Errors in Science!

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Scott J:
ID doesn't require that science invoke religion nor the intangible.

We know that intelligence exists and that it can be creative. Further, we know that direct evidences for design point toward intelligence and not natural processes.

Why don't natural processes also point to intelligence?

I see intelligence in creation. While I have not given ID theory much study (I've only finished half of Darwin's Black Box), I am concerned that it appears to have a lot in common with much of the "pop-science" that is out there.

However, I reserve judgement on it.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Paul33:
GD,

You seem to be saying that evolution is science because it seeks natural causes whereas creation is not science because it depends on the supernatural.

Is that what you are saying?

Not at all.

I believe creation is both natural and supernatural and evolution describes the natural elements that were part of God's design like all the other natural parts of the universe that we now comprehend.

I believe the "Creation Science" that many Christians have bought into is not science because it uses supernatural explanations which may be right, but are metaphysical and not scientific.

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
that all things scientific must have a naturalistic explanation.

Yes, all things scientific must have a naturalistic explanation. However not all things can be correctly explained scientifically nor naturalistically.</font>[/QUOTE] This is a philosophical redefinition of science. Science is simply the methodology used for determining the truth about natural phenomena. It is not necessary to limit it to naturalism at all.

Like the Jesus' resurrection. Trying to scientifically or naturalistically explain the resurrection is a futile exercise because there is nothing scientific or natural about it. That doesn't mean it is false, just beyond the realm of science.

Again, the effects of intelligence are not beyond the realm of observation. You don't even have to name the creator in order to recognize and evaluate the design. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree Scott.

Except you don't have to limit science to an explantion of only natural phenomena. What about supernatural phenomena. If we were scientists living at the time of Jesus and had observed the resurrection, would that not be science? It isn't repeatable, but it is certainly historical. What would we conclude? Yep, something happened outside the realm of the "natural."

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Paul33:
I agree with the Big Bang theory in so far as it teaches that the universe had a beginning out of nothing (Hoyle).

Hoyle did not subscribe to the Big Bang. His Steady State Theory was largely refuted by the discovery of cosmic background radiation in 1965.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Paul33:
As to the Big Bang.

I agree with the Big Bang theory in so far as it teaches that the universe had a beginning out of nothing (Hoyle).

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:13 Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:24-25 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;

God is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, from all eternity to all eternity. He is an eternal being with no beginning and no end.

As you say the Big Bang speaks of an origin. The questions then I pose to you are thus:
1. What existed there before the Big Bang?
2. How did these things before the Big Bang happen come into existence?
3. Something started somewhere. Who or what started everything off? It wasn't the big bang, per se, because the elements thereof had to come from somewhere.
DHK

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Yes, .... all honestly done sciences assumes that no intelligent causes were involved.

You are mistaken. There is no reason to make such an assumption. In fact, I suspect that many of the monumental scientific discoveries were made as the result of belief in intelligent cause. All you need do is look at the web site I posted earlier.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-103.htm

 

[OldRegular]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that order cannot spontaneously arise out of disorder which is required for evolution to occur. Transition from a state of disorder to a state of order requires a decrease in entropy, again a violation of the Second Law. I will repeat some statements on the Second Law by noted scientists for your edification.

Rudolph Clausius, who developed the concept of Entropy, used the universe as his model when he drew the conclusions "the energy of the Universe is a constant, the Entropy of the Universe tends toward a maximum" [A Brief History of Eternity by Roy E. Peacock]. Thermodynamist Peacock notes [page 69]: "It is this pronouncement "the Entropy of the Universe tends to a maximum', that is of vital importance. In making it Clausius did not refer to individual processes taking place in the universe, neither did he consider different theories of its creation, evolution, and direction. He didn't need to. All that was necessary for his statement to hold true was that all processes should be irreversible.

Peacock also quotes [page 75] Sir Arthur Eddington, Professor of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge: "The law that entropy always increases - The second Law of Thermodynamics - holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observations - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope: there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

Harvard scientist John Ross, in a letter to Chemical and Engineering News [July 7, 1980], writes: "There are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second Law is stated for isolated systems, but the second Law applies equally well to open systems. . . There is somehow associated with the field of far from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of Thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."

Thermodymanicist Arnold Sommerfeld author of Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics [Academic Press, 1955] writes [page 155]: "The statement in integral form, namely that entropy in an isolated system cannot decrease, can be replaced by its corollary in differential form, which asserts that the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of whether the process under consideration is irreversible or not."

As to evolution:

There are at least three aspects or ways to express the Second Law:

1. As a measure of the increased unavailability of the energy of a system for useful work. [Classical Thermodynamics].
2. As a measure of the increased disorder, randomness, or probability of the arrangement of the components of the system. [Statistical Thermodynamics]
3. As a measure of the increasingly confused information in the transmission of the coded message through a system. [Informational thermodynamics]

 

[Deacon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that order cannot spontaneously arise out of disorder which is required for evolution to occur.

Better stick with what you know rather than arguing with someone elses arguments.

The 2nd law says nothing of the sort, as has been posted repeatedly!

THERMO = HEAT

DYNAMICS = CHANGE

It's most commonly stated as: "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."

I'm not an "evolutionist" however those that would argue the matter (and even those of us that understand just a bit about it), would say that energy does enter our worlds eco-system.

Rob

 

[TexasSky]

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not merely "Heat Change".

You are not defining the second law Rob, you are defining the term "thermodynamics." There is a tremendous difference in the 2nd law and in the category.

The 2nd Law states that energy moves from "heat to cold" always, unless outside pressure is applied to change the affect temporarily, and that the moment that temporary pressure is removed, it reverts to cold again.

Complex deteriorates to simple.

Why try to deny that?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Deacon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that order cannot spontaneously arise out of disorder which is required for evolution to occur.

Better stick with what you know rather than arguing with someone elses arguments.

The 2nd law says nothing of the sort, as has been posted repeatedly!

THERMO = HEAT

DYNAMICS = CHANGE

It's most commonly stated as: "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."

I'm not an "evolutionist" however those that would argue the matter (and even those of us that understand just a bit about it), would say that energy does enter our worlds eco-system.

Rob </font>[/QUOTE]Just who made you an expert on the 2nd Law?

You obviously did not read or did not understand what I posted, which was it?

Please note: Rudolph Clausius, who developed the concept of Entropy, used the universe as his model when he drew the conclusions "the energy of the Universe is a constant, the Entropy of the Universe tends toward a maximum" [A Brief History of Eternity by Roy E. Peacock].

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Deacon:
It's most commonly stated as: "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."Rob

I gave the source for some of my quotes could you give the source for the above or did you make it up?

 

[OldRegular]

The following is off topic but since the discussion of the Second Law and Entropy was introduced it is worthwhile to add a little light to the subject. In an earlier post I presented three ways that the Second Law could be expressed. The following paragraphs show the equivalence if these three statements.

In so-called Classical Thermodynamics, the Second Law , like the First, is formulated in terms of energy:

“It is in the transformation process that Nature appears to exact a penalty and this is here the second principle makes its appearance. For every naturally occurring transformation of energy is accompanied, somewhere, by a loss in the availability of energy for the future performance of work.” R. B. Lindsay. Entropy Consumption and Values in Physical Science, American Scientist, vol.47 [September 1959]. page 378; as quoted in The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 131, Volume 2.

A second way of stating the Entropy Law is in terms of Statistical Thermodynamics.

“All real processes go with an increase of entropy. The entropy also measures the randomness, or lack of orderliness of the system; the greater the randomness, the greater the entropy.” Harold Blum, Perspectives in Evolution, American Scientist [October 1955] page 595; as quoted in The Modern Creation Trilogy, pages 132, 133, Volume 2.

The equivalence of Entropy in the classical and statistical context is implied in the following:

“Each quantity of energy has a characteristic quality called entropy associated with it. The entropy measures the degree of disorder associated with the energy. Energy must always flow in such a direction that the entropy increases.” Freeman L. Dyson, Energy in the Universe, Scientific American, vol 224 [September 1971], page 52; as quoted in The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 134, Volume 2.

Similarly, the equivalence of these concepts with the information concept is recognized:

“It is certain that the conceptual connection between information and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is now firmly established.” Myron Tribus and Edward C. McIrvine. Energy and Information, Scientific American, vol 224 [September 1971], page 52; as quoted in The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 134, Volume 2.


Isaac Asimov confirms that all these different ways of looking at the Second Law are really equivalent to each other:

“That is one way [that is, decreasing availability of energy] of stating what is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is one of many ways; all of them are equivalent although some very sophisticated mathematics and physics are involved in showing the equivalence.” Asimov, In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics, page 8; as quoted in The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 135, Volume 2.

 

[Deacon]

Old Reg asked: "I gave the source for some of my quotes could you give the source for the above or did you make it up?"

Put it in quotes and "Google" it. You'll get a whole lot of sources.

Rob

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
I agree with the Big Bang theory in so far as it teaches that the universe had a beginning out of nothing (Hoyle).

Hoyle did not subscribe to the Big Bang. His Steady State Theory was largely refuted by the discovery of cosmic background radiation in 1965. </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't say he did. But in reference to the Big Bang, Hoyle said that "if we go far enough back into the past" we reach a point in time at which the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all" (Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology, 658).

That is creation ex nihilo or "infinite density" which means the same thing.

The truth is, Hoyle didn't like the implications of the Big Bang and proposed the Steady-State theory instead.

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
As to the Big Bang.

I agree with the Big Bang theory in so far as it teaches that the universe had a beginning out of nothing (Hoyle).

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:13 Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:24-25 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;

God is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, from all eternity to all eternity. He is an eternal being with no beginning and no end.

As you say the Big Bang speaks of an origin. The questions then I pose to you are thus:
1. What existed there before the Big Bang?
2. How did these things before the Big Bang happen come into existence?
3. Something started somewhere. Who or what started everything off? It wasn't the big bang, per se, because the elements thereof had to come from somewhere.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]God existed before the Big Bang.

God spoke the universe into existence. I believe Genesis 1:1 is a description of God creating a fully functioning universe out of nothing.

Genesis 1:2 is a description of the earth in that original creation.

Genesis 1:3ff is a description of God fashioning the earth's biosphere making it inhabitable for humanity.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I'm surprised that there aren't more engineers from the "Creation Science" camp that can see right through this abuse of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

An understanding of first year chemistry that every engineer must study and has nothing to do with the whole evolution/creation debate will reveal the flaws in trying to use the 2nd law of Thermodynamics to refute evolution or the Big Bang.

And yet AIG and ICR still continue to propogate this line. I really don't get it.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
I'm surprised that there aren't more engineers from the "Creation Science" camp that can see right through this abuse of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

An understanding of first year chemistry that every engineer must study and has nothing to do with the whole evolution/creation debate will reveal the flaws in trying to use the 2nd law of Thermodynamics to refute evolution or the Big Bang.

And yet AIG and ICR still continue to propogate this line. I really don't get it.

Is that a commentary on your inability to understand the Second Law?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Deacon:
Old Reg asked: "I gave the source for some of my quotes could you give the source for the above or did you make it up?"

Put it in quotes and "Google" it. You'll get a whole lot of sources.

Rob

Not for that definition. But you can prove I am wrong, or can you?

 

[OldRegular]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Paul33:

Originally posted by DHK:
[qb]

Originally posted by Paul33:
[qb] As to the Big Bang.

I agree with the Big Bang theory in so far as it teaches that the universe had a beginning out of nothing (Hoyle).
God existed before the Big Bang.


God spoke the universe into existence. I believe Genesis 1:1 is a description of God creating a fully functioning universe out of nothing.

Genesis 1:2 is a description of the earth in that original creation.

Genesis 1:3ff is a description of God fashioning the earth's biosphere making it inhabitable for humanity.

These two philosophies are contradictory one with the other. The Big Bang Theory theory is taught in school text books as factual to be the cause of the creation of all things.
On the other hand the Bible sets forth the claim that God himself created all things.
Either the universe arose out of the big bang or from God himself. You can't have both. Which is it?