Math prof attacks the "open" explanation for 2TD

[bob b]

This article is a condensation of an appendix in the math professor's recent book:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9128

 

[bowhunter]

Well this doesnt mean anything, cause he basis his arguments on facts. We all know that evolution is true because it is based on guesses that are determined by any answer except a creator.

 

[noguru]

This article is a condensation of an appendix in the math professor's recent book:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9128

Very interesting. I bet this has never happened before. :yawn:

 

[Mr Jack]

*yawn*

Same old, same old.

If the profs arguments worked they'd make giving birth impossible. Evolution contains nothing that reproduction does not.

 

[noguru]

*yawn*

Same old, same old.

If the profs arguments worked they'd make giving birth impossible. Evolution contains nothing that reproduction does not.

How do you turn a scambled egg back into an unscrambled egg?

Feed it to a chicken.

 

[Mr Jack]

How do you turn a scambled egg back into an unscrambled egg?

Feed it to a chicken.

Excellently put.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

How do you turn a scambled egg back into an unscrambled egg?

Feed it to a chicken.

Chickens aren't closed systems. They intake food and air and have the mechanisms necessary to make use of these things.

 

[Mr Jack]

Chickens aren't closed systems. They intake food and air and have the mechanisms necessary to make use of these things.

Which elegantly demonstrates the utter uselessness of order as an analogy for entropy. Evolution requires nothing that a chicken (or any other living thing you care to mention) doesn't do on a regular basis.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Which elegantly demonstrates the utter uselessness of order as an analogy for entropy.

Who's trying to use order as an analogy for entropy? I thought they were opposites.

 

[Mr Jack]

Who's trying to use order as an analogy for entropy? I thought they were opposites.

Same difference: Entropy is a quantative value, so describing one end of the scale as disorder is still using order as an analogy. The use of the terms order and disorder for entropy decrease and increase (respectively) is highly misleading, IMO, because the common usage of these words does not match up well with the technical usage.

 

[bob b]

Chickens aren't closed systems. They intake food and air and have the mechanisms necessary to make use of these things.

The key word is of course "mechanism".

 

[noguru]

YECs love to assume that SLoT is the ultimate law of the universe. It fits their argument well to believe this law dominates all other forces in the universe. And of course we are brought back to the question of whether the universe is a closed system. The answer to this cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. And we know how much YECs hate uncertainty.

Bob, OEJ do you believe as Hilston does, that God is directly responsible for bringing and keeping atoms together? Should this be part of atomic theory?

OEJ, can you point me to an entirely closed system that exists outside of a labratory?

 

[noguru]

The key word is of course "mechanism".

Yes, "natural mechanism". Those would be DNA and metabolism. Do you think that either of these mechanisms are "unnatural" or "supernatural"?

 

[billwald]

'I offered the tautology that "if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable." '

Tautology is circular reasoning.

 

[bob b]

Yes, "natural mechanism". Those would be DNA and metabolism. Do you think that either of these mechanisms are "unnatural" or "supernatural"?

The coding system of DNA certainly did not come about due to random mutation.

 

[bobmyers]

The coding system of DNA certainly did not come about due to random mutation.

This is simple an assertion, containing neither evidence nor argument. Please try again.

 

[Stratnerd]

Who's trying to use order as an analogy for entropy? I thought they were opposites.

I don't think the two tings are equivalent although we tend to envision an orderly system a system which has greater free energy and less entropy.

However, many self organizing systems have lower energy states when they are more ordered. What comes to mind is the self organizing systems of fibers in muscle - myosin and actin filaments spontaneously form organized bundles.

Likewise, an organizedDNA molecule also forms from many individual nucleotide triphospates that together, can hardly be said to be organized. On the whole entropy increases (as it must) but organized bits come out.

But I found the article a little incoherent. Well written but he starts out with some nonbiology, plugs his book, talks about entropy, then makes an argument about intermediates not being useful, then concludes that the second law is broken.

Maybe, someone can summarize his argument for me, I just don't get it.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

YECs love to assume that SLoT is the ultimate law of the universe.

It's certainly a fundamental law of physics. Do you deny this?

It fits their argument well to believe this law dominates all other forces in the universe.

I don't think you understand my view well enough to make this claim.

And of course we are brought back to the question of whether the universe is a closed system.

Are you aware of any other systems with which the physical universe interacts?

The answer to this cannot be answered with any degree of certainty.

If the universe isn't a closed system, then we have a fundamental law of physics with no applicability. You don't see a problem with that?

And we know how much YECs hate uncertainty.

We don't hate uncertainty any more than you do.

Bob, OEJ do you believe as Hilston does, that God is directly responsible for bringing and keeping atoms together? Should this be part of atomic theory?

I don't believe God micromanages every aspect of the universe, if that's what you're asking.

OEJ, can you point me to an entirely closed system that exists outside of a labratory?

It seems that you're under the impression that scientists can create a closed system in a laboratory. Is this correct, and if so, can you provide any examples thereof?

 

[Mr Jack]

It's certainly a fundamental law of physics. Do you deny this?

What do you mean by that? I don't think it is fundemental law at all. It's a statistical property that is emergent from the behaviour of more fundemental laws. It does, after all, occur in neither General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory - which are our current most fundamental laws of Physics.

 

[bob b]

This is simple an assertion, containing neither evidence nor argument. Please try again.

Do you really believe that the DNA coding system arose as a result of random mutations?

Bob, OEJ do you believe as Hilston does, that God is directly responsible for bringing and keeping atoms together?

How would anyone possibly know?

Should this be part of atomic theory?

No, it is not necessary to do so, even though it might ultimately be true. I would asume that God would act in this world in a regular manner which we would call "Laws of Nature", and hence one can confidently conduct studies in physics on that basis (in other words it would appear that God is not capricious). However, at the atomic level it is well known that atoms should eventually decay in their orbits, but for some unknown reason they don't. Whether this is for some "natural" reason or not is still an unsolved mystery at this point in time. Theories do abound.