IF evolution is true,

[HankD]

In addition, no one every seems to be able to point to anything specific that entropy prevent. It is all handwaving and assertions but nothing concrete.

From the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: en·tro·py
Function: noun
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary 2en- + Greek tropE change, literally, turn, from trepein to turn
1 : a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder and that is a property of the system's state and is related to it in such a manner that a reversible change in heat in the system produces a change in the measure which varies directly with the heat change and inversely with the absolute temperature at which the change takes place; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
2 a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder
3 : CHAOS, DISORGANIZATION, RANDOMNESS

It is not a specific but general contradiction of the theory of Evolution in that while Evolution is a trend to a higher more organised form from a lower, entropy is a "trend to disorder".

HankD

 

[OldRegular]

HankD

How about this idea with some adherents: The spontaneous creation of the universe from the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory! [page 206, Vol. 2 and page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]

I wonder from whence came the mathematics.

 

[HankD]

OR, I have yet to read the work.

HankD

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In addition, no one every seems to be able to point to anything specific that entropy prevent. It is all handwaving and assertions but nothing concrete.

From the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: en·tro·py
Function: noun
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary 2en- + Greek tropE change, literally, turn, from trepein to turn
1 : a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder and that is a property of the system's state and is related to it in such a manner that a reversible change in heat in the system produces a change in the measure which varies directly with the heat change and inversely with the absolute temperature at which the change takes place; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
2 a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder
3 : CHAOS, DISORGANIZATION, RANDOMNESS

It is not a specific but general contradiction of the theory of Evolution in that while Evolution is a trend to a higher more organised form from a lower, entropy is a "trend to disorder".

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]You are equivocating different meanings of the word disorder. It is a fallacy.

The disorder in thermodynamics is a measure of disorder in the arrangement of the individual molecules and bears no resemblance to what a lay person thinks of as disorder in a macro sense. This disorder can be described in a statistical sense. Here is how physicists Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the last century, described it.

So we now have to talk about what we mean by disorder and what we mean by order. ... Suppose we divide the space into little volume elements. If we have black and white molecules, how many ways could we distribute them among the volume elements so that white is on one side and black is on the other? On the other hand, how many ways could we distribute them with no restriction on which goes where? Clearly, there are many more ways to arrange them in the latter case. We measure "disorder" by the number of ways that the insides can be arranged, so that from the outside it looks the same. The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy. The number of ways in the separated case is less, so the entropy is less, or the "disorder" is less.

So, now that we see that what is meant by thermodynamic entropy is different than what you imply must happen for evolution to happen, the question remains, what is it that thermodynamic entropy is supposed to prevent from happening? You cannot rest on your general statement from the end of your post because you are mixing apples and oranges in an inappropriate way.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
HankD

How about this idea with some adherents: The spontaneous creation of the universe from the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory! [page 206, Vol. 2 and page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]

I wonder from whence came the mathematics.

God created the mathematics just as He created the physical laws which have governed the universe for the last 13.7 billion years just as He created the laws which have governed the evolution of life on this planet for the last 4 billion years.

Can you point out any flaws in quantum mechanics or relativity the precludes the inflationary theory of the cosmos? There might be a Nobel Prize in it for you if you can.

 

[HankD]

So, now that we see that what is meant by thermodynamic entropy is different than what you imply must happen for evolution to happen, the question remains, what is it that thermodynamic entropy is supposed to prevent from happening? You cannot rest on your general statement from the end of your post because you are mixing apples and oranges in an inappropriate way.

That is your opinion. You are the one who interpreted the meanings molding them into what you understand them to mean and then added the expression "in an inappropriate way" concerning my observation.

I made a general observation that within the general meaning of entropy (a trend to disorder) is the process of evolution (a process which is claimed to be the developing of higher forms, granted of higher forms of life, but nonetheless life whose constituent elements are within the influence of entropy - which indeed appears to have more convincing empirical evidence to support it then does evolution - IMO of course) from lower forms. In my opinion that appears to be contradictory.

That's all I said (although I didn't say the words IMO). I drew no conclusions and asserted nothing.

Personally, at this point in my life, I don't care for either theory and discount them both (each in a different way).But that's me not you.

I also reject as valid the view of TE which attempts IMO to meld the two.

FWIW, that does not mean that I reject you personally as a fellow child of God, neither do I consider you more or less spiritual than I, just one who holds different views concerning the methodologies of God concerning the origins of matter and life.

We probably won't ever agree this side of heaven.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

It won't matter then anyway.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Can you point out any flaws in quantum mechanics or relativity the precludes the inflationary theory of the cosmos? There might be a Nobel Prize in it for you if you can.

Now that's a challenge because these entities are moving targets with the changing of defintions, rules, etc.

For example String theory versus the Quantum view of gravity.

C is now considered by some to be a variable, etc.

HankD

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Can you point out any flaws in quantum mechanics or relativity the precludes the inflationary theory of the cosmos? There might be a Nobel Prize in it for you if you can.

You apparently misunderstood my post. I ask Hank:

How about this idea with some adherents: The spontaneous creation of the universe from the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory! [page 206, Vol. 2 and page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]

Did I say anything about the inflationary theory of the cosmos?

 

[OldRegular]

UTEOTW

Belief in evolution is not one of my strengths so perhaps you can answer this question for me: Does evolution require the addition of energy?

 

[UTEOTW]

"That is your opinion. You are the one who interpreted the meanings molding them into what you understand them to mean"

No opinion needed. The proper use of the term IS as I discribe.

"Now that's a challenge because these entities are moving targets with the changing of defintions, rules, etc."

Yes, all things in science are continually refined as more data comes in. That does not prevent you from critiquing the state of the art.

"For example String theory versus the Quantum view of gravity."

I am not sure there is a very good theory of quantum gravity.

Quantum mechanics does a very good job of describing how the universe behaves on the realm of the very small using the fundemental forces except gravity. Relativity is a theory of gravity that describes the very massive and the very large quite well. The thing is, they conflict when you have very massive objects that are very small.

This is why we have the search for a quantum theory of gravity, to merge the two. String theory seems to be one idea with a good shot at merging the two.

"C is now considered by some to be a variable, etc."

Again, trying to fit observations to theory. The best theory to explain the horizon and flatness problems is inflation. Some think that a higher lightspeed in the first moment of the universe could also explain these observations. The details of the predictions of each should allow it to be sorted out.

The question becomes, if there was no Big Bang, then how do you explain the observations that lead others to conclude inflation?

 

[UTEOTW]

"You apparently misunderstood my post. I ask Hank:

How about this idea with some adherents: The spontaneous creation of the universe from the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory! [page 206, Vol. 2 and page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]

Did I say anything about the inflationary theory of the cosmos?"

What is there to misunderstand?

You said something about the creation of the universe and when I mention the theory of the creation of the universe you then claimed you never mentioned and then repeat your mention of it. There.

Anyhow, do you have any problems with QM or GR that you would like to share with us?

"Belief in evolution is not one of my strengths so perhaps you can answer this question for me: Does evolution require the addition of energy?"

No more so than your ideas.

Both require energy for organisms to be produced, grow, live and reproduce.

 

[OldRegular]

Original post by OldRegular:
You apparently misunderstood my post. I ask Hank:

How about this idea with some adherents: The spontaneous creation of the universe FROM THE MATHEMATICS of quantum physics and relativity theory! [page 206, Vol. 2 and page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]

Did I say anything about the inflationary theory of the cosmos?

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
What is there to misunderstand?

You said something about the creation of the universe and when I mention the theory of the creation of the universe you then claimed you never mentioned and then repeat your mention of it. There.

Please show me where I said anything about the inflationary theory of the cosmos? I can't seem to find it in my post repeated above.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Anyhow, do you have any problems with QM or GR that you would like to share with us?

Frankly I don't know enough about quantum mechanics or general relativity to know qhether I have a problem or not. The originator of the theory of general relativity, Einstein, had a problem with quantum mechanics. I suspect that you are as ignorant of these fields as the average person.

That being said, I do have a problem with mathematics as Creator.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally question by OldRegular:
Belief in evolution is not one of my strengths so perhaps you can answer this question for me: Does evolution require the addition of energy?

Gracious response by by UTEOTW:
No more so than your ideas.

Both require energy for organisms to be produced, grow, live and reproduce.

Since energy input is required for evolution can I assume that energy is in the form of heat since, other than kinetic energy of wind and wave or perhaps the potential energy of falling objects, I doubt any other kind existed back in olden times.

Also, since the change in entropy [delta S] is defined as [delta Q, the heat added] divided by the absolute temperature [T], is it fair to assume that the entropy of whatever organism received heat is increased?

 

[UTEOTW]

"Please show me where I said anything about the inflationary theory of the cosmos? I can't seem to find it in my post repeated above."

You did not use the word specifically. You mentioned the creation of the universe and that is the theory of the creation of the universe.

"Frankly I don't know enough about quantum mechanics or general relativity to know qhether I have a problem or not."

Fair enough.

"The originator of the theory of general relativity, Einstein, had a problem with quantum mechanics."

Absolutely correct.

This is most succinctly illustrated by his famous quote "God does not play dice." Einstein just could not bring himself to accept the probabilistic nature of QM. It is really a shame that he felt that way. He fruitlessly searched for decades for a theory of everything while ignoring a key part of the pie. If he had accepted QM, a mind a brilliant as his might have solved the unification of relativity and quantum mechanics while instead we grapple today with ideas such as string theory and loop quantum gravity.

"I suspect that you are as ignorant of these fields as the average person."

For all practical purposes you are probaly right. I find them to be fascinating subjects and have read some about them. I think I at least have a very basic grasp compared to the average person but my knowledge is just enough to make my head hurt if I try and think about some of the concepts too hard.

If you want to make your own head hurt, go look up something called the quantum eraser. It is an interesting variation on the double slit experiment. QM is spooky. Even better is the delayed choice quantum eraser.

Here is one web page that tries to step you through it. I am not sure how clearly he explains things if you are hearing it for the first time.

http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/

"That being said, I do have a problem with mathematics as Creator."

Fortunately we both know who created the mathematics.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Since energy input is required for evolution can I assume that energy is in the form of heat since, other than kinetic energy of wind and wave or perhaps the potential energy of falling objects, I doubt any other kind existed back in olden times."

So long as you include radiant energy as heat.

"Also, since the change in entropy [delta S] is defined as [delta Q, the heat added] divided by the absolute temperature [T], is it fair to assume that the entropy of whatever organism received heat is increased?"

I'll go along with that.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Actually, a living organism is aproximating a level amount of entropy within the organism itself. It is doing this by expending energy, taking high grade energy in the form of food or light and spreading it around again in low grade form - that is, increasing the entropy of the world around the living organism.

Ultimately, of course, the organism succumbs to the increase of entropy within the individual and dies, but on the average having produced equivalent progeny with themselves having a relatively low entropy state. Again, of course, at the cost of increased entropy in the environment.

The function of life as facilitating the increase of entropy in the world around us is why life is favored by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally question by OldRegular:
Belief in evolution is not one of my strengths so perhaps you can answer this question for me: Does evolution require the addition of energy?

Gracious response by by UTEOTW:
No more so than your ideas.

Both require energy for organisms to be produced, grow, live and reproduce.

Next question by OldRegular:
Since energy input is required for evolution can I assume that energy is in the form of heat since, other than kinetic energy of wind and wave or perhaps the potential energy of falling objects, I doubt any other kind existed back in olden times.

Response by by UTEOTW:
So long as you include radiant energy as heat.

Next question by OldRegular:
Also, since the change in entropy [delta S] is defined as [delta Q, the heat added] divided by the absolute temperature [T], is it fair to assume that the entropy of whatever organism received heat is increased?

Response by by UTEOTW:
I'll go along with that.

Is it not true that when the entropy of something increases its molecular disorder increases? [According to Statistical Thermodynamics.}

 

[HankD]

The question becomes, if there was no Big Bang, then how do you explain the observations that lead others to conclude inflation?

Well, actually I don't totally discount the "Big Bang".

However let me turn the tables. How could there be a "Big Bang" if there was no atmosphere (unless you refer to an ether of some sort preceding the newly created matter) the resultant noise to travel through.

There may be some validity to the Big Bang which could possibly have occurred at the fiat "let there be light".

But then how can the universe be inflationary with an ongoing creation if God rested the 7th day from His work of creation?

If there is indeed ongoing creation then it must be some sort of maintenance phase creation or a kind of procreation such as biological reproduction.

But personally I don't think so. Spatially speaking, I believe the universe is infinite while matter is finite, located somewhere within it, the coordinates of which are know only to God.

Hebrews 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

So, I guess my answer to your question is, I don't know. I suppose they are missing some essential data and therefore arriving at faulty conclusions.

NIV Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

HankD

 

[UTEOTW]

"Is it not true that when the entropy of something increases its molecular disorder increases? [According to Statistical Thermodynamics.}"

This is where things get tricky.

The first thing that needs to be done here is to repeat the caution that statistical disorder is a matter of how symmetrical the physical arrangement of groups of molecules are. It might be instructive to re-read the Feynman description of this on the last page.

So, the question I will ask is what is the effect on the total entropy of an organism when it eats? I am not quite sure, myself. But in the end we are concerned with the flow of energy. The daily processes of an organism, such as growth, maintenance and movement, require energy to be spent. It is when this energy is released that you also get an increase in entropy because this is when some potential energy, chemical, is turned into work which is going to release some heat.

But it is this flow of energy that allows life to happen. Whatever decrease in entropy an organism might have due to growth and repair is more than offset by the increase in entropy of the surroundings due to the inefficiencies of the process. It is also important to note that life operates far from equilibrium and that entropy is considered to be an important driving force to keep life itself going because of this.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Well, actually I don't totally discount the 'Big Bang'."

That's good.

"However let me turn the tables. How could there be a "Big Bang" if there was no atmosphere (unless you refer to an ether of some sort preceding the newly created matter) the resultant noise to travel through."

That's fine, I don't mind.

The term "Big Bang" was actually coined by a doubter of the theory, Hoyle, who preferred a steady state theory of the universe. So it does not literally mean a traveling sound wave.

Interestingly enough, there is evidence for sound waves traveling through the early universe that have observable effects. But it has nothing to do with where the term comes from.

"There may be some validity to the Big Bang which could possibly have occurred at the fiat 'let there be light'."

I tend to thing the same thing myself. There are also several places in the OT that refer to God stretching out the heavens which sounds a lot like an inflationary big bang.

"But then how can the universe be inflationary with an ongoing creation if God rested the 7th day from His work of creation?"

In a literal six day creation, do you think that everything stopped for the seventh day while God rested or did the completed creation continue to function based upon the laws created during the previous several days?

If God created the universe with the Big Bang, then the subsequent processes have not been so much a continuous creation as they have been the universe behaving according to the laws God set up.

Think of it this way, if I have a child, is that an ongoing creation or following the rules set up at creation?

"So, I guess my answer to your question is, I don't know. I suppose they are missing some essential data and therefore arriving at faulty conclusions."

There are many things, brother, that we all don't know and some of these things we will not know for sure until we are on the other side of death.