Can we really Believe the Creator's Word?

[UTEOTW]

No Bob.

Dark matter does not interact with ordinary matter except weakly threw gravity. I already told you why you would not see what you are saying. Because it does not interact, it would be spread rather uniformly throughout the galaxy and for hundreds of thousands of light years beyond. It would not be attracted to our solar system. Because it is spread out, there would be very little actually in our solar system. But, galaxies are mostly empty space. A little dark matter spread out evenly adds up to a whole lot of dark matter. You would not get the "lensing bubbles filling up the sky" because it does not interact.

Besides, I have given you three different methods to directly measure the dark matter. If you think it does not exist, then explain the data better. And I would also like to ask just where you are going with this? How does dark matter reflect on evolution?

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Would you care to either withdraw or to defend the Eldredge quote?

 

[UTEOTW]

"Your fallacy there is so obvious as not to need further comment."

I do not see it. Which fallacy am I committing?

"You did it with entropy - clearly."

No. thermodynamics only says that the entropy of a closed system must go up. Local decreases in entropy are quite valid. As you have been shown. If you wish to show that entropy prevents evolution, against all of known science, then it is up to you to show why. Not some anecdotes from a popularization of entropy. Not quote mining. Give us the facts. I have put before you how entropy does not act how you suggest. If you disagree, prove it. I have given you three questions above to answer that will allow you to prove your point.

 

[UTEOTW]

"You did it with entropy - clearly."

Let me add one more thing to this. The definitions of the 2LOT from a thermodynamics text.

Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, Smith and Van Ness,
4th Edition, 1987

"No apparatus can operate in such a way that its only effect is to convert heat absorbed by a system completely into work."

or

"No process is possible which consists solely in the transfer of heat from one temperature level to a higher one."

or

"It is impossible by a cyclic process to convert the heat absorbed by a system completely into work."

Now, I ask you, how does the scientific statement of entropy, straight from a thermo text, deny the possibility of evolution? It does not! I give you the actual statements. You have only given me popularizations.

 

[BobRyan]

Now, I ask you, how does the scientific statement of entropy, straight from a thermo text, deny the possibility of evolution? It does not! I give you the actual statements. You have only given me popularizations.

Is it your position that Asimov is wrong?

Is it your position that A car turning to rust is NOT an example of the 2LOT?

Is it your position that "it is too hard to Figure out that the lack of a 100% efficient thermal system would mean that cars will rust over time"

What exactly is your point?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"Is it your position that Asimov is wrong?"

No. I have made myself clear. He is using a common technique of explaining this very complex idea in a popular way that a layman can understand. The popular account in no way changes the actual scientific meaning.

"Is it your position that A car turning to rust is NOT an example of the 2LOT?"

Not exactly the way you mean it. Yes, rusting is following the laws of thermodynamics. But so is everything else that happens in this universe.

"What exactly is your point?"

My point is that I have given you a series of questions related to thermodynamics and entropy. I have also given you the statement of the second law straight from a thermo text. I have asked you specific questions that will allow you to show that your assertion is true or to show that you are wrong. That you will not take take the actual statements of the second law and apply it directly to evolution as I have laid out for you tells me that you know that your position is incorrect or that you do not know enough about thermodynamics to know if your assertion is true. Now, answer all the specific questions I have laid before you, including the ones on the second law. Or concede the point.

 

[BobRyan]

Asimov made it clear that this WAS a valid way of stating the 2nd law of thermodynamics AND that biological decay was a REAL example of the law in action.

You seem to "need" to say "oh no it is not".

Now the amazing thing is I use an Evolutionist like Asimov to SHOW that EVEN evolutionists are in agreement that the 2LOT applies to biological systems.

This is a level of objectivity that you have yet to show.

Can you show YEC's making your case for "biology being exempt from 2LOT and the priniciple of equilibrium"?

Clearly you can not.

And though you need to reject the devastating argument that Asimov's statement makes against your views here - you are at a loss to blame me for his wording - though you repeatedly try to do so.

AND trying to recontruct his statement to mean "This is NOT an example of 2LOT" has utterly failed you so far.

Better to just accept the Creator's account AND the GOOD SCIENCE that embraces the effects of 2LOT EVEN in biological systems - as does Asimov.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

I'll just repost the same reply here. I do not see the need for a different reply. It still boils down to Bob attempting to put a non-technical account intended for a lay audience as more important and correct than the actual statement from a textbook on the subject.

---------------------

Let's see if we can recap this whole entropy thread. First you proposed that the 2LOT denies the posibility of evolution having happened. I point out to you that entropy is a quite complex concept and that scientists typically try and relate it to everyday things when trying to explain it to a lay person. You reassert the popular account. This goes on for a while. Finally, I give you the actual statement of the second law of thermodynamics

"No apparatus can operate in such a way that its only effect is to convert heat absorbed by a system completely into work."

from Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, Smith and Van Ness, 4th Edition, 1987

I ask you to apply the actual statement to evolution. You reassert that popular explanation for a lay audience. So I then explain what entropy actually is.

"Let's look at what entropy is. Heat is considered a very poor form of energy as far as its ability to do work. Let's compare it to potential energy. If I take a 100 lb weight and lift it in the air, it has potential energy. With a rope and a pully, I could lift a weight nearly equal to the original 100 lb weight to the same height. THis is work and I can get nearly 100% of the potential energy recovered as work.

Now, if I take that same amount of energy, use it to heat water, and then try and recover that energy to do work. I will be able to recover only a small percentage of the energy stored as heat. Heat is a poor medium for energy. Some of the heat energy will be converted to a form of energy that cannot be recovered. This is known as entropy. The energy basically increases the disorder of the molecules of the system."

You reasert the popular generalization rather than a real statement. I do not see this ending. I'll take the time to respond to your latest posts though.

"Asimov has devastated your own case by admitting that 2LOT applies equally well to biological systems as to "cars"."

I have already stated that thermodynamics applies to every process in the universe. That includes biological life. So I have not said that thermo does not apply to life. What I have said is that you are misusing a common way of trying to explain entropy to those who do not have the proper background to understand it. You cannot substitute an attempt at analogy for the actual scientific statement just because you find it convenient.

"(But you pretend not to notice it - by avoiding critical thinking in this case.)"

I do not think that rebutting the improper use of a non-technical account intended to explain a concept to a lay audience with the actual science is a lack of critical thinking. I believe, in fact and in my humble opinion, that not being able to see the difference constitutes a lack of critical thinking on your part. I have laid that science out for you everal times and shown you why what you are attempting to do is invalid. But, since the real science is opposed to your point of view, you continue to return to what you think supports your position no matter what you have to ignore.

"(But you pretend not to notice it - by avoiding critical thinking in this case.)"

Who is ignoring the obvious? Go back and try and read the relevent posts with an objective eye.

"Mutations - are entirely possible in this everything driving to decay scenario of Asimov.

Beneficial mutations are possible in the sense that losing the ability to see is ok - if you live in a dark cave and eyes are more of a liability than a benefit in that case."

So you cannot show that beneficial mutations are prohibited by entropy. I see that you assert that this is so. But you allow for mutations. Since mutations are fairly random, what is it that says that the neutral or harmful mutations are allowed but not the beneficial ones? How do those chemicals know th difference? When that base pair is about to be substituted with a new base pair how does it decide in advance that if this mutation happens, it would be beneficial and not allowed by entropy? Assertions are great. Where are the facts?

You do not asnwer if natural selection is prohibited by entropy. I can only assume that this means that NS is possible. So, given that there is no way for those chemicals to know if a mutation is bad or not and that natural selection is a ral process, then you have no basis for stating "The molecule to man mythology clearly violates the "everthing drives towards decay" statement of Asimov regarding biological systems."

 

[New In Christ]

UTEOTW,

I have been reading (between buying and selling a house and moving) with some interest, the interchanges between you and BobRyan.

Given your rather ardent defense of evolution, for which I don't completely fault you, I'd like to know your opinion of the Bible. You addressed some of this in an earlier question of mine, but let me ask some more. Does your position make it easier or harder for you to place your faith in Jesus Christ? Or does it make any difference. Does your position ever cause you to doubt God altogether?

I'm not trying to lead you anywhere with this question, I'm genuinely curious as to how your position affects your view of God and His Word.

 

[BobRyan]

New,

UTEOTW has made it clear that the "fear" is that God's Word might some day be proven wrong by science (as if evolutionism is in fact science).

Your question (like Gup20's) to UTEOTW is how to bend the word of God to get "20 billion years" out of a single week of time. Your question asks how twisting and beding that word would/could possible "help faith".

However UTEOTW has made it clear (as has Paul of Eugene) that they view this as a compromise position "necessitated" by the fear that they have about evolutionism actually being true - since it so clearly and obviously contradicts the text of scripture.

The "solution" they choose is to undermine the text of Genesis hoping that by giving up some of the text to the Atheist evolutionists - they can spare the rest of the text (and hopefully the Gospel) -- so that Christian evolutionism is the "answer" to the challenge that evolution makes to the Creator's Genesis "account".

The Problem of course - is that this approach is taken "because" of evolutionism's doctrines and is taking IN SPITE of the doctrines of God's Word. The very notion of "Sacrificing" the Genesis text to the evolutionists - makes it clear from the start.

It is fascinating that neither Christian nor Atheist Evolutionist goes along with this kind of compromise since it is a marriage of two entities (the Creator to evolutionism's doctrines and myths) that can not be joined "logically" or with consistency.

Both Christians and Atheists see that.

Notice the text of Exodus 20:8-11 where God summarizes the Gen 1-2:4 "account" saying
"FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD made ... and RESTED the seventh DAY" and then in the same text, the same author says to the same audience (exegesis you know) "SIX days YOU shall.... and rest the Seventh day...".

This makes exact equivalence between the days "exegetically speaking".

Even our Hebrew scholars among the evolution-believing Orthodox Jews - concur that noting in the syntax, grammer, language of Exodus 20:8-11 allows for anything OTHER than "equivalence" between the days mentioned.

These are examples of the crosses our Christian evolutionist brethren have chosen to bear.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since you did not respond to the salient point of my post - I will just post it "Again".

Note the easy-to-read easy-to-understand obvious statement of Asimov..

Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.

How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."


[Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institution Journal (June 1970), p. 6 (emphasis added).]

Note that UTE"OTW must "pretend" that we CAN NOT see the obvious truth in Asimov's statement SINCE we are so confused by "the defintion of Entropy" in terms of equilibrium and lower states of energy for a molecule.

Note the repeated affirmatation that INDEED Asimov is "correct" and the link to biological systems that Asimov observes IS ALSO observed by us "everyday".

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] Asimov made it clear that this WAS a valid way of stating the 2nd law of thermodynamics AND that biological decay was a REAL example of the law in action.

You seem to "need" to say "oh no it is not".

Now the amazing thing is I use an Evolutionist like Asimov to SHOW that EVEN evolutionists are in agreement that the 2LOT applies to biological systems.

This is a level of objectivity that you have yet to show.

Can you show YEC's making your case for "biology being exempt from 2LOT and the priniciple of equilibrium"?

Clearly you can not.

And though you need to reject the devastating argument that Asimov's statement makes against your views here - you are at a loss to blame me for his wording - though you repeatedly try to do so.

AND trying to recontruct his statement to mean "This is NOT an example of 2LOT" has utterly failed you so far.

Better to just accept the Creator's account AND the GOOD SCIENCE that embraces the effects of 2LOT EVEN in biological systems - as does Asimov.

Note that our being able to fully embrace the obvious and logical evidence for entropy in biological systems - constitutes "good science" methods whereas having to "pretend" we just can't see it - is in fact "belief" in evolutionism eclipsing "good science".

Asimov's statement about entropy SEEN in biological systems "EVERY DAY" remains...

How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob answers UTEOTW about mutations and Natural Selection's tuataulogy as follows --

Mutations - are entirely possible in this everything driving to decay scenario of Asimov.

Beneficial mutations are possible in the sense that losing the ability to see is ok - if you live in a dark cave and eyes are more of a liability than a benefit in that case."

But UTEOTW (following the model with Asimov's clear statements - pretends not to get the point as in the following).

UTEOTW said --

So you cannot show that beneficial mutations are prohibited by entropy. I see that you assert that this is so. But you allow for mutations. Since mutations are fairly random, what is it that says that the neutral or harmful mutations are allowed but not the beneficial ones?

"Again" -- (sigh) pretending not to notice the example I gave of a successful mutation above - does not help your argument.

Nor will it convince the reader that your are being serious or objective. You seem to just be circling your wagons around a failed belief in evolutionism as IF it were "good science" when in fact it collapsed at the doorstep of entropy right out of the gate.

UTEOTW --
How do those chemicals know th difference?

This shows your "bad science approach" - here you ask "why does entropy work at the level of chemical reactions"?

How sad.

In the mean time - Asimov was right. NOT ONLY does it work at the chemical level - it also works at the level of biological systems.

UTEOTW
When that base pair is about to be substituted with a new base pair how does it decide in advance that if this mutation happens, it would be beneficial and not allowed by entropy?

37 Amino acid changes for the case of the Nylon bug - all needed to produce ONE LUCKY enzyme (as you would have it). Far more than a simple random "base pair change".

Bad science is in deed the hallmark of evolutionism.

"Again" pretending not to notice my response to mutations and to the tautaulogy of natural selection's "survival of the fittest" UTEOTW says

You do not asnwer if natural selection is prohibited by entropy.

I never denied the existence of poodles or of snow hares.

The question is whether evolutionists "Can" make the case of a wolf going UP the genetic "information" scale to the same degree that it goes "DOWN" the tree to get to a poodle.

It can not.

The point remains.

And yes - entropy applies at the chemical AND at the biological-system levels (for the same reasons that it applies at the molecular level as it turns out).

Good sciend and Good religion require that we just go on and accept the Creator's Account - and allow ourselves to "Admit" that entropy works as Asimov stated it...

How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."


In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

I do not see the sense in carrying forth the "discussion" of entropy with you. You clearly cannot, or more likely will not, tell the difference between an analogy written for a lay audience and the scientific meaning of entropy. I have explained exactly what entropy is. I have quoted you the three standard ways of stating the second law from a thermo text. I have repeatedly pointed out that the quote you are attempting to use as fact is merely the normal analogy drawn by those trying to explain entropy. if you do not see any of that, you never will. I am sure the readers of the thread can make the distinction, however.

I have told you that there is no chemical difference between a beneficial mutation and a harmful one so there is no way to have one without the other. You ignore this and assert that only beneficial ones are prohibited. No support given for this, but yet you still say I missed the salient point. I asked you how the difference is manifested at the chemical level to keep only one kind from happening and all you can do is assert that entropy works at the chemical level. When have I ever said that it did not ?!? I said, there is no difference in the chemistry that leads to a good mutation and what leads to a bad mutation. So there is no way to say that only one can happen. You even mistake a neutral mutation for a beneficial mutation in your example of fish in the dark losing their eyesight.

I guess I could go through a full theoretical derivation of entropy and the rules surrounding it. But I still do not think you would ever allow yourself to see the difference.

 

[UTEOTW]

NiC

I am preparing an answer for you. It is getting long, so it may be tomorrow before I get to finishing it. Please be patient.

 

[New In Christ]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
NiC

I am preparing an answer for you. It is getting long, so it may be tomorrow before I get to finishing it. Please be patient.

Thank you, UTEOTW. I would also be interested in reading responses from other old-earth advocates.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Asimov made it clear that this WAS a valid way of stating the 2nd law of thermodynamics AND that biological decay was a REAL example of the law in action.

You seem to "need" to say "oh no it is not".

Now the amazing thing is I use an Evolutionist like Asimov to SHOW that EVEN evolutionists are in agreement that the 2LOT applies to biological systems.

This is a level of objectivity that you have yet to show.

Can you show YEC's making your case for "biology being exempt from 2LOT and the priniciple of equilibrium"?

Clearly you can not.

And though you need to reject the devastating argument that Asimov's statement makes against your views here - you are at a loss to blame me for his wording - though you repeatedly try to do so.

AND trying to recontruct his statement to mean "This is NOT an example of 2LOT" has utterly failed you so far.

Better to just accept the Creator's account AND the GOOD SCIENCE that embraces the effects of 2LOT EVEN in biological systems - as does Asimov.

In Christ,

Bob

Bob - Isaac Asimov is on record as believing in evolution. He defended evolution as being consistent with his view of entropy.

You are merely playing word games.

The accumulation of some order over the vast periods of time involved in evolution, as represented by the new species that evolve, is trivial in comparison with the tremendous amount of disorder and disorganization represented by the death of every living creature in the lineage. Hence, disorganization outways organization, as required by 2lot. Hence no fundamental problems for evolution.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by New In Christ:
. . . I would also be interested in reading responses from other old-earth advocates.

Hey, thanks for the interest!

I've been a Christian since about age 8 or 9, also have a life-long interest in science.

Because I have a personal relationship with God and Christ, having seen His providential care and answers to prayer in instance after instance, my faith has survived through all the "challenges" represented by actually paying attention to the facts as well as the doctrines men have established concerning the Bible.

When I read the Bible, I read it with a view towards hearing God speak to me through the words on the page. But I don't hear God ONLY through the Bible. The Bible itself declares that the creation also speaks of the glory and majesty of God.

Genesis One doesn't literally explain the true age of the universe and doesn't literally explain the marvelous fact of common descent of all life from a common beginning. It is quite clear that the revelation of God is couched in phrases that the first audience could understand and transmit

As I read Genesis One, I see that the first of God's creation was - light. What a wonderful agreement with current cosmology! The echoes of that first light continue to shine in what we know as the cosmic background radiation.

We next that God created a great expanse that seperated the waters below from the waters above.

The ancients interpreted these words as meaning there was a great dome over the disk of the flat earth that held back water.

I see in this echoes of the idea that the universe at the very beginning had an inflationary period in which it was greatly expanded in an instant of time. If we interpret the "waters" in a non-literal fashion, we might be reminded of the great "sea" of space itself, and in the context of creation, we think the fact that space is in fact not merely a passive background but instead, at the quantum level, a seething irregular structure, with virtual particles constantly coming into being and dissapearing, sort of as how, on the surface of the ocean, waves constantly come and go . . .

Sure its not the literal meaning here, but so it speaks to me.

As for the rest of the days of creation and the things created therein, it works for me if I take a couple of steps:

a) Translate days into long periods of time.
Not the literal. I know that. Its a non-literal interpretation. and:

b) Divorce the days from being literally consecutive. Let them instead refer to the creation of the things they list being created as a catagory of creation, not necessarily in order.

Once again, I know that's not what is literally written, I am turning to a non-literal interpretation in order to have an interpretation that is consistent with reality.

Is this the kind of reply you were looking for?

 

[New In Christ]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

Is this the kind of reply you were looking for?

Sort of. But, as you read through the the non-creation portions of the Bible do you essentially take it for face value? Obviously, some things are figurative. But, I'm wondering if there is a tendency to understand in a non-literal way Biblical statements that don't square with current thinking?

I don't mean to accuse you or anyone else. I just wonder, for example, if the entire first few chapters of Genesis can be explained away in non-literal terms, why can we not do the same with the virgin birth of Christ? Why believe Jesus is God? Could that not also be explained away as some legend of the primitive early church? If so, we're left to extract some "truth" that "speaks to us" from a fable.

In fact, it seems that just about any doctrine or truth in the Word could be explained away in non-literal terms so as to render the doctrine moot.

Now, I realize the tenor of my above statements sounds accusatory. No such attitude is intended. I'm genuinely wanting to know how someone who holds to a non-literal Genesis account makes the transition to a literal acceptance of doctrinal statements.

Thank you for your response. I do appreciate it.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

I do not see the sense in carrying forth the "discussion" of entropy with you. You clearly cannot, or more likely will not, tell the difference between an analogy written for a lay audience and the scientific meaning of entropy.

The point remains as Asimov stated it "This IS what entropy is all about". HE selected the EXAMPLES of entropy in action - not me.

Your argument is with him.

However - even worse - in this case I AM quoting an evolutionist to make my case. I am the one being objective enough to use the OTHER side's prominent authors instead of my own.

You are in the sad position of having to undercut Asimov's EXAMPLES of entropy in action.

And what is your "excuse" for doing that to a member of your OWN side? Why it is nothing less than "pretend we can not work our way from entropy applied to molecules all the way to entroopy in action as Asimov observed it".

How silly.

Do you really think that is making your case?

Please be serious. Try to be at least as objective as I have been. Try getting a YEC to say that biological systems DO NOT exhibit the affects of entropy (as you seem to need to claim) and that Asimov is NOT giving valid examples of entropy in action.

It should be "easy" since they are on the opposite side of the fence from Asimov when it comes to evolutionism.

The fact is - my approach has been super-objective by comparison to the defensive - grasp-at-straws position you are taking in attacking Asimov's examples of entropy in action. You attack your own side when you do that.

How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."
[/i]

[Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institution Journal (June 1970), p. 6 (emphasis added).]

Clearly his statement applies entropy to biological systems EVEN to the point of saying "This is what the second law is all about"!

He could not have made the case any stronger.

Your need to refute his clear statement - is obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
I have quoted you the three standard ways of stating the second law from a thermo text.

Indeed you have - and I have repeatedly pointed out that when Asimov (an evolutionst remember) - says that the decay of biological systems is a perfect example of entropy in action - he is in 100% (dare I say 1000%) agreement with that statement.

I am actually arguing that this is a case where the evolutionist - Asimov is embracing "good science".

But I think you're having trouble with this level of objectivity.

UTEOTW
I have repeatedly pointed out that the quote you are attempting to use as fact is merely the normal analogy drawn by those trying to explain entropy.

Sadly - Asimov does not say "this is an analogy" as you seem to hope-upon-hope to find. Rather he gives this as examples of entropy in action - he claims that "this IS what the 2nd law is ALL about" - he claims that the 2nd law applies directly to houses, biology and machines. And obviously - he is correct.

Even I as a creationist - can admit that the evolutionist Asimov - is correct in that statement.

UTEOTW --
I am sure the readers of the thread can make the distinction, however.

Well we do agree on something when it comes to this topic!

I for one am glad to see it.

You are probably wondering how I can make this case so easily - the answer is that my views do not stop me from embracing critical thinking nor do they stop me from acknowledging the truth in what an opponent to the YEC truth says - so I am free to say that Asimov the evolutionist - is correct in giving the examples that he does - of entropy in action.

And he remains correct as he concludes of those examples "this is what the 2nd law is ALL about".

Good science - embracing the data. At least that much.

In Christ,

Bob