The Age-old Argument

[FearlessLeader2]

Curt-
You came into this on the side of evolution. You also came in acting like you own the joint, and that all must bow before your superior will. Go back and read what you posted. It was both hostile and inflammatory, and it was certainly an argument. Or at least it tried to be. Actually, it was more of a troll than anything else, I guess. Whoops, dopey me. I fed a troll.

Go away. At least allan can formulate a coherent sentence, even if he is as stubborn as hardened magma.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Curt-
You came into this on the side of evolution. You also came in acting like you own the joint, and that all must bow before your superior will. Go back and read what you posted. It was both hostile and inflammatory, and it was certainly an argument. Or at least it tried to be. Actually, it was more of a troll than anything else, I guess. Whoops, dopey me. I fed a troll.

Go away. At least allan can formulate a coherent sentence, even if he is as stubborn as hardened magma.

FearlessLeader2-
The above statement is actually a accurate description of your posting style.

You came into this on the side of religion. You also seem to thrive on arguments to feed your deluded feeling of moral superiority.

I never troll anyone, you are the one who seems to have some sort of literary psychosis.

You seem to have trouble reading and digesting data,

For you see threats and arguments all around and feel compulsion to strike back an lash out to maintain your ego.

As for my "incoherence" I find your attitiude insulting,

Go away. Learn manners.

I would pity you if you were not so childish.

 

[jacques]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

In trying to explain what I meant, I have come to realize that I used a bad analogy. What I meant to say was that life tends to concentrate and store energy, in opposition to the laws of thermodynamics, which show how energy is dissipated and transmitted.

Sorry for the confusion. I was associating entropy with thermodynamics, which makes a kind of sense, but is too narrow a focus. Life prevents energy from dissipating the way it should, and that tends to stagnate entropy, but does not stop it completely.

In what way does it tend to stagnate entropy? What is entropy? Don't tell me about the second law of thermodynamics, because I know about it. Of course life does not stop entropy, that would mean that life is reversible, that we could come back to our "conception". In what way does life tend to stagnate entropy (entropy has no real connection with energy by the way, those are two separate notions).

The earth should reach an energy equilibrium with this radiation, get to a certain temperature, and stay there, and all further energy income be offset by an equal energy radiation in the form of reflection and heat dissipation into space.

There are many natural phenomenon that alter earth's temperature, like wind, rain, volcanos, and so on. Those phenomenon are not alive.

Plants, however, soak up this energy, and use it to photosynthesize sugars. This is the first step in energy storage by life. These plants can then either be eaten and stored in an animal as fat, or be fossilized and the energy further refined to be stored as coal or oil. Because plants are doing this, there is a continual absorption of energy above and beyond the albedo-based energy equilibrium that should be maintained.

Plant do not soak up energy to photosynthesize sugars. Light induces a chemical reaction in the chlorophyl (spelling?), just as it induces a chemical reaction on silver nitrates (camera films), and silver nitrates are not alive, neither is chlorophyl.
It is true that life stores energy, but a lot of it dissipates by heat. Our body dissipates heat on its surface.

And what is this albedo based equilibirum you're talking about. When a stone is in the sun, it gets warmer and warmer, there's no equilibrium. On the other hand, a living body has to regulate its inner temperature, and dissipates heat, that's the only equilibrium I can see there, and it's not even true for every form of life (cf reptilians).

Life is altering the energy dissipation rate of the universe. Not by much, but the alteration is there. That is what I meant.

I'm really sorry but I don't see where the alteration is. And anyway, if life doesn't "work" like stones or I don't know what, what does that prove?
Furthermore, what is the energy dissipation rate of the universe? The universe dissipates energy? Where does that energy go then? outside the universe? That would be the explanation, because otherwise it wouldn't be a dissipation...

 

[jacques]

Originally posted by Magnus


Entropy exists in both open and closed systems, it is the ultimate 'result' of everything. The earth is in a temporary open system because of the energy released from the sun, wihout which there can be no life, because no energy can be infused to create order out of chaos. Nature prefers disorder to order, but a surplus of energy can delay and even reverse that process of decay.

So?

Entropy is the ultimate 'result' of everything? That sounds like mysticism to me.
I used to think that it was just an "extensive value" (I'm not sure about the words in english I use) which has a volumic density and a creation source that can be either positive or equal to zero in the case of a reversible transformation (of a given closed system).

 

[FearlessLeader2]

jacques-
I already said it was a bad analogy, what more do you want?

I'll try again. In a lifeless system, the total energy of the system will have a maximum potential, x. X= the sum total of all energy storage in all media and forms in the system, beyond which any excess energy must be shed in some way, typically radiated heat.

Using earth as an example, if there were no life forms on the planet, then x would be the maximum energy possible on the planet at any given time. This would include gravitationally induced heat at the core, radiactive elements, atmospheric heat, the kinetic energy of wind, the downward force of water from mountains, and heated surfaces from the sun, which do reach a maximum stored heat from a particular source based upon their albedo(reflectivity) and then radiate all further heat away from that source.

This is plain to see on Mercury. Mercury has reached a rather high mean temperature due to its proximity to the sun. Its sunward side is at a steady temperature that is hot enough that lead would form a puddle on it's surface. But it does not get any hotter. The surface is at a combination of temperature and albedo that has reached equilibrium. Unless the sun's output changes, the surface temp will stay the same. Should humans come and set up solar panels or mining operations, the albedo of Mercury will change, and so will its surface temperature. Meteor or cometary impacts could also change its equilibrium, but short of these events, Mercury is in static equilibrium.

Planets with atmosphere are normally in dynamic equilibrium, constantly changing local conditions, but overall global conditions are the same. Their net energy is always X though.

When life gets added to that equation, it changes it. Life takes energy out of the environment, allowing the planet to accept more energy, creating a small energy deficit in the system. Life gives this energy back as heat, but not all of it. Some ends up stored, as chemical heat. Gasoline, fat, oil, coal, all products of life. Earth had a huge energy storage before the Industrial Age, a significant fraction of which has now been radiated away as heat, which was used for heating and electrical generation. But even as we use it, more is being made, and we are learning to store more energy as well. Life is altering the energy balance of the earth.

Now this wasn't perfect either, but I hope I did better this time.

 

[Tekki]

Great job fearless, and algernon too. You both managed to have a reasonable debate in spite of a few rather extremist posters jutting in. I should have stayed on, but I had school and stuff. I can't believe how long this has gone on. It is still annoying to see how many people say that everyone who lived for the past 10,000 years were idiots and that only now do we realize we made ourselves(figuratively). Ask any normal person who lived for the last 10000(excepting the last century) 99% of them will say there has to be something bigger than us...I think evolution is just a safeguard for our pride. But that's just me. Kinda convenient thinking that there is no higher power...we're not responsible to anyone but ourselves, so we have no moral values set for ourselves...so we can do whatever we want! Hmm...I hear the Bible calling I wonder if this will degenerate into another arguement...hope fearless is around

 

[damunzy]

Tekki, their arguements are about 2 1/2 months old

I'd have to say evolution. As someone back in the begining of the thread said the proof is all around us.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

FL",

I see you are once more holding entropy up as an argument. I thought it had been clearly explained as totally irrelevant a long time ago. Have you revived it because the people who explained the error of your logic are no longer posting? Does this mean you rague to win rather than to be right?

Entropy and life do not in any sense whatever oppose one another. They work on different scales. It was all said months ago somewhere in this thread. It was only by ignoring science and applying a pseudo-mystical interpretation to the laws of thermodynamics that the confusion arose in the first place.

I wish I had time to get properly involved again, but that won't be the case at least for a few more months.

 

[ainwood]

It is ironic that a theory (thermodynamics) that was developed by humans in an attempt to explain the universe around us is being used as 1.) a justification for Creation, and 2.) to discredit another theory (Evolution).

Before anyone can 'prove' that "Thermodynamics Proves Creation", first they must 'prove' "thermodynamics".

Oh - and the bit about life not obeying the second (or first) laws of thermo are wrong. Things can become more ordered, as long as there is energy input.

And on the first law - "life" processes convert energy from one form to another. The first law is not broken unless you get more energy out than you put in.



And on a different note, I heard the Bishop of Oxford on Radio 4 this morning (Throught for the Day), and he mentioned that "Dinosaurs had had their part to play". Seems to be a bit of a change-of-heart from the Catholic Chruch - I thought they didn't believe that dinosaurs had ever existed?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
FL",

I see you are once more holding entropy up as an argument. I thought it had been clearly explained as totally irrelevant a long time ago. Have you revived it because the people who explained the error of your logic are no longer posting? Does this mean you rague to win rather than to be right?

Entropy and life do not in any sense whatever oppose one another. They work on different scales. It was all said months ago somewhere in this thread. It was only by ignoring science and applying a pseudo-mystical interpretation to the laws of thermodynamics that the confusion arose in the first place.

I wish I had time to get properly involved again, but that won't be the case at least for a few more months.

Al-
The only thing that last post was intended to do was to point out that life acts as a countering force against thermodynamics, and that only in the sense that life causes energy to be stored, and thereby allows an open system to absorb and concentrate more energy than it would normally be capable of holding in equilibrium.

I have realized that I can't disprove evolution to its faithful any more than they can disprove the existence of God to His faithful. I am not a good evangelist, I don't have the patience for it. No matter what sort of damning questions I ask, no matter what arguments I shoot down, they will only come up with new and improved ones.

Doubtless they will try to make the same claim of me and my position. The problem with that is, I don't need proof for my position. It's a matter of faith for me, and if I needed proof of God's existence, how could I possibly claim to have faith?

God is as real to me as the air I breathe. I don't question His existence any more than I question whether or not the sun will dawn tomorrow. The very concept of there not being a God strikes me as nonsensical. I understand that there are people who claim the reverse is true, but for the life of me, I will never understand how their thought processes work.

It seems like the ultimate state of denial to me.

Anyway, like I said earlier, I'm not doing evolution anymore, except to tie up loose ends like this one as they come up. It's a pointless waste of time preaching to evolutionists. They need their theory as much as a crackhead needs his next fix,and I can't compete with that.

When you live without God, you must create Him where you can.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

Al-
The only thing that last post was intended to do was to point out that life acts as a countering force against thermodynamics, and that only in the sense that life causes energy to be stored, and thereby allows an open system to absorb and concentrate more energy than it would normally be capable of holding in equilibrium.

Sorry - my comments weren't specifically aimed at your post. You are quite right - when you have anything that starts storing energy, then equilibrium is disturbed.

I read a post near the start of the thread that was something along the lines of "evolution results in an increase in order, and therefore violates the the second law of thermo". That is an incorrect application of the 2nd law.

 

[MajorGeneral2]

On the 2nd Law of Therm., of course evolution contradicts it. The universe is wearing down, but evo. needs the opposite to happen. There are no missing links, either, for any species. Carbon dating and other methods are unreliable. Darwin was not good at math and never had a College education. The great founders of science (Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, etc.) were all devout Christians. The layers of strata supposedly showing eras of earth's history are often in a different order than they should be, and some are often missing. Mathemeticians have concluded that just one species evolving into another is impossible.

 

[ainwood]

On the 2nd Law of Therm., of course evolution contradicts it. The universe is wearing down, but evo. needs the opposite to happen.

Why?

You are applying the second law to the universe as a whole, and then assuming that what is observed for the entire universe must also be observed for the tiniest parts of it. By this reckoning, water can't boil, as this too is a process tending to a state of order rather than disorder.

Yes, the net entropy of the universe is increasing, but on a small-scale, the second law doesn't require this. Entropy only increases for spontaneous processes. A chemical reaction in a DNA strand just requires an input of energy. A gamma ray will provide this energy.

Secondly, it is a moot point. The second law is a theory that is put forward to try and describe the universe around us. If you can show (which I doubt) that evolution is out-with the second law of thermo, it does not disprove evolution. It is equally as likely to be the 2nd law that has been disproved.

So what if Darwin didn't have a college education? Einstein did poorly at school. What does it matter if Newton, Galileo and Copenicus were Christians? That is an irrelevant point to this argument. Anyway, Copernicus actually went against the Church in his views that the Earth was NOT the centre of the universe, which shows that he could actually be open-minded, and use scientific evidence to form an opinion.

 

[Switch625]

Why does belief in God have and accepting the Theory of Evolution as plausible have to be in opposition?

Maybe I'm indulging in double-think, but I happen to hold to both.

Then again, I have a somewhat "Deist" view of God. A "celestial engineer," if you will. Evolution works, because when God created the universe, he set up the rules of the game so that it would.

 

[Johnny_c]

I agree wholeheartedly with Switch.

The entire universe seems to me, to be constantly changing, clumps of matter combine, creating stars, planets, all sorts of different and beautiful things (yes, I believe the universe to be beautiful, the great variety of shapes and colours are really amazing) It would almost be a shame if everything was put into place the way it is currently. It would be far more impressive, to me, if a system was set up to produce individuality like we see all around us. There is a place for many different types of life just like there is room for planets, stars, asteroids, black holes, quasars, meteors and anything else you care to name.

I don't believe we are the "pinnacle" of anything. We are as amazing as carbon. We are constantly changing, just like the rest of the universe. The ability of the universe to support such wide ranges of "stuff" is amazing. It exists on a huge scale with galaxies, clusters of galaxies, supernovas and black holes. It also exists on the extremely small with photons, electrons, quarks and God knows what else. Somehow, they are able to interact with each other so that everything doesn't immediately break down into their smallest components and also doesn't just combine into one large supermass. Either universe would be lifeless and boring. The masses, charges, and interactions are balanced such that both very large and very small structures are possible. Why is the fact that life evolved so hard to accept when we see what else has evolved in the universe?

BTW, when I said that we are as amazing as carbon, it's not an insult to us, but respect for the universe. God loves the entire creation, not just our own little planet.