate it even in a
> > > statistical sense,
> >
> > So you're saying that a perpetual motion machine is possible?
>
> Can you toss an honest coin heads 10^23 times in a row?
Of course. Were you under the impression you can't? If so, I'd
suggest taking a course in statistics.
> There's no physical
> mechanism preventing, for instance, all the high-energy air molecules to
> collect on one side of a room and all the low-energy ones on the other side,
> giving a Maxwell's Demon temperature difference without the demon. It'll
> just take a squillion times longer than the age of the universe to happen.
Just curious - is that a scientific 10 billion year old universe or a
fundamentalist 6 thousand year old universe? And are you sure that
calculation is really one squillion?
VoiceOfReason
<snip>
> Congratulations! You have disproved Creation using Entropy.
>
> [snip]
>
> Tracy P. Hamilton
I guess that means we can all go home now. :-)
VoiceOfReason
> writi...@yahoo.com (K C) wrote in message news:<e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com>...
<snip old refuted stuff>
> I'll use this post to respond to the other responses, rather than
> explode this thread among each strand.
>
> It's easy to see that my detractors in this thread are running in
> fear.
Yup - it's quaking in our boots we are. *Buffs fingernails*
> They protest, attack, and defame...all without responding once
> to the point.
The point would be that you're babbling on about thermodynamics with
the same old Creationist misconceptions that have long since been
refuted. In simpler terms, you know diddly about the topic. Try
reading the links that were posted to gain some understanding of it.
> This world will one day end. Are you ready for the next - eternity?
Not just yet; I've a new living room suite being delivered tomorrow.
But since you bring it up, how well prepared are you to meet your
maker after having lied your ass off in this thread? Do you
*honestly* think He'd be proud of you lying in His name?
R. Baldwin
news:e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com...
> I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
> laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> common language, things fall apart.
K C, if you like talking about the concept of entropy, it would be a good
idea to learn a bit more about it first. Except as a colloquial
representation of crystalline order, "perfect" has no definition or meaning
with respect to entropy. Entropy is a quantitiative measure of the
microscopic (not macroscopic) disorder of molecules. It relates this
microscopic probability measure to the macroscopic property of Temperature
by the relation
S = k ln w.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not state anything about things moving
from a more perfect to a less perfect state. That would be a subjective
statement, not a scientific one. A good way to state the Second Law of
Thermodynamics is: "A natural process that starts in one equilibrium state
and ends in another will go in the direction that causes the entropy of the
system plus environment to increase." [_Physics_, 3rd ed. Halliday &
Resnick, 1977].
Note that you can have changes where the entropy of the system goes down, as
long as the net entropy of system plus environment goes up. Usually this
means energy is converted somewhere in the environment, with a corresponding
heat dissipation. For a simple example, your refrigerator lowers the entropy
of its contents, but the energy to run the refrigerator disspates heat into
your kitchen.
"Things falling apart" can happen with either an increase or decrease in
system entropy. The only way to figure it out is to identify all the
products and reactants and their states before and after the change, and do
the math. If the entopy of the system went down, then the entropy of the
environment went up.
Some good Internet references on entropy are:
http://www.entropysimple.com/
http://www.secondlaw.com/
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/Oct/abs1385.html
If you make an honest attempt to really understand entropy, you will be able
to correct the problems with the rest of your post.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Mike Goodrich <m...@ip68-106-88-75.hr.hr.cox.net> wrote in message news:<409bcaba...@ediacara.org>...
>
>> Moral: Better get your thinking cap on, or get a new one in case your
>> old is defective ...
>
> How can one so unversed in this topic be so arrogant?
What has "this topic" got to do with it?
[I'll have another rimshot now, if you please.]
Roadrunner
"Dave T." <dte...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c7ga2h$i04$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> "K C" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com...
> > I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
> > laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> > common language, things fall apart.
> >
> > to be falling apart (carbon deterioration, atmosphere depetion, etc),
> > reveals that there was once a more perfect form to fall apart from -
> > the created world.
> >
> > In fact, it would be against the law of entropy to believe that the
> > world would move from imperfection (chaos) into a more perfect
> > form...ie people's bodies don't go from unfit to fit without added
> > effort (an outside force to the system).
> >
> > This is just one scientific law backing creationism.
> >
> > http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html (30 Days of Providence)
> >
>
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
Why not copy the whole thing?
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution.
The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the
sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."
[Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head
wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the
2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed
system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and
often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or
randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things
invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun
provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant
can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone
expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy
still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the
information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not
only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in
nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites,
graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming
from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that
order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you
are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order
from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is
it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about
evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of
how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution
says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations
(after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have
appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or
darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of
having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the
theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For
example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more
offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed
today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
Roadrunner
It doesn't prove it either....
>
> >
> > This throws the non-creationists into an uproar. If things are
> > deteriorating....from what are they doing so. It's easy to understand
> > why they are afraid. It is hard to declare evolution moving from less
> > perfect beings to more perfect beings if everything else is moving
> > from more complex to less.
>
> So anytime something moves from less to more "complex" is it a result of
> divine intervention?
If so, yes. But do things moove from less to more complex, or is it just
micro evolution.
>Is my refridgerator powered by GOD (TM)?
Man made.
Roadrunner
<puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7976c46.04050...@posting.google.com...
> writi...@yahoo.com (K C) wrote in message
news:<e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> > I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
> > laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> > common language, things fall apart.
>
> Geeze! Again? I have an alternative, also wrong, statement of
> the 2nd law. The number of people who misunderstand it never
> decreases over time.
>
> Entropy is not the same as disorder.
Does it turn into something more complex?? Anything in this universe
responds to the laws that were created to keep things working, that's all
that matters.
>With a great deal of very
> hard work, on both your part and mine, I could show you how entropy
> is related to information. Not to disorder.
Less information nonetheless, and that's the point.
>I very much doubt you
> are prepared for the trip, but if you are, I'm willing. Will you
> commit to stick with it and learn something?
>
> In addition, the second law refers either to closed systems, or
> to the total entropy of the universe. In open systems, such as
> the Earth very assuredly is, entropy can go up, down, or remain
> the same. There's this thing called the sun that provides us
> with huge amounts of energy we can waste.
>
> And just one more thing to think about. If the 2nd law had anything
> to say about the impossibility of life comming into existence,
> or with evolution, then it would say that life was impossible
> under all conditions.
Indeed it would, but we seem to aware of life existing.....
>Now, since living things reproduce on a
> very frequent basis, there seems to be a pretty large hole in
> your claims.
Don't see why. What keeps this universe running, where does the energy come
from that sticks molecules together and form what we see around us?
Roadrunner
"Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:pG2nc.91925$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.net...
I don't really see this. What is it that we see happening? Do things
increase in information? You can theorize what you want, but what does that
prove?
>
> However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun
> provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant
> can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone
> expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy
> still?
Is not the point. What is it going to do with that energy. It is the same
like that we only use about 10% of our brain capacity, Einstein said
something like that. So, what was the use of having the capacity of the
other 90% if we in fact do not use it?
>Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the
> information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not
> only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common
in
> nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites,
> graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming
> from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve
that
> order.
Anything in this universe responds to the laws created in that specific
universe. When a drop of water 'gets cold', it will crystallize, that means
it will respond to these laws. Does this mean that it gets a new live, that
new information was added? Does this mean that order comes from disorder
without interference? In this regard it is silly to proclaim that no
intelligence is needed to get that order. Try to run that in a universe not
having such laws of nature.
>In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you
> are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order
> from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is
> it ubiquitous in nature?
It is many different forces working together. Amongst other the laws of this
universe which keep everything running.
>
> The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception
about
> evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of
> how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument.
Indeed there are flaws in the evolutionary reasoning.
> Evolution
> says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations
> (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have
> appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or
> darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of
> having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear,
the
> theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For
> example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more
> offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be
observed
> today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
Nice theorizing, but it doesn't get us very far. .-)
Gerhard A. Blab
>
> "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
> news:pG2nc.91925$dP1.2...@newsc.telia.net...
>>
>> "Dave T." <dte...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:c7ga2h$i04$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
[SNIP]
>> >
>> > Maybe you should read this:
>> >
>> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
>>
>> Why not copy the whole thing?
>>
>> "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
>>
>> This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about
>> evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible
>> in which
> the
>> sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."
>> [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your
>> [head
>> wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when
> the
>> 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed
>> system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and
>> often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or
>> randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things
>> invariably progress from order to disorder.
>
> I don't really see this. What is it that we see happening? Do things
> increase in information? You can theorize what you want, but what does
> that prove?
It states (1) that the increase of entropy only occurs in a *closed* system,
and (2) it doesn't mention "information". It would be nice if you could
define "information" in the terms of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, btw.
>> However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun
>> provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato
>> plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should
>> anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable
>> energy still?
>
> Is not the point. What is it going to do with that energy. It is the same
> like that we only use about 10% of our brain capacity, Einstein said
> something like that. So, what was the use of having the capacity of the
> other 90% if we in fact do not use it?
It's exactly the point. You can't apply the second law of thermodynamics and
leave out the parts you don't like. And Einstein has definitely been a very
clever person, but personaly I wouldn't like him to do brain surgery. So
much for the nice analogy.
>>Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the
>> information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not
>> only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common
> in
>> nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites,
>> graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming
>> from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve
> that
>> order.
>
> Anything in this universe responds to the laws created in that specific
> universe. When a drop of water 'gets cold', it will crystallize, that
> means it will respond to these laws. Does this mean that it gets a new
> live, that new information was added? Does this mean that order comes from
> disorder
> without interference? In this regard it is silly to proclaim that no
> intelligence is needed to get that order. Try to run that in a universe
> not having such laws of nature.
Point one: Everything responds to the laws of nature "valid" in the
universe.
Point two: order is not necessarily a sign of life (or creation). Order (at
least the static kind) comes e.g. from freezing water to a solid, in which
molecules are in a more "ordered" state than in the liquid. No interference
or design needed.
Point three: running a universe which has no (or non such) laws of nature
means using the creationist approach: something outside the scope of nature
did it.
>>In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you
>> are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If
>> order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics,
>> why is it ubiquitous in nature?
>
> It is many different forces working together. Amongst other the laws of
> this universe which keep everything running.
Your point? I object to the "amongst other". The laws of nature keep things
running (or circling, falling, dissolving, aggregating, ...). As long as
there is usable energy available, things will move and get more complex.
The second law of thermodynamics does not apply in this case.
>> The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception
>> about
>> evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of
>> how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument.
>
> Indeed there are flaws in the evolutionary reasoning.
P-lease! I won't even comment on that one.
>> Evolution
>> says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations
>> (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have
>> appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or
>> darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order
>> of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences
>> appear,
> the
>> theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For
>> example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more
>> offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be
> observed
>> today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
>
> Nice theorizing, but it doesn't get us very far. .-)
I has gotten us to the top of the class of 4'500'000'000 BC. Where we go
from here, of course, is entirely up to us.
--
--
-
(c) 2004. Copyright, Gerhard A. Blab, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
Nobody knows the trouble I've been.
Dana Tweedy
snipping
> > >
> > > Maybe you should read this:
> > >
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
> >
> > Why not copy the whole thing?
Because a link provides the article, without wasting bandwith.
> >
> > "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
> >
> > This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about
evolution.
> > The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which
> the
> > sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."
> > [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your
head
> > wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when
> the
> > 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed
> > system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and
> > often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or
> > randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that
things
> > invariably progress from order to disorder.
>
> I don't really see this.
Is anyone surprised? Anyone?
> What is it that we see happening?
We see order coming from disorder quite frequently.
>Do things
> increase in information?
Define "information" so we can tell if there has been an increase.
>You can theorize what you want, but what does that
> prove?
A theory provides a structure to the observations, and allows testing of the
idea.
>
> >
> > However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun
> > provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato
plant
> > can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should
anyone
> > expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable
energy
> > still?
>
> Is not the point. What is it going to do with that energy.
grow.
> It is the same
> like that we only use about 10% of our brain capacity, Einstein said
> something like that. So, what was the use of having the capacity of the
> other 90% if we in fact do not use it?
Einstein never said anything like that. The 10% of brain usage is an urban
myth. Humans use all their brain, or at least some of us do.
>
> >Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the
> > information carried by living things lets them create order. However,
not
> > only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is
common
> in
> > nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites,
> > graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming
> > from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve
> that
> > order.
>
> Anything in this universe responds to the laws created in that specific
> universe. When a drop of water 'gets cold', it will crystallize, that
means
> it will respond to these laws. Does this mean that it gets a new live,
that
> new information was added?
Define "information". Does a snowflake have more 'information' than a drop
of water?
>Does this mean that order comes from disorder
> without interference?
Yes, quite often in nature.
>In this regard it is silly to proclaim that no
> intelligence is needed to get that order. Try to run that in a universe
not
> having such laws of nature.
What makes you think that either the laws of nature are intelligent, or that
one needs intelligence to get order?
>
> >In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you
> > are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If
order
> > from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why
is
> > it ubiquitous in nature?
>
> It is many different forces working together. Amongst other the laws of
this
> universe which keep everything running.
Which are not an intelligent intervention.
>
> >
> > The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception
> about
> > evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding
of
> > how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument.
>
> Indeed there are flaws in the evolutionary reasoning.
Then why can't you ever show any?
>
> > Evolution
> > says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between
generations
> > (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have
> > appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or
> > darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order
of
> > having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear,
> the
> > theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For
> > example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more
> > offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be
> observed
> > today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
>
> Nice theorizing, but it doesn't get us very far. .-)
Not if you refuse to consider the evidence. For all your whining about
people not looking at all sides, you seem to be entirely blind to the
evidence that supports evolutionary theory.
DJT
Roadrunner
"Gerhard A. Blab" <gb...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:2388218.D...@scorpio.hd.free.fr...
Dead things are missing coordination between all the different parts which
makes it a functioning (living) system, no? What then does this
'coordination' consists of? Where does it come from? What upholds it?
If "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of
energy from a cooler to a hotter body." is being rephrased into "The entropy
of a closed system cannot decrease." then I believe I may play little with
it too.
>
> >> However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The
sun
> >> provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato
> >> plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why
should
> >> anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more
usable
> >> energy still?
> >
> > Is not the point. What is it going to do with that energy. It is the
same
> > like that we only use about 10% of our brain capacity, Einstein said
> > something like that. So, what was the use of having the capacity of the
> > other 90% if we in fact do not use it?
>
> It's exactly the point. You can't apply the second law of thermodynamics
and
> leave out the parts you don't like. And Einstein has definitely been a
very
> clever person, but personaly I wouldn't like him to do brain surgery. So
> much for the nice analogy.
"leave out the parts you don't like?" You left out Einsteins statement.
Still what is the unused energy going to do? What reason is there to
believe that it will create 'order'. If I place you into some desert,
without any water, the sun will dry you out, it will kill you. What does it
need to get the 'order'?
>
> >>Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the
> >> information carried by living things lets them create order. However,
not
> >> only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is
common
> > in
> >> nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites,
> >> graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order
coming
> >> from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve
> > that
> >> order.
> >
> > Anything in this universe responds to the laws created in that specific
> > universe. When a drop of water 'gets cold', it will crystallize, that
> > means it will respond to these laws. Does this mean that it gets a new
> > live, that new information was added? Does this mean that order comes
from
> > disorder
> > without interference? In this regard it is silly to proclaim that no
> > intelligence is needed to get that order. Try to run that in a universe
> > not having such laws of nature.
>
> Point one: Everything responds to the laws of nature "valid" in the
> universe.
i.e. the reality as it appears to us all around us.
> Point two: order is not necessarily a sign of life (or creation).
I did not say or mean that.
>Order (at
> least the static kind) comes e.g. from freezing water to a solid, in which
> molecules are in a more "ordered" state than in the liquid. No
interference
> or design needed.
Still subject to the laws working in THIS universe, you have to take it out
off this universe too prove your statement.
> Point three: running a universe which has no (or non such) laws of nature
> means using the creationist approach: something outside the scope of
nature
> did it.
No, not necessarily. It is not the appraoch I favour anyhow. All what we can
do about this is theorize about it.
>
> >>In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you
> >> are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If
> >> order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of
thermodynamics,
> >> why is it ubiquitous in nature?
> >
> > It is many different forces working together. Amongst other the laws of
> > this universe which keep everything running.
>
> Your point? I object to the "amongst other". The laws of nature keep
things
> running (or circling, falling, dissolving, aggregating, ...). As long as
> there is usable energy available, things will move and get more complex.
What controls this circling, falling, dissolving, aggregating,....?
> The second law of thermodynamics does not apply in this case.
>
> >> The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception
> >> about
> >> evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding
of
> >> how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument.
> >
> > Indeed there are flaws in the evolutionary reasoning.
>
> P-lease! I won't even comment on that one.
It is like this I think. One can theorize about these things, but we can not
come to a conclusive statement of affairs concerning this. If evolution
proclaims that living matter can come from nonliving matter they can not
support that beyond a pretty reasonable doubt. That's all I say.
>
> >> Evolution
> >> says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between
generations
> >> (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have
> >> appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or
> >> darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order
> >> of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences
> >> appear,
> > the
> >> theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For
> >> example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more
> >> offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be
> > observed
> >> today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
> >
> > Nice theorizing, but it doesn't get us very far. .-)
>
> I has gotten us to the top of the class of 4'500'000'000 BC. Where we go
> from here, of course, is entirely up to us.
I agree....
Phil Roberts
his enemies, screaming forth the battle cry:
>>Is my refridgerator powered by GOD (TM)?
>
> Man made.
>
How do you know?
--
Phil Roberts | Dork Pretending To Be Hard | http://www.flatnet.net/
Thore Schmechtig
cretinist and check what's left:
--
UNWRITTEN RULES OF (PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALISM
(Found in alt.bible, authors unknown)
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical, psychological,
or verbal, at all times as defensive
4a. Specific example for 4.: Cry for "freedom of religion", but whenever followers of other faiths want the same freedom and courts agree, scream "Persecution!"
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed
into a corner in an argument
5a. When caught lying, always accuse the opposition of lying rather than be honest and admit the obvious
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of
error and correction as part of God's personal plan for you and not as a
something for which you should apologise retract or make amends except
verbally and secretly to God himself
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans for
the world. Recognise that even your errors are just part of Gods will for
the betterment of mankind.
9.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and
oppose all such information through classification of such information in
a derogatory and simplistic manner(eg by categorising it as left wing
propaganda)
11.Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is
complex and there are shades of grey
12.Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport to
forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you don't
have that right anyhow.
Noelie S. Alito
I just ran the numbers and got 1.7 squillion, myself.
Noelie S. Alito
Xaonon
<papa_...@hotmail.com> teithant i thiw hin:
> Xaonon <xao...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:<slrnc9o3no...@xaonon.local>...
>
> > Ned i bach <109nueu...@corp.supernews.com>, Frank Reichenbacher
> > <m...@nospam-for-me.net> teithant i thiw hin:
> >
> > > "foo" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message
> > > news:xCSmc.10524$%o1.6204@lakeread03...
> > >
> > > > False! The 2LoT is only inviolate in a statistical sense; that said
> > > > an irreducibly complex system like a plant does not violate it even
> > > > in a statistical sense,
> > >
> > > So you're saying that a perpetual motion machine is possible?
> >
> > Can you toss an honest coin heads 10^23 times in a row?
>
> Of course. Were you under the impression you can't?
Do you understand the purpose of a rhetorical question?
> > There's no physical mechanism preventing, for instance, all the
> > high-energy air molecules to collect on one side of a room and all the
> > low-energy ones on the other side, giving a Maxwell's Demon temperature
> > difference without the demon. It'll just take a squillion times longer
> > than the age of the universe to happen.
>
> Just curious - is that a scientific 10 billion year old universe or a
> fundamentalist 6 thousand year old universe? And are you sure that
> calculation is really one squillion?
I thought the generally accepted count was closer to 15 billion now.
Haven't some astronomers observed stars older than 10 billion years old?
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
http://xaonon.dyndns.org/ Guaranteed content-free since 1999. No refunds.
"Xaonon is a sofa that sorts your mail, is built and maintained by tiny
nano-robots and induces lucid dreaming." -- thesurrealist.co.uk/priorart.cgi
Mike Dworetsky
"Xaonon" <xao...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc9pqf6...@xaonon.local...
The current age of the universe is 13.7 billion years with about a 0.5
billion error allowance. The number may change slightly as the data
improves from satellites like the WMAP.
But squillions of billions of years sounds about right for a spontaneous
Maxwell's Demon operating on a room sized environment.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Charles C.
Seriously Michel, print out this post, read the material you were
replying to and then read your response. Do that with each message you
replied to in this thread. You can't be this ignorant, no one can so
you must have been reading something else and replied to these
messages by mistake.
Before you come back with an emotional one or two line inane statement
print these messages out and take your time reading them and read your
responses again. If you see nothing wrong then please show them to
someone in your life and confide in them. I am being dead serious
Michel, no games, and I'm not picking on you. If you really think that
your responses made sense then I am really worried for you.
Please, print these messages out (not mine) and take your time reading
them again. Even if you feel that you must respond to me then go ahead
and respond but please print these messages out and read them. Take
your time. If you don't see the problem then for your own sake please
talk to someone that you can trust in your life.
-Charles-
R. Baldwin
news:c7976c46.04050...@posting.google.com...
> writi...@yahoo.com (K C) wrote in message
news:<e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> > laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> > common language, things fall apart.
>
> the 2nd law. The number of people who misunderstand it never
> decreases over time.
>
> hard work, on both your part and mine, I could show you how entropy
> are prepared for the trip, but if you are, I'm willing. Will you
> commit to stick with it and learn something?
>
> In addition, the second law refers either to closed systems, or
> to the total entropy of the universe. In open systems, such as
> the Earth very assuredly is, entropy can go up, down, or remain
> the same. There's this thing called the sun that provides us
> with huge amounts of energy we can waste.
Quibble: the second law is often stated so that it correctly describes open
systems.
>
> And just one more thing to think about. If the 2nd law had anything
> to say about the impossibility of life comming into existence,
> or with evolution, then it would say that life was impossible
> under all conditions. Now, since living things reproduce on a
> very frequent basis, there seems to be a pretty large hole in
> your claims. A cow can convert non-living things (digested grass
R. Baldwin
If you are hoping for some principle that intelligence is required to lower
the entropy of a system, you are mistaken. For a simple example, the oxygen
to ozone reaction in the atmosphere is natural, but draws energy from
high-energy photons or lightning to create lower entropy oxygen molecules.
There is nothing man-made about it.
R. Baldwin
news:c7j1s6$p35$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
Where's Carl Sagan when you need him?
stew dean
> <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c7976c46.04050...@posting.google.com...
> > writi...@yahoo.com (K C) wrote in message
> news:<e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> > > I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
> > > laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
> > > common language, things fall apart.
> >
> > Geeze! Again? I have an alternative, also wrong, statement of
> > the 2nd law. The number of people who misunderstand it never
> > decreases over time.
> >
> > Entropy is not the same as disorder.
>
> Does it turn into something more complex?? Anything in this universe
> responds to the laws that were created to keep things working, that's all
> that matters.
You mean like evolution?
>
> >With a great deal of very
> > hard work, on both your part and mine, I could show you how entropy
> > is related to information. Not to disorder.
>
> Less information nonetheless, and that's the point.
I would love to see you explain the above statement.
>
> >I very much doubt you
> > are prepared for the trip, but if you are, I'm willing. Will you
> > commit to stick with it and learn something?
> >
> > In addition, the second law refers either to closed systems, or
> > to the total entropy of the universe. In open systems, such as
> > the Earth very assuredly is, entropy can go up, down, or remain
> > the same. There's this thing called the sun that provides us
> > with huge amounts of energy we can waste.
> >
> > And just one more thing to think about. If the 2nd law had anything
> > to say about the impossibility of life comming into existence,
> > or with evolution, then it would say that life was impossible
> > under all conditions.
>
> Indeed it would, but we seem to aware of life existing.....
Exactly. So what does that say about the 2nd law of thermodynamics
when it is used against evolution?
> >Now, since living things reproduce on a
> > very frequent basis, there seems to be a pretty large hole in
> > your claims.
>
> Don't see why. What keeps this universe running, where does the energy come
> from that sticks molecules together and form what we see around us?
In our case, as already pointed out, there's this big yellow thing in
the sky about 50% of the time - this enables life to exist.
The universe is running on the energy it had from the big bang. As it
discipates it's entropy increases and we head towards a state known as
heat death.
There is, as far as I'm aware, no energy coming from outside that
'sticks molecules together'. In essence 'molecules' are energy in a
different form.
The universe is the constant shifting of energy from one state to
enougher through a complex set of interactions. Notice I don't use the
word 'just' as it is these interactions that make thing interesting.
Stew Dean
AC
Glenn <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
> "Matt Silberstein" <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:755o901cm5lue8fra...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.origins I read this message from "Glenn"
>> <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net>:
>>
>> >
>> >"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote in message
>> >news:YPNmc.86214$Uz1....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> "K C" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:e88a6c8b.04050...@posting.google.com...
>> >> > laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
>> >> > common language, things fall apart.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Better tell Berkeley then.
>> >
>> >http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/~chem130a/sauer/outline/thirdlaw.html
>> >"The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a pure
> perfect
>> >crystal is 0 at 0 K: ? S(0K) = 0. At 0K the atoms in a pure perfect
> crystal
>> >are aligned perfectly and do not move. Moreover, there is no entropy of
>> >mixing since the crystal is pure. For a mixed crystal containing the
> atomic
>> >or molecular species A and B, there are many possible arrangements of A
> and
>> >B and there is therefore entropy associated with the arrangement of the
>> >atoms/molecules."
>> >
>> >Or Manchester.
>> >
>>
>>http://www.phy.umist.ac.uk/Teaching/PastExams/MoreExams1/00-1/2/P302_99-00/
>> >"Maxwell's equation for the distribution of the speeds of molecules in a
>> >perfect gas takes the form:"
>>
>> Wow, you found a misleading error. Yes, "perfect" is used to
>> refer to *non-existent* thing, it is pure concept, if you will.
>>
> There is a lot of that around.
You can just say you were wrong, Glenn.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Roadrunner
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
news:St8nc.50475$sK3....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Where did I say any such thing?
> For a simple example, the oxygen
> to ozone reaction in the atmosphere is natural, but draws energy from
> high-energy photons or lightning to create lower entropy oxygen molecules.
> There is nothing man-made about it.
The fridge is a man made machine delivering favourably to it's cause the
desired low temperatures.
Phil Roberts
towards his enemies, screaming forth the battle cry:
> The fridge is a man made machine delivering favourably to it's
> cause the desired low temperatures.
But how do you KNOW God didn't make it? Do you have any evidence of
this? Sounds like you're resting on assumptions to me.
Glenn
"AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc9q75c.qc....@alder.alberni.net...
Mark Isaak
<m...@nospam-for-me.net> wrote:
>"foo" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message news:xCSmc.10524$%o1.6204@lakeread03...
>>
>> "Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnc9nknt.2...@keck.vandewettering.net...
>> >
>> > Nothing can violate the 2LoT, whether it was designed or not.
>>
>> False! The 2LoT is only inviolate in a statistical sense; that said an
>> irreducibly complex system like a plant does not violate it even in a
>> statistical sense,
>
>So you're saying that a perpetual motion machine is possible?
Yes, for sufficiently small values of "perpetual". Like a tiny
fraction of a second.
Also, it was once thought that entropy could be reduced by throwing it
into a black hole. (At the time, it was believed that black holes did
not have any entropy of their own.) As I understand, the overall
reaction of the physics community to this news that the second law of
thermodynamics could be violated was, "Oh, okay. No big deal."
--
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
R. Baldwin
That did seem to be where you were headed. If not, what exactly _is_ your
point?
>
> > For a simple example, the oxygen
> > to ozone reaction in the atmosphere is natural, but draws energy from
> > high-energy photons or lightning to create lower entropy oxygen
molecules.
> > There is nothing man-made about it.
>
> The fridge is a man made machine delivering favourably to it's cause the
> desired low temperatures.
>
And oxygen to ozone is a natural reaction that does the same thing.
Matt Silberstein
<mightym...@hotmail.com>:
But he was not wrong, he was just making an irrelevant comment.
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by arsonists who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors.
www.candles-museum.com
Frank Reichenbacher
"Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote in message
news:v9kq901ckftrjiojs...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 May 2004 20:58:54 +0000 (UTC), "Frank Reichenbacher"
> <m...@nospam-for-me.net> wrote:
>
> >"foo" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message
news:xCSmc.10524$%o1.6204@lakeread03...
> >>
> >> "Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:slrnc9nknt.2...@keck.vandewettering.net...
> >> >
> >> > Nothing can violate the 2LoT, whether it was designed or not.
> >>
> >> False! The 2LoT is only inviolate in a statistical sense; that said an
> >> irreducibly complex system like a plant does not violate it even in a
> >> statistical sense,
> >
> >So you're saying that a perpetual motion machine is possible?
>
> Yes, for sufficiently small values of "perpetual". Like a tiny
> fraction of a second.
Was there supposed to be a sarcastic smiley emoticon thingy thing there, or
are you unaware of the definition of "perpetual" (which I can't believe you
are)?
Frank
John Wilkins
> "VoiceOfReason" <papa_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Xaonon <xao...@hotpop.com> wrote...
> > > Ned i bach <109nueu...@corp.supernews.com>, Frank Reichenbacher
> > > <m...@nospam-for-me.net> teithant i thiw hin:
> > >
> > > > "foo" <f...@bar.com> wrote...
> > > >
> > > > > False! The 2LoT is only inviolate in a statistical sense; that
> > > > > said an irreducibly complex system like a plant does not violate
> > > > > it even in a statistical sense,
> > > >
> > > > So you're saying that a perpetual motion machine is possible?
> > >
> > > Can you toss an honest coin heads 10^23 times in a row?
> >
> >
> > Of course. Were you under the impression you can't? If so, I'd
> > suggest taking a course in statistics.
> >
> > > There's no physical mechanism preventing, for instance, all the
> > > high-energy air molecules to collect on one side of a room and all the
> > > low-energy ones on the other side, giving a Maxwell's Demon
> > > temperature difference without the demon. It'll just take a squillion
> > > times longer than the age of the universe to happen.
> >
> > Just curious - is that a scientific 10 billion year old universe or a
> > fundamentalist 6 thousand year old universe? And are you sure that
> > calculation is really one squillion?
>
> I just ran the numbers and got 1.7 squillion, myself.
My spreadsheet gets 2.8 squillion, so it must be right.
--
Dr John S. Wilkins, www.wilkins.id.au
"I never meet anyone who is not perplexed what to do with their
children" --Charles Darwin to Syms Covington, February 22, 1857
Glenn
"Matt Silberstein" <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
VoiceOfReason
Smart Alecks! :-D
VoiceOfReason
> On Fri, 7 May 2004 19:46:39 +0000 (UTC), writi...@yahoo.com (K C)
> clued us in and wrote:
<snip long-since-refuted fundie thermo misconceptions>
> Wow, You couldn't get a clue if you were drenched in clue
> pheromones, dancing in a clue field in the middle of clue mating
> season, wearing a clue suit, and shouting, "Clooo! Cloooo!
^N^o^m^i^n^a^t^e^d^
> The decay of carbon-14 is indeed subject to the laws of thermodynamics
> ..... let's see your calculations of the entropy of an assemblage of
> carbon atoms before and after one decays.
Reminds me of the Arctic Keekee bird. It sits in the snow in sub-zero
temperatures screaming "Kee kee kee Christ it's cold!"
Matt Silberstein
Maybe I missed something, how was it misleading? Was KC in anyway
write when writing: "I like talking about the concept of entropy.
According to scientific laws, things move from a state of more
perfect to less perfect."? Is that use of perfect meaningful in a
scientific sense? Regarding your response I don't see how
"perfect crystals", which are understood as non-existent objects,
relates to KC's version of entropy. Is KC's use of perfect
scientific in some way?
Abner Mintz
> Where's Carl Sagan when you need him?
Just wait - eventually the molecules in the room will spontaneously
reassemble him. :)
Glenn
"Matt Silberstein" <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message
Roadrunner
"Phil Roberts" <phi...@HOLYflatnetSHIT.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94E3D788B3...@216.196.97.132...
> "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> shot from the breach
> towards his enemies, screaming forth the battle cry:
>
> > The fridge is a man made machine delivering favourably to it's
> > cause the desired low temperatures.
>
> But how do you KNOW God didn't make it? Do you have any evidence of
> this? Sounds like you're resting on assumptions to me.
Look up in some encyclopedia, it will tell you that the Chinese already
developed some techniques for this, while taking advantage of the laws of
this universe. Man made with the use of God's laws if you like.
Phil Roberts
his enemies, screaming forth the battle cry:
> Look up in some encyclopedia
Bah! Nothing more that Manufacturist indoctrinative propaganda!
catshark
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
[...]
>> >Identifying a misleading "error" is irrelevant?
>>
>> Maybe I missed something, how was it misleading? Was KC in anyway
>> write when writing: "I like talking about the concept of entropy.
>> According to scientific laws, things move from a state of more
>> perfect to less perfect."? Is that use of perfect meaningful in a
>> scientific sense? Regarding your response I don't see how
>> "perfect crystals", which are understood as non-existent objects,
>> relates to KC's version of entropy. Is KC's use of perfect
>> scientific in some way?
>>
>Perhaps you should take a closer look at what and who I replied to.
You were replying to Boikat's post here:
Message-ID: <YPNmc.86214$Uz1....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
Boikat replied to KC (who, as Matt points out, was using "perfect" in a way
that has no meaning in science) by saying "'perfect' is not a scientific
concept".
You replied by pointing to a correct use of "perfect" in science that has
no relationship to the way KC was using the word.
In short, your only (valid) objection was that Boikat should have said
something like: "_That meaning of_ 'perfect' is not a scientific concept".
Of course, by putting it in quotations, "That meaning of . . . " is implied
but not explicit.
The only question I have is whether you intentionally set out to be
querulous or whether it just comes naturally . . .
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Bludgeoning moribund Equidae for fun and profit.
Noelie S. Alito
>
> "Mark Isaak" <eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 May 2004 20:58:54 +0000 (UTC), "Frank Reichenbacher"
> > <m...@nospam-for-me.net> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> "Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:slrnc9nknt.2...@keck.vandewettering.net...
> > >> >
> > >> > Nothing can violate the 2LoT, whether it was designed or not.
> > >>
> > >> False! The 2LoT is only inviolate in a statistical sense; that said an
> > >> irreducibly complex system like a plant does not violate it even in a
> > >> statistical sense,
> > >
> > >So you're saying that a perpetual motion machine is possible?
> >
> > Yes, for sufficiently small values of "perpetual". Like a tiny
> > fraction of a second.
>
> Was there supposed to be a sarcastic smiley emoticon thingy thing there, or
> are you unaware of the definition of "perpetual" (which I can't believe you
> are)?
The cue was the "for sufficiently small values of" phrase, as in
"For sufficiently small values of 2, 2+2=3."
Noelie
--
"In the long run, we're all dead." --JMKeynes
Matt Silberstein
If I look closer then I see individual pixels rather than letters
and sentences. If you think I am wrong perhaps you should supply
an explanation. If you are not interested, then don't bother.
Grinder
You're spewing nothing more than frigid air.
Glenn
"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd3s90p8voqpjjt0v...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 07:12:38 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> >Identifying a misleading "error" is irrelevant?
> >>
> >> Maybe I missed something, how was it misleading? Was KC in anyway
> >> write when writing: "I like talking about the concept of entropy.
> >> According to scientific laws, things move from a state of more
> >> perfect to less perfect."? Is that use of perfect meaningful in a
> >> scientific sense? Regarding your response I don't see how
> >> "perfect crystals", which are understood as non-existent objects,
> >> relates to KC's version of entropy. Is KC's use of perfect
> >> scientific in some way?
> >>
> >Perhaps you should take a closer look at what and who I replied to.
>
> You were replying to Boikat's post here:
> Message-ID: <YPNmc.86214$Uz1....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
>
> Boikat replied to KC (who, as Matt points out, was using "perfect" in a
way
> that has no meaning in science) by saying "'perfect' is not a scientific
> concept".
"Pointing out" as opposed to evidencing, perhaps. Saying that "perfect" is
not a scientific concept is just as confusing as what KC said, untrue
in a certain context, and perhaps true (or at least worth considerning) in
another.
The word "perfect" by itself is cetainly a "scientific concept", and I have
shown that to be true.
Perfect entropy, or perfect randomness, is thought by some to be the end
result of a closed universe. In that sense, and possibly also with respect
to
the Big Bang Ball itself, "perfect entropy" is an acceptable term.
KC's use of "perfect" seems to be subjective, and either in reference to
more than
entropy, or implies a different perspective of an implied time scale.
>
> You replied by pointing to a correct use of "perfect" in science that has
> no relationship to the way KC was using the word.
>
I wasn't replying to KC, as you already mentioned, and Boikat made a
clear statement that was incorrect.
> In short, your only (valid) objection was that Boikat should have said
> something like: "_That meaning of_ 'perfect' is not a scientific concept".
> Of course, by putting it in quotations, "That meaning of . . . " is
implied
> but not explicit.
Again with the "implied" bullshit I see. "Perfect" was "implied" and
explicit,
in the statement "Perfect is not a scientific concept", not "perfect
entropy"
or "perfection in things" or whatever Boikat might have thought KC was
talking about. I'm not even sure what KC was talking about, and unless
Boikat or you are certain you know what KC was talking about, you can't
even begin to say what was "implied", other than in your and Boikat's own
imaginations.
>
> The only question I have is whether you intentionally set out to be
> querulous or whether it just comes naturally . . .
>
Ditto.
catshark
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
[...]
>> In short, your only (valid) objection was that Boikat should have said
>> something like: "_That meaning of_ 'perfect' is not a scientific concept".
>> Of course, by putting it in quotations, "That meaning of . . . " is
>implied
>> but not explicit.
>
>Again with the "implied" bullshit I see.
I see. When he followed KC's use of the word with "perfect" in quotes that
was not an indication that he was refering to KC's use of the word in KC's
context?
>"Perfect" was "implied" and
>explicit,
>in the statement "Perfect is not a scientific concept", not "perfect
>entropy"
>or "perfection in things" or whatever Boikat might have thought KC was
>talking about. I'm not even sure what KC was talking about, and unless
>Boikat or you are certain you know what KC was talking about, you can't
>even begin to say what was "implied", other than in your and Boikat's own
>imaginations.
So you are just making comments completely disassociated with the ongoing
dialogue (such as it is)? Based on past observation, I can buy that.
>>
>> The only question I have is whether you intentionally set out to be
>> querulous or whether it just comes naturally . . .
>>
>Ditto.
Talk is cheap, behavior is believable.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Glenn
> On Sun, 9 May 2004 20:15:53 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> In short, your only (valid) objection was that Boikat should have said
> >> something like: "_That meaning of_ 'perfect' is not a scientific
concept".
> >> Of course, by putting it in quotations, "That meaning of . . . " is
> >implied
> >> but not explicit.
> >
> >Again with the "implied" bullshit I see.
>
> I see. When he followed KC's use of the word with "perfect" in quotes
that
> was not an indication that he was refering to KC's use of the word in KC's
> context?
I assume he meant what he wrote: "perfect" is not a scientific concept."
>
> >"Perfect" was "implied" and
> >explicit,
> >in the statement "Perfect is not a scientific concept", not "perfect
> >entropy"
> >or "perfection in things" or whatever Boikat might have thought KC was
> >talking about. I'm not even sure what KC was talking about, and unless
> >Boikat or you are certain you know what KC was talking about, you can't
> >even begin to say what was "implied", other than in your and Boikat's own
> >imaginations.
>
> So you are just making comments completely disassociated with the ongoing
> dialogue (such as it is)? Based on past observation, I can buy that.
>
Screw you. I corrected an untrue statement.
> >>
> >> The only question I have is whether you intentionally set out to be
> >> querulous or whether it just comes naturally . . .
> >>
> >Ditto.
>
> Talk is cheap, behavior is believable.
>
I agree.
Earle Jones
Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 2004 20:58:54 +0000 (UTC), "Frank Reichenbacher"
> <m...@nospam-for-me.net> wrote:
>
> >"foo" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message news:xCSmc.10524$%o1.6204@lakeread03...
> >>
> >> "Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:slrnc9nknt.2...@keck.vandewettering.net...
> >> >
> >> > Nothing can violate the 2LoT, whether it was designed or not.
> >>
> >> False! The 2LoT is only inviolate in a statistical sense; that said an
> >> irreducibly complex system like a plant does not violate it even in a
> >> statistical sense,
> >
> >So you're saying that a perpetual motion machine is possible?
>
> Yes, for sufficiently small values of "perpetual". Like a tiny
> fraction of a second.
*
The terms "perpetual" and "a tiny fraction of a second" seem to me
somewhat in conflict. A perpetual motion machine that is valid for
a tiny fraction of a second is an oxymoron at best.
The word "entropy" is abused by more people, especially the
Christian fundamentalists, than any other word I have seen posted
here.
Every time I fill my ice trays with room-temperature water and put
them into my freezer, I violate the second law -- locally. By doing
so, I expect to transfer heat from a hot body to a colder body,
thereby violating the second law.
Can you understand this? Do you know how this is possible?
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
catshark
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
>"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:leht901hiaff8njbd...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 9 May 2004 20:15:53 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
>> <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> In short, your only (valid) objection was that Boikat should have said
>> >> something like: "_That meaning of_ 'perfect' is not a scientific
>concept".
>> >> Of course, by putting it in quotations, "That meaning of . . . " is
>> >implied
>> >> but not explicit.
>> >
>> >Again with the "implied" bullshit I see.
>>
>> I see. When he followed KC's use of the word with "perfect" in quotes
>that
>> was not an indication that he was refering to KC's use of the word in KC's
>> context?
>
>I assume he meant what he wrote: "perfect" is not a scientific concept."
But without going on to any assumptions about why he used the quote marks?
Uh huh.
>
>>
>> >"Perfect" was "implied" and
>> >explicit,
>> >in the statement "Perfect is not a scientific concept", not "perfect
>> >entropy"
>> >or "perfection in things" or whatever Boikat might have thought KC was
>> >talking about. I'm not even sure what KC was talking about, and unless
>> >Boikat or you are certain you know what KC was talking about, you can't
>> >even begin to say what was "implied", other than in your and Boikat's own
>> >imaginations.
>>
>> So you are just making comments completely disassociated with the ongoing
>> dialogue (such as it is)? Based on past observation, I can buy that.
>>
>Screw you.
Uh huh.
>I corrected an untrue statement.
You "corrected" something apart from its context.
>> >>
>> >> The only question I have is whether you intentionally set out to be
>> >> querulous or whether it just comes naturally . . .
>> >>
>> >Ditto.
>>
>> Talk is cheap, behavior is believable.
>>
>I agree.
Uh huh.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
There is no greater hatred in the world
than the hatred of ignorance for knowledge.
- Galileo Galilei -
Glenn
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 01:42:16 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:leht901hiaff8njbd...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 9 May 2004 20:15:53 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> >> <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >> In short, your only (valid) objection was that Boikat should have
said
> >> >> something like: "_That meaning of_ 'perfect' is not a scientific
> >concept".
> >> >> Of course, by putting it in quotations, "That meaning of . . . " is
> >> >implied
> >> >> but not explicit.
> >> >
> >> >Again with the "implied" bullshit I see.
> >>
> >> I see. When he followed KC's use of the word with "perfect" in quotes
> >that
> >> was not an indication that he was refering to KC's use of the word in
KC's
> >> context?
> >
> >I assume he meant what he wrote: "perfect" is not a scientific concept."
>
> But without going on to any assumptions about why he used the quote marks?
>
meant.
> Uh huh.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >"Perfect" was "implied" and
> >> >explicit,
> >> >in the statement "Perfect is not a scientific concept", not "perfect
> >> >entropy"
> >> >or "perfection in things" or whatever Boikat might have thought KC was
> >> >talking about. I'm not even sure what KC was talking about, and unless
> >> >Boikat or you are certain you know what KC was talking about, you
can't
> >> >even begin to say what was "implied", other than in your and Boikat's
own
> >> >imaginations.
> >>
> >> So you are just making comments completely disassociated with the
ongoing
> >> dialogue (such as it is)? Based on past observation, I can buy that.
> >>
> >Screw you.
>
> Uh huh.
>
> >I corrected an untrue statement.
>
> You "corrected" something apart from its context.
So the quote marks around corrected mean that you are lying and
being sarcastic, that you don't believe that I really corrected something,
even if apart from it's context.
I corrected an untrue statement. You don't like it. Too bad.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> The only question I have is whether you intentionally set out to be
> >> >> querulous or whether it just comes naturally . . .
> >> >>
> >> >Ditto.
> >>
> >> Talk is cheap, behavior is believable.
> >>
> >I agree.
>
> Uh huh.
>
I wonder whether you intentionally set out to be
catshark
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
[...]
>> >> I see. When he followed KC's use of the word with "perfect" in quotes
>> >that
>> >> was not an indication that he was refering to KC's use of the word in
>KC's
>> >> context?
>> >
>> >I assume he meant what he wrote: "perfect" is not a scientific concept."
>>
>> But without going on to any assumptions about why he used the quote marks?
>>
>Why? Perfect was the subject, not entropy, or whatever Boikat thought KC
>meant.
>
>> Uh huh.
[...]
>> >> So you are just making comments completely disassociated with the
>ongoing
>> >> dialogue (such as it is)? Based on past observation, I can buy that.
>> >>
>> >Screw you.
>>
>> Uh huh.
>>
>> >I corrected an untrue statement.
>>
>> You "corrected" something apart from its context.
>
>So the quote marks around corrected mean that you are lying
Ah! That word again. Funny, don't I remember you always complaining about
people assuming they can read *your* mind?
But at least you demonstrate the ability to grasp the concept that the
quote marks do indicate that I was referring back to your use of "correct"
in the context of the discussion so far . . . something that seemed to
elude you before with Boikat.
>and
>being sarcastic, that you don't believe that I really corrected something,
>even if apart from it's context.
Because you can't "correct" something apart from its context, the context
controls whether it is wrong in the first place.
At best, you can "quibble". In your case, querulously . . .
[...]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
For every complex problem,
there is a simple,
easy to understand,
incorrect answer.
- Albert Szent-Gyorgyi -
Robin Levett
Mark - put him back! It's not bass season.
--
Robin Levett
rle...@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
Robin Levett
...and yes, I know you didn't mean to - but it still isn't legal. The least
you can do is use your Lokis to stand a round.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Every time I fill my ice trays with room-temperature water and put them
> into my freezer, I violate the second law -- locally. By doing so, I
> expect to transfer heat from a hot body to a colder body, thereby
> violating the second law.
"Locally" seems to refer to an open system here, and thus no violation
occurs. You have to balance the entropy crossing the system's boundary,
as well as what happens in the system itself. Alas, you end up warming up
your kitchen with more heat than you take out of the ice.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Ferrous Patella
writi...@yahoo.com (K C):
> I'll use this post to respond to the other responses, rather than
> explode this thread among each strand.
>
> It's easy to see that my detractors in this thread are running in
> fear. They protest, attack, and defame...all without responding once
> to the point.
Responds to its own post, thus avoiding all responses to its point, and
claims everyone else is avoiding its point.
To where do you want your Loki point delivered?
--
Ferrous Patella
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
--John Adams, letter to Abigail, 1797
Glenn
You're asking me if you remember? I wonder what you could be implying
by that. *I* don't remember my "always complaining" about anything.
It does appear that you "mind read" though, and insist that you and your
buds
are right when you and they do.
>
> But at least you demonstrate the ability to grasp the concept that the
> quote marks do indicate that I was referring back to your use of "correct"
> in the context of the discussion so far
Since I did correct an untrue statement, you are not referring to
that, but are using the word instead to mean something other
than it's definition.
>. . . something that seemed to elude you before with Boikat.
>
Uh, no. I've already dealt with that. You skipped over it.
> >and
> >being sarcastic, that you don't believe that I really corrected
something,
> >even if apart from it's context.
>
> Because you can't "correct" something apart from its context, the context
> controls whether it is wrong in the first place.
So you agree. You were lying and being sarcastic, and is the
context of the statement "You "corrected" something apart from its context."
"Correct" means not true.
>
> At best, you can "quibble". In your case, querulously . . .
>
All you'll get is a bug up your nose if you keep sticking it up like that.
You've done a lot of claiming about Boikat's statement having responded
to KC's "context". So what was KC's context of the use of the word
"perfect"?
"I like talking about the concept of entropy. According to scientific
laws, things move from a state of more perfect to less perfect. In
common language, things fall apart."
"Things fall apart" to me indicate he is referring to total randomness,
or perfect entropy. But what he meant by "things" or what time scale he
might refer to to is unknown.
He clearly identifies his subject in the first sentence.
It appears he was referring to "perfect entropy" (whether he got it wrong or
not).
But regardless of the context, you have not shown that the word "perfect"
is not a "scientific concept" in any case. All you've got is hot air.
Tracy Hamilton
"Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
news:glennsheldon-vpwnc.673$Rx1....@news.uswest.net...
Not to mention diametrically OPPOSITE to your usage of perfect .
KC: things more perfect to less perfect (breaking down)
Glenn: less perfect to more perfect entropy, where perfect is well defined
KC's use of perfect could be characterized as
scientifically illiterate. To point out that the concept of perfect
*as creationists use the term* has no meaning in thermodynamics
is not an error, or whatever injustice your imagination has
created.
To make a big deal out of this - an error of judgement?
> > You replied by pointing to a correct use of "perfect" in science that
has
> > no relationship to the way KC was using the word.
> >
> I wasn't replying to KC, as you already mentioned, and Boikat made a
> clear statement that was incorrect.
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
catshark
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Because you can't "correct" something apart from its context, the context
>> controls whether it is wrong in the first place.
>
>So you agree. You were lying and being sarcastic, and is the
>context of the statement "You "corrected" something apart from its context."
>
>"Correct" means not true.
I can honestly not make heads or tails of this, Glenn.
[snip rest of "perfect" example of querulousness]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing.
It is a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
- Lazarus Long -
John Wilkins
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 19:58:55 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Because you can't "correct" something apart from its context, the context
> >> controls whether it is wrong in the first place.
> >
> >So you agree. You were lying and being sarcastic, and is the
> >context of the statement "You "corrected" something apart from its context."
> >
> >"Correct" means not true.
>
> I can honestly not make heads or tails of this, Glenn.
Of course. It's perfect nonsense.
>
> [snip rest of "perfect" example of querulousness]
>
> ---------------
> J. Pieret
> ---------------
>
> Never attempt to teach a pig to sing.
> It is a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
>
> - Lazarus Long -
--
Dr John S. Wilkins, www.wilkins.id.au
"I never meet anyone who is not perplexed what to do with their
children" --Charles Darwin to Syms Covington, February 22, 1857
Glenn
"Tracy Hamilton" <DontSpam...@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:c7onoj$1uj$1...@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu...
No problem with that?
> > Perfect entropy, or perfect randomness, is thought by some to be the end
> > result of a closed universe. In that sense, and possibly also with
respect
> > to
> > the Big Bang Ball itself, "perfect entropy" is an acceptable term.
> > KC's use of "perfect" seems to be subjective, and either in reference to
> > more than
> > entropy, or implies a different perspective of an implied time scale.
>
> Not to mention diametrically OPPOSITE to your usage of perfect .
Except that I did not specify usage in a particular context. Again, what
KC might have been referring to is unclear.
> KC: things more perfect to less perfect (breaking down)
> Glenn: less perfect to more perfect entropy, where perfect is well defined
>
> KC's use of perfect could be characterized as
> scientifically illiterate.
No. Perhaps ignorant of thermodynamics.
>To point out that the concept of perfect
> *as creationists use the term* has no meaning in thermodynamics
> is not an error, or whatever injustice your imagination has
> created.
Your disclaimer is interesting, I had not heard the argument before.
Personally, I think KC is uneducated in thermodynamics, and
did try to combine what he mistakes for entropy with "perfect
no sin" world to "sin". But responding to his statement with an
untruth is not my idea of a good thing.
>
> To make a big deal out of this - an error of judgement?
Don't tell me. I didn't reference thermo, I simply corrected the statement
"perfect" is not a scientific concept".
>