The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Renata said:
*cringe* Sorry, sanabas, but you need to do a little more reading yourself! The second law of thermodynamics is in fact universal. You're probably thinking of the distinction drawn between open and closed systems, but it doesn't work the way you say it does. What it boils down to in practice is that you can't ever get an increase in "organization" in a system unless you put more energy into it. With a closed system (no energy or mass in or out), increases in order are therefore prohibited. But the earth isn't a closed system; it gets energy from the sun. So the argument against increases in organization doesn't work. (In the universe as a whole (counting the earth *and* the sun), "organization" does have to decrease.)

The really pathetic thing about this stupid argument, though, is that you don't need to resort to thermodynamics to disprove it. Just look around. Increases in order are everywhere. Are creationists prepared to deny the condensation of water vapor to make more-organized liquid water? Deny the creation of snow from atmospheric water? Or of diamond from carbon under pressure?

It's all just smoke and mirrors.

(Increase in "order" or "organization" is a very bad approximation of the meaning of "decrease in entropy" in any case, but that's irrelevent to debunking the argument.)

OK, I shall wander off and do some more reading then, sounds like I may have put my foot firmly in my mouth.

Before I start my reading though, I have a couple of questions: I thought that the 2nd law didn't take into account gravitational effects. If it doesn't, that would make it an approximation, wouldn't it? Does it account for gravity?

As above, but this time for collisions of 3 molecules at once. I thought that makes things too complicated, 3-way collisions are rare enough to be ignored, and only looking at collisions between 2 is accurate enough. Is that not the case?
 
I was involved in a crazy 3 way collision once. Yes it was rare but not rare enough to be ignored:yumyum:
 
Heretic_Cata said:
This is EXACTLY what my biology teacher said.
She also said - this does not mean it's a rock, but viruses cannot be put in the same group as the other life-forms. It is a completely separate category - VIRUSES (NOT parasitic lifeforms). They are on the border between lifeless and life.
Well the mimivirus may change how we look at viruses and their role in the beginning of life.
 
Birdjaguar said:
Well the mimivirus may change how we look at viruses and their role in the beginning of life.
Guess where they found the memevirus? They did not find it living by itself but inside another organism. What a shock.
 
Erik Mesoy said:
Let's see, there's also forensics, archaeology and ancient history. How much of the basic curriculum haven't we thrown out by now? :crazyeye:

Modern history, English, [Language of your choice], and mathematics.
Make that modern languages - 6000a Creationism would force us to reject big swathes of historical linguistics.
 
Birdjaguar said:
Well the mimivirus may change how we look at viruses and their role in the beginning of life.
I explained at considerable lengthy why that's not likely at all in BJ's thread about the critter in question.


Oh, and I suggest Perf creates a continuation thread. :)
 
This is a marvellous thread and should not die out! theres no need to argue wether the virus fits the definition of life for the purpose of evolution. Bacteria can be observed to be evolving as well, to become resistant against various antibiotics. Basically an creature that has a fast reproductive rate can be observed by us to be evolving. Of course most creationist understand and accept this concept, its more about macro-evolution that they are dead set against.
 
sanabas said:
Before I start my reading though, I have a couple of questions: I thought that the 2nd law didn't take into account gravitational effects. If it doesn't, that would make it an approximation, wouldn't it? Does it account for gravity?

As above, but this time for collisions of 3 molecules at once. I thought that makes things too complicated, 3-way collisions are rare enough to be ignored, and only looking at collisions between 2 is accurate enough. Is that not the case?

I don't know anything about how the laws of thermodynamics relate to gravity -- my knowledge comes purely from the chemistry side of things. I'm pretty sure that gravity is irrelevent on the molecular scale, though, which is what we're talking about.

As for the second question, don't confuse the laws with their application. Trying to calculate anything concrete based on the laws of thermodynamics is always a challenge, and involves tons of approximations. That doesn't imply that the laws themselves are approximations, though. As far as I'm aware, they are universal.
 
classical_hero said:
Virus' are not life since they cannot reproduce by themselves, which is one sign of life.
Perhaps not, but they demonstrate a very similar genetic functionality to cellular life.

Of course, there are other instances with cellular life that clearly demonstrates evolution in action.

Here's a good example:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

The question of weather viruses are "alive" really merits little attention in this thread.

fung3 said:
Q1. When a virus changes/mutates and as a result is better equiped to thrive in a given environment is it responding to an external stimuli (it's environment) or is it random mutation or is it both or is it neither?
It's either a random mutation or reconbination with host genetic material.
The Last Conformist said:
Oh, and I suggest Perf creates a continuation thread. :)
Don't worry, when the time comes I will. ;)

As Per the question about 2nd law. It is important to remember that the second law is the result of statistical physics and is in fact the universal result of physical laws not a universal law in irself, This distinction is rathe important on the molecular level because a single molecule may behave very differently from what statistics say is most likely. Biochemistry at its earliest can be quite effected by random small phenomena so trying to take a thermodynamics approach to predicting what form of life is likely simply doesn't work because of the multitude of possibilities.
 
Newtonian determinism breaks down when three rigid bodies collide; I suppose this is what sanabas is refering to. However, the world isn't made up of Newtonian rigid bodies, so the problem is rather moot.

The 2nd Law works perfectly even when gravity is taken into account.
 
sanabas said:
Before I start my reading though, I have a couple of questions: I thought that the 2nd law didn't take into account gravitational effects. If it doesn't, that would make it an approximation, wouldn't it? Does it account for gravity?

It sure does. Basically, things tend to go 'into' gravity wells (and lose potential energy in the process). Falling is the natural, or entropic, state. In order to create structure, or organisation, you often need to override this natural state. Finally, overcoming gravity (like creating any structure) requires energy input.
 
I don't know what sort of music you all listen to, but I think MC Hawking covered this.
Link to listen.

mchawkingmugshot6bi.jpg


Entropy
Trash Talk
Harm me with harmony.
Doomsday, drop a load on 'em.

Verse 1
Entropy, how can I explain it? I'll take it frame by frame it,
to have you all jumping, shouting saying it.
Let's just say that it's a measure of disorder,
in a system that is closed, like with a border.
It's sorta, like a, well a measurement of randomness,
proposed in 1850 by a German, but wait I digress.
"What the **** is entropy?", I here the people still exclaiming,
it seems I gotta start the explaining.

You ever drop an egg and on the floor you see it break?
You go and get a mop so you can clean up your mistake.
But did you ever stop to ponder why we know it's true,
if you drop a broken egg you will not get an egg that's new.

That's entropy or E-N-T-R-O to the P to the Y,
the reason why the sun will one day all burn out and die.
Order from disorder is a scientific rarity,
allow me to explain it with a little bit more clarity.
Did I say rarity? I meant impossibility,
at least in a closed system there will always be more entropy.
That's entropy and I hope that you're all down with it,
if you are here's your membership.

Chorus
You down with entropy?
Yeah, you know me! (x3)
Who's down with entropy?
Every last homey!

Verse 2
Defining entropy as disorder's not complete,
'cause disorder as a definition doesn't cover heat.
So my first definition I would now like to withdraw,
and offer one that fits thermodynamics second law.
First we need to understand that entropy is energy,
energy that can't be used to state it more specifically.
In a closed system entropy always goes up,
that's the second law, now you know what's up.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't leave the game,
'cause entropy will take it all 'though it seems a shame.
The second law, as we now know, is quite clear to state,
that entropy must increase and not dissipate.

Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so **** the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
That, in a nutshell, is what entropy's about,
you're now down with a discount.

Chorus

Trash Talk
Hit it!
Doomsday, kick it in!
http://www.mchawking.com
 
:goodjob: Like it.

Oh so that's why there banging on about entropy I really couldn't be bothered to go back thorugh the thread and find out why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom