religious reasons?

[Peter101]

Helen,

It seems that you have never communicated with Atkins or any other expert on thermodynamics to see if they agree with your idea that there is some conflict between evolution and thermodynamics.

But apparently someone has made that inquiry and found three authors of thermodynamics textbooks who were willing to voice an opinion on the subject. All three experts reject the common creationist argument. Here is the link:

http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm

It is worth noting that as recently as a couple of years ago, Helen argued, in a written forum, that evolution was in conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. She has apparently backed off from that stance and now only argues that evolution conflicts with some "generalized" concept of entropy. She is wrong on that as well, but at least she has abandoned her earlier false argument. The following seems to be her revised position:

Helen wrote:
"In addition, I presume you have forgotten that I deliberately separated this concept of the universal trend toward entropy from thermodynamics, where the law requires a closed system. General entropy does not have that requirement and, in fact, the input of energy in any form generally speeds up the slide towards disorganization.."

The problem for Helen in the above is that entropy is explicitly defined by the second law of thermodynamics, therefore her claim that entropy can be separated from thermodynamics is a false claim.

[ June 23, 2003, 03:28 AM: Message edited by: Peter101 ]

 

[Helen]

OK, Peter, discard the word entropy if that pleases you. The fact is that things wear out, rust, become disorganized, disintegrate, burn up, etc. etc. Call it anything you want. Entropy is a good concept for it in terms of vocabulary, but is certainly not a necessary word if it bothers you.

The trend denies the possibility of evolution.

In addition, you are getting hung up on something that is NOT the subject of this thread, which is that there are a number of intelligent people who have abandon the evolutionary concepts on the basis of scientific evidence and not on the basis of any religious presuppositions, allegiences, or philosophies. The data is enough.

Arguing about terminology has nothing to do with the fact of why these people have decided that evolution as presented in terms of common ancestry is totally imaginary and not supported by any actual data or anything we are aware of in the reality of biology.

 

[The Galatian]

Helen writes:

OK, Peter, discard the word entropy if that pleases you. The fact is that things wear out, rust, become disorganized, disintegrate, burn up, etc. etc. Call it anything you want. Entropy is a good concept for it in terms of vocabulary, but is certainly not a necessary word if it bothers you.

The trend denies the possibility of evolution.

What process, necessary for evolution, is denied by things wearing out?

In addition, you are getting hung up on something that is NOT the subject of this thread, which is that there are a number of intelligent people who have abandon the evolutionary concepts on the basis of scientific evidence and not on the basis of any religious presuppositions, allegiences, or philosophies.

Well, that's what we need evidence for. Every YE creationist says the evidence swayed them, but we can't find an example of one who was swayed by the evidence before converting to a particular religious outlook.

Arguing about terminology has nothing to do with the fact of why these people have decided that evolution as presented in terms of common ancestry is totally imaginary and not supported by any actual data or anything we are aware of in the reality of biology.

Well, that's what we're trying to find out. Hopefully, there will be some data soon.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Helen:
OK, Peter, discard the word entropy if that pleases you. The fact is that things wear out, rust, become disorganized, disintegrate, burn up, etc. etc. Call it anything you want. Entropy is a good concept for it in terms of vocabulary, but is certainly not a necessary word if it bothers you.

Does this mean that you have given up the claim of entropy preventing evolution and that you are claiming that it is the general observation that things "wear out, rust, become disorganized, disintegrate, burn up, etc." that prevents evolution? These are different concepts.

How does this general trend pose a problem, specifically? Living organisms accomplish a lot before they finally wear out and die, most importantly passing on their genes to a new generation.

 

[Peter101]

>>>>>>>>OK, Peter, discard the word entropy if that pleases you. The fact is that things wear out, rust, become disorganized, disintegrate, burn up, etc. etc. Call it anything you want. Entropy is a good concept for it in terms of vocabulary, but is certainly not a necessary word if it bothers you.

The trend denies the possibility of evolution.<<<<<<

It is interesting to follow the evolution of your arguments. First, a couple of years ago, you argued that the 2nd law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution. When you were shown that this is a false claim, you then argued recently that the concept of entropy prohibits evolution. When you were shown that entropy is closely tied to the second law, then you want to frame your arguments in terms of some generalized but unknown law of decay that prohibits evolution.

But that argument too is based on false premises and is not persuasive. Let's face it Helen, you are striking out along these lines. You might as well admit it and try something else.