Evolutionism's appeal to junk science

[john6:63]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Do you think we should just give our kids a Bible and let them figure it out on their own? Do you want your kid's English teacher to just give them a copy of Hamlet and not discuss it with them afterwards? DO you want your kinds to just memorize dates in history or do you want them to learn what effect the past has had on the present and why things happened the way they did?

You’re setting up a straw man. The Bible says through the many different writers who were moved by the Holy Spirit as they penned the words that God CANNOT lie; therefore I don’t need a philosopher of evolution to tell me how I should interpret the Bible when it’s in direct contraction to Gods Word. I rely solely upon the Holy Spirit as my teacher. Even my preacher in our pulpit of my Church isn’t my final authority.

 

[Charles Meadows]

"I rely solely upon the Holy Spirit as my teacher. Even my preacher in our pulpit of my Church isn’t my final authority."

No one will argue with this. But don't start expounding on thermodynamics or carbon 14 if you don't have expertise in those things.

You'll that most of us here who are OEC don't dispute one who believes the bible - but rather one who BECAUSE of his/her belief chooses to distort the science behind the question.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

God allows men to learn from nature as well as from the Bible. Man shall live by EVERY WORD that procedes from the mouth of god and not by bread alone; God placed the lights in the sky for signs, for example. Are we to ignore what the signs tell us? They tell us that millions of years ago, the stars were already there.

 

[UTEOTW]

Not a strawman. You said that we just give the students the data and let them decide for themselves. I am pointing out that you would not advocate this for any other subject. I am also pointing out that you are not addressing the data yourself. You claim interpreation is the problem yet you cannot offer a logical criticism of the interpretation nor a better interpretation.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
No one will argue with this. But don't start expounding on thermodynamics or carbon 14 if you don't have expertise in those things.

No, I don’t have expertise in these things, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn express last night and do personally know a number of Geologists who have specifically told me that applying the proper corrections as with carbon 14 dating or any other dating method you will NOT get millions of years.

So it's now up to me to decide who's right and who has the hidden agenda.

 

[UTEOTW]

They are correct. C14 will not give you millions of years. It is only good up to about 50,000 years, plus or minus a fairly wide margin depending on the sample. Any older and you will get an age indication of about 50,000 years, again depending on if the sample contains carbon and the history of the sample. This is one reason why it was so dishonest for the RATE group to submit a diamond for dating and claim there was a problem with the method when the age came back to be 57000 years. With background radiation constantly making a little C14 in the diamond, all they did was measure the background radiation and reported that as ana ge.

 

[UTEOTW]

Let's give one more example.

http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/pdf_dl/book/resource.PDF

5) Reports to the Fourth Lunar Science Conference included information that the moon has relatively abundant amounts of the short-lived radioisotopes Uranium-236 and Thorium-230. If the moon was billions of years old, as evolution demands, these isotopes would have long since decayed and disappeared. Their presence today indicates a young age for the moon. R.L. Wysong, "The Creation-Evolution
Controversy", Inquiry Press: Midlands (Mississippi), 1976 p: p:177-178

Thorium-230 is part of the decay series of uranium-238 and will be continuously created as long as U238 is there. And U-238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years, so it will take a while for it to run out.

"U-236 is rare but is produced by nuclear reactions in some uranium ores where sufficient slow neutrons are available." Dalrymple, G. Brent. 1991. The Age of the Earth Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 474 pages

Should they have been aware of these things before they made such a claim?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said "Well ASIMOV says it is "molecule-to-human-brain" evolution since it NEEDS us to see MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy rather than the INCREASE that HE sas we SEE."

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Yes, well and I assert that local decreases in entropy are allowed and that small, local decreases, such as we observe everyday, are sufficient in aggregate for whatever minor decreases in entropy is needed to evolve a human.

Yes. Clearly you do assert that what we SEE at the local level of human biology is local DECREASE and that this simply continues to aggregate until we get "massive decrease" as needed by Evolutionism.

Now lets compare that "anti-Asimov" argument of yours to what Asimov SAYS we SEE.

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).]

Oops! There it is "again"!!

There the blatant contradiction is between what you say we SEE and what Asimov says we SEE.

There is the contradiction between the INCREASED entropy that "is what the 2nd law is all about" at the LOCAL level of human biology - vs -- what you "needed" to see.

Hmm it was just as obvious this time around as last time!!

Imagine that!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW said --
The fact remain that you can find no fault with this logic.

IF we "pretend" to ingore that I have SHOWN you to directly contradict Asimov when he states what we SEE at the local level-- then maybe our minds would be clouded enough to swallow your statement above.

Sound familiar??

UTEOTW
Nor can you you actually tell us what the consequences are of your supposed problem.

I have SHOWN that MASSIVE decrease is not the result of the daily INCREASE that ASIMOV correctly said that we actually see..

How obvious is that??

UTEOTW
You assert that there is a problem yet you have no idea what the consequences are of that problem or you would have told us by now.

Been there.

Did that.

I show NOT only that your aggregated INCREASE that Asimov SEES in local biologicaly systems does not "Result in MASSIVE DECREASE" (obviously) I ALSO gave you Dr. A.T Suzuki's summary of the same (Physicist).

Please pay attention to the details.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

So you deny that local decreases are possible? Straight up. No word games.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW said
Furthermore, you are forced into selectively using only part of your Asimov quote because if you use the full quote, he tells you why entropy is not a problem for evolution. You put him up as your expert but then dismiss half of his statement. You have to decide whether you think he is an expert or not.

Wrong as usual on this thread - UTEOTW.

#1. I hold Asimov up as YOUR expert. You know - ATHEIST and EVOLUTIONIST - how much higher could I go??

You have yet to even approach that level of objectivity -- I use YOUR sources not mine.


#2. Asimov ADMITS to the very thing you DENY - that we SEE in the local system - INCREASED entroyp in "everything" and that this force pushing for decay and disorder "is what entropy is ALL about".

I could not BE any worse for your beliefs.

#3. Asimov THEN SHOWS us that as a true atheist evolutionist he is forced to embrace the contradiction and HOPE that the sun shine would have ALLOWED him to observe DECREASE - though he only claims to observe INCREASE entropy in EVERYTHING.

hmm. there it is "again".

Just as "obvious" as it was the "first 20 times I mentioned it".

Wow -- how amazing!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
Besides, even in y=the part of the quote you do provide, he gives you the answer as has been pointed out. You refuse to accept that Asimov is drawing an analogy. The same analogy that most people use when trying to explain entropy. I have told you myself how I wish the analogy would not be drawn.

Nice story but "wrong again".

Notice that Asimov does NOT frame his statement in the form of an analogy. INSTEAD of saying "entropy IS LIKE a fish trying to swim up stream but always losing ground bit by bit" or something like that -- Asimov states that there are many legitimate ways to STATE the 2nd law and that ONE way is in terms of disorder and decay AND that the decay we SEE in the local system IS DUE to the entropy IN THE LOCAL system.

This is so "far" from the analogy "wishful blue-sky revisionism" that you are practicing it is not funny.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"Wrong as usual on this thread - UTEOTW.

#1. I hold Asimov up as YOUR expert. You know - ATHEIST and EVOLUTIONIST - how much higher could I go??"

You hold up Asimov's analogy as an authoritaritive opinion higher than that of textbooks on the subject but then you ignore the part where he tells you why entropy is not a problem and the part where he says local decreases are possible.

So, straight up and direct, are local decreases in entropy allowed?

 

[UTEOTW]

"Nice story but "wrong again".

Notice that Asimov does NOT frame his statement in the form of an analogy. INSTEAD of saying "entropy IS LIKE a fish trying to swim up stream but always losing ground bit by bit" or something like that -- Asimov states that there are many legitimate ways to STATE the 2nd law and that ONE way is in terms of disorder and decay AND that the decay we SEE in the local system IS DUE to the entropy IN THE LOCAL system.
"

It is an analogy. You have been shown the direct statements of entropy from textbooks on the subject yet you refer to the part of an analogy you happen to like from a science fiction writer, ignoring the rest of his statement, as being more reliable than texts on the subject.

You also ignore this expalanation.

http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/Oct/abs1385.html

The dealer shuffling cards in Monte Carlo or Las Vegas, the professor who mixes the papers and books on a desk, the student who tosses clothing about his or her room, the fuel for the huge cranes and trucks that would be necessary to move the nonbonded stones of the Great Pyramid of Cheops all across Egypteach undergoes physical, thermodynamic entropy increase in these specific processes. The thermodynamic entropy change from human-defined order to disorder in the giant Egyptian stones themselves, in the clothing and books in a room or papers on a desk, and in the millions of cards in the world's casinos is precisely the same: Zero.
...
If one wishes to substantiate a claim or a guess that some particular process involves a change of thermodynamic or statistical entropy, one should ask oneself whether there exists a reversible heat effect, or a change in the number of accessible energy eigenstates, pertaining to the process in question. If not, there has been no change of physical entropy (even though there may have been some change in our "information").

Thus, simply changing the location of everyday macro objects from an arrangement that we commonly judge as orderly (relatively singular) to one that appears disorderly (relatively probable) is a "zero change" in the thermodynamic entropy of the objects because the number of accessible energetic microstates in any of them has not been changed. Finally, although it may appear obvious, a collection of ordinary macro things does not constitute a thermodynamic system as does a group of microparticles. The crucial difference is that such things are not ceaselessly colliding and exchanging energy under the thermal dominance of their environment as are microparticles.

So tell me, are local decreases in entropy allowed or not?

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
I have given you actual statements of the second law from a thermo text.

Indeed you have and in that you have stated the truth. One bit of good science in a sea of junk science appeals for evolutionism.

UTEOTW
I have explained entropy in detail in a way that avoids the analogy.

Sadly - you failed there because Asimov did not use an analogy AND as Dr. Suziki points out (When I asked him to look at your attempts to confine the principle so you could image massive decrease is what we see ) - your wooden restriction is not valid for entropy.

As Asimov said "the 2nd law applies to EVERYTHING". HE said that a legitimate accurate way to state the principle is in terms of disorder and decay. And that the disorder we SEE is due to entropy in FACT it is "What the 2nd law is ALL about".

Impossible to miss.

UTEOTW

(BTW, you said in the other thread that you studied engineeering. As a fellow engineer, what branch is your degree in? Mine, ChE, U. of Bama, 1995.)

Engineering Computer Science. (which just means a lot of calculus, chemistry and physics in addition to the normal EE and software courses)

UTEOTW
I have given you a long article from a group of chemists that also calls for not using the analogy and gives a very good reason for why as they explain what entropy is.

I have never questioned your need to avoid, ignore, debate and refute the statements of the evolutionists atheist - Isaac Asimov as he admitted to the most obvious and damaging truths seen in "good science".

Dr. A.T. Suzuki notes UTEOTW’s proposal and offers this response –

However, evolutionists typically miss out a very important point: his formulation of thermal energy is also applicable to any other type or kind of energy in the universe: it is not confined to thermal energy only.

That is why Asimov can say "ANOTHER WAY TO state the 2nd law" and be 100% correct. It is a principle that applies to all energy systems.

Any exchange of energy with work done or received by the system follows the same law. There is no exception to this.

Asimov's quotation is quite plain and cannot be misunderstood: It is a fact of life. It is good science. It refutes the junk science so necessary to evolutionism.

Everything we know about in our daily experience gets deteriorated, and this has to do with dynamic time evolution (nothing whatsoever related to the word evolution in the sense of evolutionism; it is the standard way physicists describe how a given system behaves or "evolves" in time, that is, how it changes as time goes on) of any system, be it physical, biological, chemical or any other system wherein some kind of energy exchange gets into playing a key part.

And no matter what system we are talking about, or what kind or type of energy we are dealing with, all the natural processes (that is, processes in nature that are spontaneous) tend to a state of the lowest energy configuration possible.

It so happens that this state of lowest energy configuration corresponds to the maximum entropy for the system, and therefore whenever a complex system, built on lots of external energy input to maintain itself loses the ability or capacity or possibility to exchange the needed energy, it goes down to deterioration, to breaking down to its more fundamental level energy configuration states and so on.

All types of energy, be it thermal or chemical or electric or nuclear or kinetic or potential or whatever kind it may be cannot be all converted into work, that is, there is a constant "wearing out", a loss of availability to do useful work which cannot be recovered in any way for that particular process going on.

That is the second law of thermodynamics. And Asimov is quite correct when he says "it applies to everything" -- "everything" is driven to decay an disorder.

The point is that evolutionism assumes that there can be a natural process (spontaneous process) wherein a highly energetic, organized system can arise from a state of low energy state configuration. And that is violation of the second law.

Hmm - molecule-to-brain evolution requiring a MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy??

Who would have guessed??

No wonder Richard Dawkings calls it "Climbing mount IMprobable"

The appeal to junk science is overwhelming.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

I am glad to see that your new source denies that a plant can gather materials from the earth and grow since "a natural process (spontaneous process) wherein a highly energetic, organized system can arise from a state of low energy state configuration. And that is violation of the second law. "

And BTW, your source only said that entropy can be applied to other forms of energy. With this I agree. He said nothing about applying it to macro scales of order and disorder. As posted above, unless there has been "a change in the number of accessible energy eigenstates," you are not talking about thermodynamic entropy.

Now, are local decreases in entropy allowed?

 

[UTEOTW]

"The point is that evolutionism assumes that there can be a natural process (spontaneous process) wherein a highly energetic, organized system can arise from a state of low energy state configuration. And that is violation of the second law. "

Wow, so you are telling gme that just about everything I see is supernatural because it could not possibly happen through natural means? This will really change my paradigm on things. My supernatural trees. My supernatural grass. My supernatural truck. My supernatural pets.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Gina B]

So it's now up to me to decide who's right and who has the hidden agenda.

What's the hidden agenda, and who has it?
Gina

 

[BobRyan]

Local decreases in entropy can happen if you isolate the context so that it only covers some of the variables in the equation.

But notice what Asimov says. He does not argue "a glass of water can only get colder" RATHER he argues that we are to LOOK at LIVING biological SYSTEMS - human SYSTEM and there we will SEE the increase in entropy the INCREASE that " the SECOND law is ALL about" ... the INCREASE that "AFFECTS EVERYTHING" (Asimov's words).

Dr. Suzuki concurs with that statement that it affects everything EVEN living systems like plants, forests and humans, and non-living things like machines.

The principle of "efficiency loss" applies to everything at all levels -- YES at macro levels ... YES at micro levels.

But in the case of "MOLECULE-TO-HUMAN Brain" evolution (that Asimov addresses) it spans BOTH the MIRCO level AND the MACRO level AND needs "a massive DECREASE in entropy" for the "story" to be propped up.

(Even though we observe JUST what Asimov and Suzuki say we observe - LOCAL INCREASE in entropy. Loss of efficiency in ALL systems).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

OK. That is a step forward. Local decreases are possible.

Now, are local decreases possible in a biological setting?

"Dr. Suzuki concurs with that statement that it affects everything EVEN living systems like plants, forests and humans, and non-living things like machines."

Nope. If you are not talking about "a change in the number of accessible energy eigenstates," you are not talking about thermodynamic entropy. Although all these things are affected by thermodynamic entropy, it is a different thing that what you are talking about.