Entropy - "again"

BobRyan · Jul 12, 2003

Lets have another go at the "hard science" facts -vs the blatant mythologies of evolutionism.

Lets select as "the starting point" a large mass of hot gasses in our local area.

Lets suppose that evolutionism's (required) "self-organizing principle" is "in magical play" and that it results in a fully functioning complex "solar system" (given enough magic - time) resulting from the hot gas as it cools.

"our solar system" to be precise.

Let's "finally admit" that this is "UP". A step UP in organization such that some of the products (Human brain, space shuttle etc) are metrics for "how high is UP" from a hot sample of Gas.

This "metric" would place "UP" at an almost "infinite distance" from the "mean" - the hot sample of gas.

Challenge:
Where is the "corresponding" DOWN from the "mean" of "hot sample of gas"?

Experiment.

IF we take a sample of hot gas and let it cool in a test-tube to around -360 Kelvin - DOES a "human brain and space shuttle" pop out the other side of the experiment to balance that level of "DOWN"?

Some would suspect "not".

Is there a projected distance of "DOWN" from the MEAN (the hot sample of gas) that is equivalent to the "UP" metric -- human brain and its associated space shuttle?

Thoughts?

Bob

The Galatian · Jul 12, 2003

Lets have another go at the "hard science" facts -vs the blatant mythologies of evolutionism.

Lets select as "the starting point" a large mass of hot gasses in our local area
Click to expand...

(Barbarian's response deleted by Barbarian, for possibly excessive humor)

Lets suppose that evolutionism's (required) "self-organizing principle" is "in magical play"
Click to expand...

You've gone over to the Cartoon Theory of Evolution. Everyone here thinks that one is wrong. Can we get back to the real one, now?

(suggests that evolutionary theory is about complex systems coming from hot gas in a tube.)

Yep. Cartoon Theory.

Helen · Jul 12, 2003

You know, Galatian, I keep seeing you accusing people of promoting your 'cartoon theory' of evolution, but I never see you add to your posts what the 'real' one is as a point of contrast. If you want people to understand what you are talking about, you really ought to tell them.

Peter101 · Jul 12, 2003

>>>>>>IF we take a sample of hot gas and let it cool in a test-tube to around -360 Kelvin - DOES a "human brain and space shuttle" pop out the other side of the experiment to balance that level of "DOWN"?<<<<<<

Is the above more unreasonable than having a human body being made instantaneously from the dust of the earth? At least evolution has the advantage of a substantial amount of time.

UTEOTW · Jul 12, 2003

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Lets have another go at the "hard science" facts -vs the blatant mythologies of evolutionism.

Lets select as "the starting point" a large mass of hot gasses in our local area.
Click to expand...

Your strawman is wrong right from its first assumption. Molecular clouds are cold. (Oooh, a creationist making an assuption, I thought only evolutionists did that.)

Do you have any actual science? To be on topic, maybe how a collapsing molecular cloud violates 2LOT.

Paul of Eugene · Jul 12, 2003

Basically, the starting point of this topic is a statement to the affect that the writer doesn't believe it happened the way science says it happened. The fact that the writer got a minor detail wrong here and there is irrelevant. What matters is - the statement is not news. We all knew that already. And there is no substance in the statement other than the bald assertion anyway.

BobRyan · Jul 12, 2003

Bob
IF we take a sample of hot gas and let it cool in a test-tube to around -360 Kelvin - DOES a "human brain and space shuttle" pop out the other side of the experiment to balance that level of "DOWN"?

Peter responds -

Is the above more unreasonable than having a human body being made instantaneously from the dust of the earth? At least evolution has the advantage of a substantial amount of time.
Click to expand...

I like your posts Peter.

The one above is almost in the form of a "confession".

You do InDEED need that space shuttle and human brain to "pop out the other side of that cooling esxperiment" and the Creation model is that only an infinite God can do that.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Jul 12, 2003

Paul
Basically, the starting point of this topic is a statement to the affect that the writer doesn't believe it happened the way science says it happened. The fact that the writer got a minor detail wrong here and there is irrelevant. What matters is - the statement is not news. We all knew that already. And there is no substance in the statement other than the bald assertion anyway.
Click to expand...

This is how the Creationist "knows" they are touching a never with their evolutionist friends. The Evolutionist is trying to "run out of the room".

Just as we see with the Abiogenesis "don't test that in the lab and then say that the self-organizing principle fails for evolutionisms myths as soon as you can test one".

Here we have ANOTHER the IRON CLAD testable point because the HOT GASES ARE available in the LAB.

Each time the theory is subject to a verifiable test - the evolutionist runs out of the room and slams the door.

What is up with that?

Now please - just be objective and reasonable - and address the point.

Surely you understand entropy don't you?

And surely you "can tell if the human brain and a space shuttle are MORE organization than a hot mass of gas" correct?

Or do you want to dispute THAT PART of the obvious - simple - objective "test"?

Lets just move through these easy points and SHOW how your model will work here.

I know how the SCIENCE will work - but what about evolutionism's mythologies? How will they fare in this "test"?

Will it be the same way they failed in the abiogenesis "test"?

Bob

BobRyan · Jul 12, 2003

UTEOW
Your strawman is wrong right from its first assumption. Molecular clouds are cold. (Oooh, a creationist making an assuption, I thought only evolutionists did that.)
Click to expand...

You just took the ONLY leverage you had "away".

NOW you have to define "DOWN" from a "COLD mass of gas" that is as FAR DOWN as the Human brain and the space shuttle are UP.

NOW when we go to the LAB instead of COOLING the hot gas - we must simply START with COLD gas and "find a DOWN that is equidistant to the UP of a SPACE shuttle and human brain FROM that COLD gas Mean".

You have sought to "obfuscate" the point - and only succeeded in further reducing your ability "define the metric for DOWN" that would compensate for your magical "self-organizing" principle of gas masses.

Bob

BobRyan · Jul 12, 2003

Galation -
You've gone over to the Cartoon Theory of Evolution. Everyone here thinks that one is wrong. Can we get back to the real one, now?
Click to expand...

That is an "answer"??

Galation - your post is just too good!

Thanks.

Bob

The Galatian · Jul 12, 2003

Yes, that's the answer. You're arguing against a strawman.

If you'd like to take a bit to learn what the theory of evolution is about, start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Yes, if you want to understand what modern evolutionary theory is about, you will have to read it all.

It's a couple of pages, with appendices. You might not read it anyway, but as long as you're ignorant of what it actually is about, you're swinging in the dark.

BobRyan · Jul 12, 2003

Read carefully and objectively your link amounts to "a confession" when it comes to macroevolution.

However as embarrassing as that "confession" may be -- it does nothing to address the point of this thread NOR does it really add anything (but more embarrassing holes for evolutionism).

In an effort to humor you I will offer this one off-topic quote from your link.

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. ...

The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. ..So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool.
...

Evolution can be divided into microevolution and macroevolution.

(the form that THIS forum debates is ALWAYS macroevolution. The Obfuscation attempted by evolutionists is to TOSS IN common mutation within a kind - microevolution AS IF these are the SAME thing).

The kind of evolution documented above is microevolution.

(common mutation accepted by BOTH Creationist and Evolutionist and NOT the salient DISTINCTIVE of Evolutionism)

Larger changes, such as when a new species is formed, are called macroevolution. Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change. Others think the distinction between the two is arbitrary -- macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.

(They are of course FREE to think differently since macroevolution is NOT observable and they "hope" not testable)

The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called evolution

(But would do NOTHING to establish the salient DISTINCTIVES of the claims of evolutionism from creaationism since BOTH agree that parents have children.)

...

Microevolution can be studied directly. Macroevolution cannot. Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern. Given the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old -- macroevolution could be postulated. But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today.

(A better confession could hardly composed for us.).
Click to expand...

The "confession" above is in two parts.

A. That "Evolution" is a term used by Evolutionist to MASK two different ideas. The benign fact of descent with modification from a parent (as in Dog breeds) is NOT true evolution in terms of the salient points of the argument give as DISTINCTIVES from Creationism.

However it serves evolutionists to continually obfuscate the discission with that switch in terminology.

B. Macro evolution IS NOT the same as microevolution and IS NOT observable.

Now BACK to our study of Entropy.

Our evolutionist friends "require" the organizing principle that brings us "from hot gas to space shuttle" while PRESERVING the hard science observation in impirical data SHOWING entropy to be a TESTABLE fact of science.

So the question remains (the obfuscation attempts of Galation not withstanding) WHAT is the metric for "DOWN" the scale of organization from the MEAN of the gas - that compensates for the equidistant METRIC of UP off of that same MEAN that we have in the form of human brains and space shuttles?

Still no "answer"?? Or do we need to go back and talk about why microevolution is not macroevolution again?

Bob

The Galatian · Jul 12, 2003

Well, Bob, it looks like you just don't want to accept what it says, so you did a little selective quoting to make it appear that it said something else. Good creationist thinking, that.

However, if you do want to get to entropy of a gas...

Finding the entropy is statistical. If you have event a, with probabilty P, then the entropy is

H(A) = -k log p(a) H(A) being the entropy of the system. If all states of all elements in the system are the same then the entropy would, of course be 0.0.

This is the Boltzmann equation, which is useful for things like disorder. Thermodynamic entropy, of course, is merely the amount of heat no longer available to do useful work. I'm pretty sure you want the Boltzmann constant, but if not, let me know.

I'm kinda interested where you're going to go from here, with regard to thermodynamics. Again, there is no "up" or "down" in thermodynamics, but you can use order and disorder. The first thing you need to do is consider the equation, and decide if all the molecules of gas are evenly distributed through space and have the same energy, is that high order, or high disorder.

Then we can talk about what Boltzmann's equation means from there.

Tell us about it. (BTW, did you know Boltzman was a supporter of Darwin? Maybe he knew something um?)

BobRyan · Jul 12, 2003

I am actually going to stay with "the cold cloud" as the "MEAN" for Boltzman and Lord Kelvin.

I am going to STICK WITH the Isaac on this one

"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).]

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of available work you can get out of the energy of the universe is constantly decreasing. If you have a great deal of energy in one place, a large intensity of it, so that you have a high temperature here and a low temperature there, then you can get work out of that situation. The smaller the difference in temperature, the less work you can get out of it. Now, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there is always a tendency for the hot areas to cool off and the cool areas to warm up -- so that less and less work can be obtained out of it. Until finally, when everything is one temperature, you cannot get any work out of it, even though all the energy is still there. And this is true for EVERYTHING in general, the universe all over."

[Isaac Asimov in The Origin of the Universe in the ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be video series
Click to expand...

My point is that YOUR starting point is a large mass of gass in our local area. You have UP defined as a metric measured by the fact of the human brain and the space shuttle on the one hand and you now need a "DOWN" so that total entropy of the system is "zero".

The sources you gave "needed the SUN" to create an OPEN system on earth. But when we start with the entire gas mass that formed our solar system WE HAVE THE SUN INCLUDED and need "Net Zero".

It is purely and organization and order problem that even Isaac could "see from a distance".

So I am still waiting for your answer - where is "down" from a mass of gas such that you have the balance needed for a "net zero"?

Still waiting.

What? No answer?

Bob

The Galatian · Jul 12, 2003

In other words, you have no idea of entropy. It's just a word that sounds impressive to you.

How do we get such enerby from a cloud? Gravitational collapse. We can see it happening, thanks to the Hubble telescope. Clouds of gas and dust collapse, and out of those clouds, new stars form.

http://www.windowatch.com/2002/images/laulicht/hubble8_5_6.jpg

Paul of Eugene · Jul 13, 2003

BobRyan . . . "up" and "down" aren't sensible terms to use in this discussion. I choose to use "order" and "disorder" instead.

Asimov was a brilliant writer and an evolutionist to boot. He did not think at all he was posting an insurmountable problem for evolution when he penned what you quoted.

The key is that the order can come about when there is a source of energy. If that source of energy is long lasting and constant, with a convenient drain on the energy also, then patterns will emerge in the dissapation of the energy. This is a form of order. That is inevitable. Where conditions permit, the patterns can become more and more complex. They may even become self sustaining and thereby subject to selective evolution.

That is what happened and you have left that part out in all your scenarios mentioned so far.

UTEOTW · Jul 14, 2003

Originally posted by BobRyan:

Click to expand...

Laugh all you want... You started out with the wrong premise and you did nothing to get any better as you went.

NOW you have to define "DOWN" from a "COLD mass of gas" that is as FAR DOWN as the Human brain and the space shuttle are UP.
Click to expand...

Would you mind explaining this one. I have had a little bit of thermodynamics training to get my degree and I do not know what you mean. Details please.

NOW when we go to the LAB instead of COOLING the hot gas - we must simply START with COLD gas and "find a DOWN that is equidistant to the UP of a SPACE shuttle and human brain FROM that COLD gas Mean".
Click to expand...

Which lab have we been able to collapse a molecular cloud sized lump of gas?

As the cold molecular cloud starts to collapse, there is a tremendous amount of potential energy that is released. In fact, one of the problems a molecular cloud must overcome as it collapses is to shed itself of this extra heat to allow the collapse to continue. Once you get a protostar fromed, it begins to release more heat from gravitational collapse. Eventually the heat and pressure in the center of the protstar are sufficent to ignite fusion. The protostar continues to collapse and increase its rate of fusion until the energy created in its core is sufficient to balance the force of gravity and it stps collapsing. Now there is a huge amount of fusion energy from the star. I have all the energy I need to make humans and brains and space shuttles.

I am waiting for you to present that lab where we collapsed a molecular cloud. I still feel you were arguing against a strawman. (And one based on a false premise to begin.) In the laboratory of space we can see clouds in every conceivable state of collapse, if you are interested.

BobRyan · Jul 14, 2003

Paul --
BobRyan . . . "up" and "down" aren't sensible terms to use in this discussion. I choose to use "order" and "disorder" instead.

Asimov was a brilliant writer and an evolutionist to boot. He did not think at all he was posting an insurmountable problem for evolution when he penned what you quoted.

The key is that the order can come about when there is a source of energy. If that source of energy is long lasting and constant, with a convenient drain on the energy also, then patterns will emerge in the dissapation of the energy. This is a form of order. That is inevitable. Where conditions permit, the patterns can become more and more complex. They may even become self sustaining and thereby subject to selective evolution.

That is what happened and you have left that part out in all your scenarios mentioned so far.
Click to expand...

"Nice" but it does not work with the hot gas sitting in our local area of space.

There is just no way to "get the brain and a space shuttle" to pop out of that gas in a true model of "entropy".

No amount of "disorder" from the "mean of the gas" can account for the "order" of the human brain and space shuttles popping out the other side.

Period.

As for Asimov being "your friend" and being the "friend of evolutionism" - I don't doubt it. He is simply admitting to the obvious in this case - a huge problem for evolutionism.

Bob

BobRyan · Jul 14, 2003

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW when we go to the LAB instead of COOLING the hot gas - we must simply START with COLD gas and "find a DOWN that is equidistant to the UP of a SPACE shuttle and human brain FROM that COLD gas Mean".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which lab have we been able to collapse a molecular cloud sized lump of gas?

As the cold molecular cloud starts to collapse, there is a tremendous amount of potential energy that is released. In fact, one of the problems a molecular cloud must overcome as it collapses is to shed itself of this extra heat to allow the collapse to continue. Once you get a protostar fromed, it begins to release more heat from gravitational collapse. Eventually the heat and pressure in the center of the protstar are sufficent to ignite fusion. The protostar continues to collapse and increase its rate of fusion until the energy created in its core is sufficient to balance the force of gravity and it stps collapsing. Now there is a huge amount of fusion energy from the star. I have all the energy I need to make humans and brains and space shuttles.

I am waiting for you to present that lab where we collapsed a molecular cloud. I still feel you were arguing against a strawman. (And one based on a false premise to begin.) In the laboratory of space we can see clouds in every conceivable state of collapse, if you are interested.
Click to expand...

Energy "created"??? Tell me you "didn't say" Energy "created"!!

Ok so "energy RELEASED" -- ahh much better my friend.

However - the problem remains "the same". You have NO "Down", no level of "disorder" to account for EITHER the formation of a solar SYSTEM or the self-organizing principle for creating a human brain, or the self organizing principle to created the simplest little single cell - .

There is no "DOWN" from your "mean" (lots o cold gas) from to which you can descend and thus get "net zero" entropy. Obviously.

Bob

UTEOTW · Jul 14, 2003

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Energy "created"??? Tell me you "didn't say" Energy "created"!!

Ok so "energy RELEASED" -- ahh much better my friend.
Click to expand...

Have you never heard of Einstein? You can convert a small amount of mass into a very large amount of energy. I would tend towards calling it "creating" energy rather than "releasing" energy because I tend to think of "released" energy as having been stored in some form, say chemical energy or potential energy. In fusion (and fission for that matter) you actually create energy from mass. To be specific for small stars, like our sun: ( http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pages/2.TwoFusionReactions.html )

Known as the proton-proton chain, the reaction process depicted above is the dominant fusion mechanism in light stars, including our sun. (In heavier stars, a more complicated process known as the carbon cycle predominates.) In the P-P chain, two pairs of protons fuse, forming two deuterons. Each deuteron fuses with an additional proton to form helium-3. The two helium-3 nuclei which then fuse to create beryllium-6, which is unstable and disintegrates into two protons plus a helium-4 (alpha particle). In addition, the process releases two neutrinos, two positrons, and gamma rays. The positrons annihilate quickly with electrons in the plasma, releasing additional energy in the form of gamma rays. The neutrinos interact so weakly that they fly right out of the sun immediately.
Click to expand...

Entropy - "again"

BobRyan Well-Known Member

The Galatian Active Member

Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

Peter101 New Member

UTEOTW New Member

Paul of Eugene New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

The Galatian Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

The Galatian Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

The Galatian Active Member

Paul of Eugene New Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

Useful Searches

Entropy - "again"

BobRyan Well-Known Member

The Galatian Active Member

Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

Peter101 New Member

UTEOTW New Member

Paul of Eugene New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

The Galatian Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

The Galatian Active Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

The Galatian Active Member

Paul of Eugene New Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member