Entropy contradict Evolution
- Thread starter Hadeka
- Start date
James R,
If something comes into existence, then it must have a cause. The only other alternative is that it came into existence from nothing. Can you demonstrate how that could occur if not from an outside source?
In a sense they do (read above).
Both the animal and offspring are open systems and as such their increased organisation comes from sources outside themselves. But both mother and offspring dies eventually.
In what way does creation conflict with evolution which has been observed?
Energy, unavailable for work within a sytem or process.
Entropy is a measure of (1) the amount of energy unavailable for work within a system or process, and/or (2) the probability of distribution or randomness [disorder] within a system.
The word is not necessary unless you think the universe isn't a closed system.
Please elaborate.
Why is it false, and what does your analogy tell us?
Why would you ask such a question?
We must assume it is perfect, or else we must give reason as to why we think it is not perfect.
Do we know perfection?
Flawless.
Nonesense.
From what, and how did it evolve?
Why?
The creator must surely be intelligent.
Do you know what intelligence is?
Again, can you show me what intelligence actually is?
Jan Ardena.
If something comes into existence, then it must have a cause. The only other alternative is that it came into existence from nothing. Can you demonstrate how that could occur if not from an outside source?
In a sense they do (read above).
Both the animal and offspring are open systems and as such their increased organisation comes from sources outside themselves. But both mother and offspring dies eventually.
In what way does creation conflict with evolution which has been observed?
Energy, unavailable for work within a sytem or process.
Entropy is a measure of (1) the amount of energy unavailable for work within a system or process, and/or (2) the probability of distribution or randomness [disorder] within a system.
The word is not necessary unless you think the universe isn't a closed system.
Please elaborate.
Why is it false, and what does your analogy tell us?
Why would you ask such a question?
We must assume it is perfect, or else we must give reason as to why we think it is not perfect.
Do we know perfection?
Flawless.
Nonesense.
From what, and how did it evolve?
Why?
The creator must surely be intelligent.
Do you know what intelligence is?
Again, can you show me what intelligence actually is?
Jan Ardena.
Jan:
My previous post, to which you replied, was asking SouthStar to explain what he meant, and to answer some questions. But instead of a response from him, I get a response from you, which seems to consist of much rhetorical reversing of my questions to SouthStar, but little of substance. Your reply was also formatted in a way that it is hard for me to pick up the thread of the argument you were responding to - you haven't given enough context. Instead, your questions come across as disconnected snippets with no particular aim in mind.
If you have a point to make, perhaps you should try to express it yourself, rather than getting other people to do your thinking for you by answering your queries. I am sure you have some of your own answers in mind.
I will respond to your substantive points.
The existence of the entire universe may very well be a special case in which your first sentence does not apply. Our normal use of the concept of causality is based on observations of causality within the universe. Causality requires, above all things, the existence of time, and a concept of the progression of time. But, as Einstein showed, time has no meaning when divorced from the structure of the universe. Hence, to speak about what caused the existence of the universe is to make a possibly invalid assumption that there is some concept of time applicable regardless of whether the universe exists or not. You have not established that there is such a thing.
You are contradicting yourself. If you don't have a concept of perfection, then you can't say nature must be perfect.
Your other contradiction, in calling the creator intelligent, while at the same time arguing we don't know what intelligence is, has already been pointed out.
I will respond to your other questions once you have explained your point of view on the matters you raise there. I would like to make sure that your questioning is sincere, and not a empty rhetorical flourish. I don't like wasting my time.
My previous post, to which you replied, was asking SouthStar to explain what he meant, and to answer some questions. But instead of a response from him, I get a response from you, which seems to consist of much rhetorical reversing of my questions to SouthStar, but little of substance. Your reply was also formatted in a way that it is hard for me to pick up the thread of the argument you were responding to - you haven't given enough context. Instead, your questions come across as disconnected snippets with no particular aim in mind.
If you have a point to make, perhaps you should try to express it yourself, rather than getting other people to do your thinking for you by answering your queries. I am sure you have some of your own answers in mind.
I will respond to your substantive points.
The existence of the entire universe may very well be a special case in which your first sentence does not apply. Our normal use of the concept of causality is based on observations of causality within the universe. Causality requires, above all things, the existence of time, and a concept of the progression of time. But, as Einstein showed, time has no meaning when divorced from the structure of the universe. Hence, to speak about what caused the existence of the universe is to make a possibly invalid assumption that there is some concept of time applicable regardless of whether the universe exists or not. You have not established that there is such a thing.
You are contradicting yourself. If you don't have a concept of perfection, then you can't say nature must be perfect.
Your other contradiction, in calling the creator intelligent, while at the same time arguing we don't know what intelligence is, has already been pointed out.
I will respond to your other questions once you have explained your point of view on the matters you raise there. I would like to make sure that your questioning is sincere, and not a empty rhetorical flourish. I don't like wasting my time.
James R,
The post to which i replied to was the first reply (i think) you made to Hadeka.
The point has been adequately made by the threadstarter, and there is no need to add anything. My response to your reply to Hadeka, is an attempt to find out what your point is. As you seem only to patronise the threadstarter, and question the 2nd law with a view to trying to make the threadstarter look like an idiot (as opposed explaining why you think he/she is mistaken), when clearly that is not the case.
"May very well be" is neither here nor there. I suggest you obtain information which is verifiable.
So this is the start point, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
Einstein's general reletivity showed that time is linked to matter and space, so time would have begun with time and space.
Why do you think God could not have created time, or an aspect of God is Himself time.
There is no way of knowing via scientific analasys, as the known laws do not apply before the big-bang. But we know the universe exists, and we know it will cease to exist at some point, so we can understand that everything that has a begining must have a cause.
To speak of "what caused the universe" is logically sound. An invalid assumption would be that the universe came from nothing, as there is absolutely no way of testing or verifying the claim, and would be accepted purely on blind-faith.
I have no choice but to assume nature is [acting perfectly] and is therefore perfect. I can assume it has flaws, but then i have to give reason as to why i think this. What reason could i possibly give?
We know what the effect of intelligence is, we know how to apply intelligence to a given situation, we just don't know what it actually is. We don't know what substance it is made of for example.
No one can say "i have some raw intelligence in my test tube, come take a look."
But we can see the result of intelligence within the design and structure of the known universe.
Putting it nicely, i think you're out of order. Question your own sincerity, not mine.
Jan Ardena.
The post to which i replied to was the first reply (i think) you made to Hadeka.
The point has been adequately made by the threadstarter, and there is no need to add anything. My response to your reply to Hadeka, is an attempt to find out what your point is. As you seem only to patronise the threadstarter, and question the 2nd law with a view to trying to make the threadstarter look like an idiot (as opposed explaining why you think he/she is mistaken), when clearly that is not the case.
"May very well be" is neither here nor there. I suggest you obtain information which is verifiable.
So this is the start point, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
Einstein's general reletivity showed that time is linked to matter and space, so time would have begun with time and space.
Why do you think God could not have created time, or an aspect of God is Himself time.
There is no way of knowing via scientific analasys, as the known laws do not apply before the big-bang. But we know the universe exists, and we know it will cease to exist at some point, so we can understand that everything that has a begining must have a cause.
To speak of "what caused the universe" is logically sound. An invalid assumption would be that the universe came from nothing, as there is absolutely no way of testing or verifying the claim, and would be accepted purely on blind-faith.
I have no choice but to assume nature is [acting perfectly] and is therefore perfect. I can assume it has flaws, but then i have to give reason as to why i think this. What reason could i possibly give?
We know what the effect of intelligence is, we know how to apply intelligence to a given situation, we just don't know what it actually is. We don't know what substance it is made of for example.
No one can say "i have some raw intelligence in my test tube, come take a look."
But we can see the result of intelligence within the design and structure of the known universe.
Putting it nicely, i think you're out of order. Question your own sincerity, not mine.
Jan Ardena.
Jan:
Your information is no more verifiable than mine, and you know it.
That was exactly my point.
I didn't say God could not have created time. If a god exists, perhaps he created the universe. But there's no solid evidence either for the existence of God, or that a god created the universe. There are only collections of anecdotes of dubious provenance.
You conclusion does not follow from your premises. As an aside, current scientific thinking says the universe will not ever cease to exist.
I will repeat my point, since you don't seem to understand. To say that something "came from" something else, or came about "because of" something else requires the existence of time prior to event you're talking about. If we cannot talk about time prior to the big bang in any meaningful way, then to say the big bang came from something else or was caused by something makes no sense at all. There can be no causation without time.
What you're doing is defining nature as perfect. In essence, you're saying that everything which exists is perfect, by definition, due to the mere fact of its existence. What I was trying to point out to Hadeka when I questioned him on this point is that defining everything that exists to be perfect is an empty exercise. It doesn't tell you anything, and it doesn't lead you to any meaningful conclusions.
If we have no concept of what intelligence is, we can't discuss it in any meaningful way. If you claim to know the effects of intelligence, then it follows that you're claiming to know something about the nature of intelligence, namely that it is characterised by (among other things) the fact that it produces certain recognisable effects.
Intelligence is an abstract concept, like love or justice. What substance is love made of?
There are many concepts like this, Jan. Surely you've come across many. I have some raw excitement in my test tube - have a look! Does this mean I don't know what excitement is?
I disagree. There's no obvious signature of intelligence design in the structure of the universe.
Your information is no more verifiable than mine, and you know it.
That was exactly my point.
I didn't say God could not have created time. If a god exists, perhaps he created the universe. But there's no solid evidence either for the existence of God, or that a god created the universe. There are only collections of anecdotes of dubious provenance.
You conclusion does not follow from your premises. As an aside, current scientific thinking says the universe will not ever cease to exist.
I will repeat my point, since you don't seem to understand. To say that something "came from" something else, or came about "because of" something else requires the existence of time prior to event you're talking about. If we cannot talk about time prior to the big bang in any meaningful way, then to say the big bang came from something else or was caused by something makes no sense at all. There can be no causation without time.
What you're doing is defining nature as perfect. In essence, you're saying that everything which exists is perfect, by definition, due to the mere fact of its existence. What I was trying to point out to Hadeka when I questioned him on this point is that defining everything that exists to be perfect is an empty exercise. It doesn't tell you anything, and it doesn't lead you to any meaningful conclusions.
If we have no concept of what intelligence is, we can't discuss it in any meaningful way. If you claim to know the effects of intelligence, then it follows that you're claiming to know something about the nature of intelligence, namely that it is characterised by (among other things) the fact that it produces certain recognisable effects.
Intelligence is an abstract concept, like love or justice. What substance is love made of?
There are many concepts like this, Jan. Surely you've come across many. I have some raw excitement in my test tube - have a look! Does this mean I don't know what excitement is?
I disagree. There's no obvious signature of intelligence design in the structure of the universe.
James R,
Of course it is. If something comes into existence, then it must have a cause, is verifiable on every level, thus there is no reason to doubt that the universe, which is now in existence, had a cause.
Your idea that the universe may well be a special case thereby omitting the need for outside influence is merely speculation which has no basis of verification on any level, as no such special cases has ever observed.
There is no solid evidence which indicates the non-existence of God, or that existence can occur without a cause. There are excellent arguments for the existence of God, such as cause and effect, the fact that life only comes from life etc... There are no arguments for the concept of a self-creating universe, of any real substance.
This kind of thinking lacks empirical correlation and testability and is more belief than science.
There is no reason for time to be necessary before the event. Why would you think there would?
If time started with the big-bang, and the universe was caused, then time is not a prerequisite for causation.
I don't believe it to be an abstract concept, although it can be used as such. Every single living being has some intelligence, if it ihas no intelligence, it is dead.
That's purely your own opinion which is fair enough, but there is definately a greater argument for design than randomness, IMHO.
Jan Ardena.
Of course it is. If something comes into existence, then it must have a cause, is verifiable on every level, thus there is no reason to doubt that the universe, which is now in existence, had a cause.
Your idea that the universe may well be a special case thereby omitting the need for outside influence is merely speculation which has no basis of verification on any level, as no such special cases has ever observed.
There is no solid evidence which indicates the non-existence of God, or that existence can occur without a cause. There are excellent arguments for the existence of God, such as cause and effect, the fact that life only comes from life etc... There are no arguments for the concept of a self-creating universe, of any real substance.
This kind of thinking lacks empirical correlation and testability and is more belief than science.
There is no reason for time to be necessary before the event. Why would you think there would?
If time started with the big-bang, and the universe was caused, then time is not a prerequisite for causation.
I don't believe it to be an abstract concept, although it can be used as such. Every single living being has some intelligence, if it ihas no intelligence, it is dead.
That's purely your own opinion which is fair enough, but there is definately a greater argument for design than randomness, IMHO.
Jan Ardena.
The more we learn about astrophysics the more emphasis we can put on the importance of gravity. Gravity is indeed a force which all objects have in common. As to the initial creation of all things we must discover the creation or formation of a single atom only. The force of gravity explains the rest for us. If in its earliest state the universe is only a soup of atoms or even an atomic precursor then gravity would have organized it. When we watch the birth of new solar systems it becomes clear.
Allow me explain it this way.
When certain species of Tiger sharks are conceived there are many pups. When the live birth occurs some time later there is one. The pup that, for reasons that are mostly random, gets even just a little bigger just a little faster will consume his/her siblings.
The formation of planetary bodies is much the same. The body that gets a little bigger a little faster will consume other bodies that are collecting from loose matter. It is gravity that allows for even the smallest things to want to stick together - or at least draw close. The body that is largest will continue to consume other bodies until its mass and gravitational force is so great that fusion will begin to occur.
Bodies outside of the effects of the largest body will form from what is left. These bodies will be effected by each other and by the largest body. The gravity in the system is what creates orbits. Thus we have a new solar system. We estimate that almost every star probably has between 5 and 15 planets. We can also safely assume that the planets follow the pattern we see here. With fast moving solid bodies close to the star and gas giants outside of that.
This is a system that displays remarkable order. It also seems to contradict your bias interpretation of science. However, the laws of thermodynamics are demonstrated for you. The sun as a result of the fusion produces nearly immeasurable energy. Most of that energy is disorganized heat. The energy that is light becomes heat quickly as it is distorted and refracted and reflected.
The laws of thermodynamics are a tool of science. They are not a powerful force that can disprove what we can watch occurring. If you are determined to say that everything must deteriorate then it helps to push organic evolution. The bits and pieces that are loosely organized will, as the result of a multitude of principles of physics and biochemistry, tend to hold together. Sometimes these random cooperative compounds held the ingredients for organics. In the violent environment that was our early earth energy, as has been demonstrated by Stanley Miller in 1953, organics could have been synthesized. Those organics bonding in a predictable matter were the most basic cells. A bilipid membrane is easy to come by. And soon anaerobic bacteria-like organisms would cover our planet. The formation seems orderly but most reactions on earth resulted in only heat and the reactants remained reorganized but without order.
You may continue this process as far as you care to take it. But, seriously this is undergraduate level science. It is too simple. It is lame when persons with a bias take the research and efforts of real scientists and bend them to fit their thinking. Do you think the persons who actually use the laws of thermodynamics in their work or even the persons who developed and expanded on those laws would support your claims that they disprove evolution. I promise you that they would not. They would also see how the laws are not contradictory of evolution. But, in-fact entropy is a driving force in natural selection.
Allow me explain it this way.
When certain species of Tiger sharks are conceived there are many pups. When the live birth occurs some time later there is one. The pup that, for reasons that are mostly random, gets even just a little bigger just a little faster will consume his/her siblings.
The formation of planetary bodies is much the same. The body that gets a little bigger a little faster will consume other bodies that are collecting from loose matter. It is gravity that allows for even the smallest things to want to stick together - or at least draw close. The body that is largest will continue to consume other bodies until its mass and gravitational force is so great that fusion will begin to occur.
Bodies outside of the effects of the largest body will form from what is left. These bodies will be effected by each other and by the largest body. The gravity in the system is what creates orbits. Thus we have a new solar system. We estimate that almost every star probably has between 5 and 15 planets. We can also safely assume that the planets follow the pattern we see here. With fast moving solid bodies close to the star and gas giants outside of that.
This is a system that displays remarkable order. It also seems to contradict your bias interpretation of science. However, the laws of thermodynamics are demonstrated for you. The sun as a result of the fusion produces nearly immeasurable energy. Most of that energy is disorganized heat. The energy that is light becomes heat quickly as it is distorted and refracted and reflected.
The laws of thermodynamics are a tool of science. They are not a powerful force that can disprove what we can watch occurring. If you are determined to say that everything must deteriorate then it helps to push organic evolution. The bits and pieces that are loosely organized will, as the result of a multitude of principles of physics and biochemistry, tend to hold together. Sometimes these random cooperative compounds held the ingredients for organics. In the violent environment that was our early earth energy, as has been demonstrated by Stanley Miller in 1953, organics could have been synthesized. Those organics bonding in a predictable matter were the most basic cells. A bilipid membrane is easy to come by. And soon anaerobic bacteria-like organisms would cover our planet. The formation seems orderly but most reactions on earth resulted in only heat and the reactants remained reorganized but without order.
You may continue this process as far as you care to take it. But, seriously this is undergraduate level science. It is too simple. It is lame when persons with a bias take the research and efforts of real scientists and bend them to fit their thinking. Do you think the persons who actually use the laws of thermodynamics in their work or even the persons who developed and expanded on those laws would support your claims that they disprove evolution. I promise you that they would not. They would also see how the laws are not contradictory of evolution. But, in-fact entropy is a driving force in natural selection.
Last edited:
Nasor,
Websters describe time as;
' the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues :
a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future.'
If the original cause created time, along with the universe for the purpose of the above, why would He/it be under condition of His/its own creation.
I can understand your disagreement with the point, but i fail to see how it is silly.
Jan Ardena.
Websters describe time as;
' the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues :
a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future.'
If the original cause created time, along with the universe for the purpose of the above, why would He/it be under condition of His/its own creation.
I can understand your disagreement with the point, but i fail to see how it is silly.
Jan Ardena.
Websters' definition is not the accurate definition you would find in physics. Time is spacial. Because time is bent by the singularity.Jan Ardena said:
It is silly because it's meaningless to talk about 'before' time existed, just as it would be meaningless to talk about being 'above' something if you existed on a two-dimensional surface. To say that Y happened before X is to implicitly state that time existed before X, otherwise Y could not be 'before' it. So to say that something happened 'before time' is a logically nonsensical statement.
Nasor,
If there was a "before time existed" then how can talking about it be meaningless?
That is not the same thing. I don't live on a two dimensional surface, neither do you or any living being. But it is quite possible that time started with the known universe and is therefore not meaningless to ponder on how it started
Was it caused?
What was before the existense of the known universe?
X and Y are part of the same mental construct. It would be better to ask what happened before the alphabet.
Time has a definate purpose, if there were no physical manifestations, there would be no need for time. The big-bang, in its standard formulation suggests that there are singularities in the universe, points at which the laws of physics (including time) break down.
If all known laws of physics break down at point of singularity, then i doubt that logic, in the sense you are talking, is existent. It is therefore silly and nonsensical to try and apply such mental constucts. At this point intelligence, imagination and intuition are better tools, not that they are any less effective than logic at any point.
Jan Ardena.
If there was a "before time existed" then how can talking about it be meaningless?
That is not the same thing. I don't live on a two dimensional surface, neither do you or any living being. But it is quite possible that time started with the known universe and is therefore not meaningless to ponder on how it started
Was it caused?
What was before the existense of the known universe?
X and Y are part of the same mental construct. It would be better to ask what happened before the alphabet.
Time has a definate purpose, if there were no physical manifestations, there would be no need for time. The big-bang, in its standard formulation suggests that there are singularities in the universe, points at which the laws of physics (including time) break down.
If all known laws of physics break down at point of singularity, then i doubt that logic, in the sense you are talking, is existent. It is therefore silly and nonsensical to try and apply such mental constucts. At this point intelligence, imagination and intuition are better tools, not that they are any less effective than logic at any point.
Jan Ardena.
The lack of common sense by creationsists never ceases to amaze me.
1 - The 1st and 2nd law of Thermodynamcis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
2 - The "Law" that states energy cannot be created nor destroyed:
a - Suggest their own God could not have created energy.
b - If God could do it what precludes a natural occurance from doing it.?
c - In some manner it did become created so the law is false on its logical surface.
d - Proposing a God in lieu of a natural occurance adds nothing to the solution. In fact it complicates it.
e - Our ignorance of the process is a poor excuse to declare something is impossible or is the act of an unexplainable God.
N------------>(+s)+(-s) seems to fit a Big Bang definition. That is Creation Ex Nihilo. No God required.
f - Indeed Edward P. Tryon, Professor of Physics at the City University of New York, computed that the "NET" energy of the observable universe is "ZERO". It therefore requires no magic nor Gods to "NOT" create something that statistically doesn't exist.
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter5.html
g - To suggest the universe exists as a function of God's purpose and then to dictate that his purpose is to test his creation via humankind is to demean any true God that might have actually existed and I am VERY confident that none ever has, does, or ever will.
h - No stupid arguement by a creationists will ever change that.
1 - The 1st and 2nd law of Thermodynamcis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
2 - The "Law" that states energy cannot be created nor destroyed:
a - Suggest their own God could not have created energy.
b - If God could do it what precludes a natural occurance from doing it.?
c - In some manner it did become created so the law is false on its logical surface.
d - Proposing a God in lieu of a natural occurance adds nothing to the solution. In fact it complicates it.
e - Our ignorance of the process is a poor excuse to declare something is impossible or is the act of an unexplainable God.
N------------>(+s)+(-s) seems to fit a Big Bang definition. That is Creation Ex Nihilo. No God required.
f - Indeed Edward P. Tryon, Professor of Physics at the City University of New York, computed that the "NET" energy of the observable universe is "ZERO". It therefore requires no magic nor Gods to "NOT" create something that statistically doesn't exist.
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter5.html
g - To suggest the universe exists as a function of God's purpose and then to dictate that his purpose is to test his creation via humankind is to demean any true God that might have actually existed and I am VERY confident that none ever has, does, or ever will.
h - No stupid arguement by a creationists will ever change that.
Jan Ardena:
It seems that the radioactive decay of any particular uranium nucleus is a strictly uncaused event. I can give you other examples from quantum physics if you wish. The coming into existence of the universe may similarly be an uncaused quantum event. This is speculative, but then so is an omnipotent god creating the universe out of nothing.
Have you ever heard of virtual particles, Jan? They have real, observable effects, yet appear to come spontaneously from nothing.
That is incorrect. Cosmological models are testable, since they predict many features of our observable universe. Cosmologists spend most of their time testing their models empirically, despite your claim that such models are untestable.
I don't think that explaining this to you for a third time would be a particularly useful exercise. I think you need to sit down and think about it.
You're setting up a false dichotomy. The absence of intelligent design does not imply that the universe is random. The laws of chemistry, for example, are not random. Chemicals always combine in predictable ways. That is as true for the chemicals involved in life as for any other chemicals.
It seems that the radioactive decay of any particular uranium nucleus is a strictly uncaused event. I can give you other examples from quantum physics if you wish. The coming into existence of the universe may similarly be an uncaused quantum event. This is speculative, but then so is an omnipotent god creating the universe out of nothing.
Have you ever heard of virtual particles, Jan? They have real, observable effects, yet appear to come spontaneously from nothing.
That is incorrect. Cosmological models are testable, since they predict many features of our observable universe. Cosmologists spend most of their time testing their models empirically, despite your claim that such models are untestable.
I don't think that explaining this to you for a third time would be a particularly useful exercise. I think you need to sit down and think about it.
You're setting up a false dichotomy. The absence of intelligent design does not imply that the universe is random. The laws of chemistry, for example, are not random. Chemicals always combine in predictable ways. That is as true for the chemicals involved in life as for any other chemicals.
Hey!! I'm not a scientist, but I'm good at philosophy. So I will give it a try;
If something comes into existence? hence like god? what's god's cause? god came into existence out of nothing? Can you demonstrate how god came to existence without an outside source? Like a supperior god, and on, and on, infinitum.
Godless.