Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 09, 2012

Why The Laws of Thermodynamics Destroy Darwinism aka Evolution

 

Yes, Ian Juby is a brilliant man and his You Tubes are consistently great.   But the timing of this one being published in conjunction with recent events in the comments threads of this blog will probably mean the Darwinist commenters will slink away in defeat.   That will make it easier for me to intersperse worldview and science posts with political posts between now and the 2012 election here in the States.

Darwinists have admitted defeat concerning information.   There is no natural source of information.  I literally gave them years to provide even one.   They could not do it.  Since organisms are full of information, this means that the information within organisms had to have been input by a Designer, and I would assert that the God of the Bible is the Creator God fitting the description.   The most thoroughly vetted and supported ancient document in the world is the Bible, and the Old Testament includes an eyewitness account of the formation of the Universe that

Darwinists gave up on the Law of Biogenesis.   They could not come up with even one experiment that showed life coming from non-life,  which means there was no scientific reason to conclude that the Law of Biogenesis was no longer a law.   Naturalists have religious reasons to want it ignored and pretend it was not declared a law after thorough testing of every kind of life over the course of a couple of centuries.   That includes the world of microbial organisms, a specialty of one Dr. Louis Pasteur.   If the Law of Biogenesis was not true, we could not depend upon canned food to be safe to eat, for dangerous microbes might well spontaneously arise within the can.   But life does not spontaneously generate and that means that life did not evolve from non-life and that eliminates Darwinism before it begins.

Darwinism has always been all hat, no cattle.   But it takes awhile to get people to understand that they have been brainwashed, they've been lied to and they have been bamboozled for the sake of religious beliefs!   Naturalism MUST have Darwinism, despite the fatal flaws thereof, because they have no other recourse other than to admit that God is and God did create all things.  For some odd reason, people like Richard Dawkins would apparently prefer being eaten alive by a pack of filthy rats than to even consider the possibility of a God.   It seems childish to decide that you want to know the truth but some things have to be ruled out in advance.     If you say to yourself, as long as I dismiss the idea of God I want to know what is true about life, then you aren't kidding anyone but yourself.   Any beginning philosopher knows that the concept of God must be considered and acknowledged as a valid general worldview that "science" has no right or power or reason to hide in a locked closet.   

Just recently a commenter asked me yet again:  "About mainstream science and the scientific method. Pray tell, how would the scientific method work if one, say, tried to include the supernatural?"

Rather ironic as the previous post right above his comment concerned that very subject!  Therefore I was relatively brief and predicted the current post as well:

"You apparently are not a regular reader or you would not ask. However, the scientific method would work as it was formulated by Bacon and used by scientists until it was artificially inserted with religion. One would test and observe the evidence and processes and investigate historical evidence and any other relevant information and then come up with a hypothesis.

When it comes to origins, forensics are involved and also there is no possibility of entering a time machine, so logic is applied. Since organisms are obviously designed, any scientist who is not inserting a Naturalist barricade to knowledge would agree that a Designer would be required. All the great scientists of the past with very few exceptions believed that God created the Universe and therefore expected to be able to investigate processes and understand their operations.

Naturalism keeps science from acknowledging God and therefore the hilarity of nothing being responsible for the creation of everything is asserted. This preposterous idea is behind the Big Bang hypotheses, which do not hold up under scrutiny and abiogenesis studies aka "chemical evolution" which are also preposterous.

I challenged the world of Darwinists to give me a natural source for information and they finally gave up and admitted there was no such source. I challenged them to provide to me the test results that overturned the Law of Biogenesis and again they could not answer.

I will shortly go after them again on the Laws of Thermodynamics and I expect they will fail there as well. Darwinism is not science, it is religion. Naturalism is a religion. It should not be imposed upon science. Science should be free to consider all possibilities and choose the most logical one based on the evidence. That is what I do."


The best information specialists in the world have ripped those who proclaim WEASEL and Genetic Algorithms as proofs for evolution.  These formal programs are what they are, incapable of explaining or predicting any possibility of evolution and programmed to do what they do.  

So Darwinists have failed miserably to deal with information or Biogenesis, which basically means that Darwinism is dead and science should wash it off of itself like a coating of slime you get from falling into a funky swamp out in the woods.   Wash away that Naturalist nonsense, cleanse yourself of all the fairy tales and impossible just-so stories and begin to read and discover that God.s explanation for orignis does fit the facts while Darwinism is simply preposterous,   Go ahead,  regret for a moment the months or years devoted to Darwinism but then rejoice because, once you realize God created,  everything about life and the Universe begins to make real sense.

As for the rest of you?   Evidence!   You failed to provide evidence for information or for Biogenesis,   What have you got for Thermodynamics?   Because Real Science says the world is devolving rather than evolving.  You have it backwards!

God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective

Jonathan Sarfati breaks it all down and echoes much of what Ian Juby said in this Creation,com article: 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Answers to Critics


This article deals with three common questions about creationist thermodynamic arguments, and rebuts some common evolutionary counter-arguments:
  1. Open systems
  2. Crystals
  3. The 2nd Law and the Fall

Question 1: Open Systems

‘Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.
‘This does seem to be a valid point—do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?’

Answer 1:

The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:
  • that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)
  • usable energy is running out
  • information tends to get scrambled
  • order tends towards disorder
  • a random jumble won’t organize itself
It also depends on the type of system:
  • An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.
  • A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.
  • An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
  • … there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …  There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.1
Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization, covered in Question 2 below. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

For more information on mutation, variation and information, see our Question and Answer pages on these topics, or Refuting Evolution.
Return to top

Question 2: What about crystals?

To quote one anti-creationist, Boyce Rensberger:
If the Second Law truly prohibited local emergence of increased order, there would be no ice cubes. The greater orderliness of water molecules in ice crystals than in the liquid state is purchased with the expenditure of energy at the generator that made the electricity to run the freezer. And that makes it legal under the Second Law.2

Answer 2:

Rensberger is ignorant of the creationist responses to this argument. An energy source is not enough to produce the specified complexity of life. The energy must be directed in some way. The ice cubes of his example would not form if the electrical energy was just wired into liquid water! Instead, we would get lots of heat, and the water breaking up into simpler components, hydrogen and oxygen.

The ice example is thermodynamically irrelevant to the origin of life. When ice freezes, it releases heat energy into the environment. This causes an entropy increase in the surroundings. If the temperature is low enough, this entropy increase is greater than the loss of entropy in forming the crystal. But the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and entropy) from their surroundings. Thus ordinary amino acids and nucleotides will not spontaneously form proteins and nucleic acids at any temperature.

Rensberger also fails to distinguish between order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex. To illustrate: a periodic (repeating) signal, e.g. ABABABABABAB, is an example of order. However, it carries little information: only ‘AB’, and ‘print 6 times’.

A crystal is analogous to that sequence; it is a regular, repeating network of atoms. Like that sequence, a crystal contains little information: the co-ordinates of a few atoms (i.e. those which make up the unit cell), and instructions ‘more of the same’ x times. If a crystal is broken, smaller but otherwise identical crystals result. Conversely, breaking proteins, DNA or living structures results in destruction, because the information in them is greater than in their parts.

A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased.

Random signals, e.g. WEKJHDF BK LKGJUES KIYFV NBUY, are not ordered, but complex. But a random signal contains no useful information. A non-random aperiodic (non-repeating) signal—specified complexity—e.g. ‘I love you’, may carry useful information. However, it would be useless unless the receiver of the information understood the English language convention. The amorous thoughts have no relationship to that letter sequence apart from the agreed language convention. The language convention is imposed onto the letter sequence.

Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. The sequences of DNA and proteins must be imposed from outside by some intelligent process. Proteins are coded in DNA, and the DNA code comes from pre-existing codes, not by random processes.

Many scientific experiments show that when their building blocks are simply mixed and chemically combined, a random sequence results. To make a protein, scientists need to add one unit at a time, and each unit requires a number of chemical steps to ensure that the wrong type of reaction doesn’t occur. The same goes for preparing a DNA strand in a correct sequence. See Q&A: Origin of Life.

The evolutionary origin-of-life expert Leslie Orgel confirmed that there are three distinct concepts: order, randomness and specified complexity:
Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [L. Orgel, The Origins of Life, John Wiley, NY, 1973, p. 189]
Even the simplest known self-reproducing life form (Mycoplasma) has 482 genes, and it must parasitize more complex organisms to obtain the building blocks it cannot manufacture itself. The simplest organism that could exist in theory would need at least 256 genes, and it’s doubtful whether it could survive.3 See How Simple Can Life Be?
Return to top

Question 3: Did the 2nd Law begin at the Fall?

Answer 3:

No, I would not say that entropy/Second Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall. The Second Law is responsible for a number of good things which involve increases in entropy, so are ‘decay’ processes in the thermodynamic sense but maybe not what most people would imagine are decay:
  • solar heating of the earth (heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classical case of the Second Law in action),
  • walking (requires the highly entropic phenomenon of friction, otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden!),
  • breathing (based on air moving from high pressure to low pressure, producing a more disordered equalized concentration of molecules),
  • digestion (breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks),
  • baking a cake (mixing the ingredients produces a lot of disorder), etc.
What is contrary to Scripture is death of nephesh animals before sin, and suffering (or ‘groaning in travail’ (Rom. 8:20–22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power at the Fall. He still sustains the universe (Col. 1:17) otherwise it would cease to exist. But most of the time He doesn’t sustain it in the way that He prevented the Israelites’ shoes and clothes from wearing out during the 40 years in the wilderness (Dt. 29:5). But this special case may have been the rule rather than the exception before the Fall. Return to top

Related articles


References and notes


  1. John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40; cited in Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics Institute for Creation Research, 1993. Return to text.
  2. Boyce Rensberger, ‘How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution’, Washington Post, 8 Jan 1997. See Response. Return to Text.
  3. For a good discussion on thermodynamics; open, closed and isolated systems, order vs. complexity; and other difficulties for evolutionary origin of life scenarios, see Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, 1984, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Lewis & Stanley, Dallas, TX (relevant chapters are online). See also detailed response to an evolutionist. Return to Text.
(Available in Spanish)

Evolution is supported and endorsed by governments, the media, our major educational institutions and many big businesses. But look at this site and see how much can be achieved with a little effort from God’s people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hope you see that science actually supports creation and absolutely not evolution.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Darwinists have admitted defeat concerning information.

Well, that should be singular. And noted a sarcastic singular. And also noted that I may not meet your definition of darwinist. But otherwise...

And Sarfarti is just another one of those creationists who likes to quote very selectively and out of context. Here is the first quote from the article, in context (note: the context is a letter to the editor, that is not mentioned by mr. sarfarti...I guess our chess playing super genius glossed over that detail. One would think there are more authoritative sources on the subject than letters to the editor...):

"SIR: I am referring to the article entitled 'Physical Chemistry,' C&EN, June 2, page 20. Toward the end of the article is stated: 'Another area where physical chemistry likely has important biological applications is the study of the properties of steady states far from equilibrium. These are stable systems that do not follow the second law of thermodynamics; instead they require a continual supply of energy from outside the system to maintain themselves.' Please be advised that there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. I recognize that it is very difficult to write an article on as broad a subject as physical chemistry in two pages, and ordinarily I would not bother to point out minor errors. However, there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."

The full quote really means quite the opposite as Sarfarti would like it to, no? Really, he can't come up with something better than an out of context quote from a letter to the editor???? What. A. Joke.

lava

radar said...

Lava,

Maybe you do not fit the definition of a Darwinist, but you are hopelessly lost in the field of Thermodynamics.

Did you actually watch the video?

Doctor Sarfati is actually an authority on several subjects other than chess. But there have been myriad scientists who have stated that the LOT are never violated. Bringing work to a process does not violate the LOT. However directed work cannot be compared to the idiotic concept that the Earth violates the LOT because it receives sunlight. Yet this is the dodge Darwinists use when it is pointed out to them that Darwinism goes in the opposite direction of the LOT.

The joke is a guy who really has not grasped the concept trying to match wits with mega-brained Jonathan Sarfati. Sarfati had complete training in LOT long before he obtained his doctorates. Even I can tell that your insertions do not mean that the statement goes in the opposite direction. You just don't comprehend what is being said. So if there is a joke it would seem to be on you?

Anonymous said...

Whoever wrote "the idiotic concept that the Earth violates the LOT because it receives sunlight" is the one who is "hopelessly lost in the field of Thermodynamics".

If you don't get it, that's on you.

Anonymous said...

...the idiotic concept that the Earth violates the LOT because it receives sunlight

Who is saying that?

Anonymous said...

Radar said it above. No idea what he's talking about.

drivebycommenter said...

The fundamental misunderstanding on which all the YEC arguments re. the 2nd LOT appear to be based is the misunderstanding that entropy increases evenly and universally. Entropy quite obviously decreases locally all the time, and that's not a violation of the 2nd LOT.

radar said...

Darwinists claim that the 2LOT does not apply to the Earth because it is an "open system" whereas there really is no such thing as a closed system anywhere as far as we know. A truly closed system is only possible theoretically.

The ways in which entropy decrease involve adding work to a system and work requires intelligence and directed activity. Darwinism depends upon random chance to create the Universe, time, matter, laws of nature, life, information, everything. This is incredibly illogical. Yet most of you walk around accepting a random underlying cause for everything, including yourself, your mind and your ability to think and reason. Yet if you are not designed then you cannot be sure that you actually do think and reason but rather simply have evolved to do what you do instinctively. Your belief that you have free choice is a mirage. In fact you have no basis to be certain you actually exist.

Jon W said...

Someday I will meet a creationist who actually understands thermodynamics.

But not today, and not this creationist.

"The ways in which entropy decrease involve adding work to a system"

False. Since entropy is (roughly speaking) a measure of how much energy is not available to do work within a system, the way to decrease entropy within a system is to increase the amount of energy (as a proportion of the whole) which is available to do work. In the long run, this can only be done by bringing new energy supplies in from outside the system. On Earth, the new energy enters in the form of solar radiation and radioactive emission.

"and work requires intelligence and directed activity."

Also false, and rather stupidly so. Flowing water does work all the time. So does solar radiation, and radioactivity, and wind, and fire.

Jon W said...

Living things, of course, maintain their bodies at relatively low entropy by taking in fresh supplies of energy as food, and excreting used energy as waste products. This allows them to do all sorts of "entropy-violating" things - grow, reproduce, stay alive, etc. - without actually violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Since evolution is merely a long, long series of individual organisms living and reproducing, and organisms doing those things don't violate the 2nd Law, evolution doesn't violate the 2nd Law either.

radar said...

Jon,

You are not doing anything but presenting gibberish. "Work" in the context of LOT is exactly what I said it was. Water flowing downstream might push a stick along. But if you want to obtain energy from the water you put up a millwheel to power a simple grain milling operation or you set up a hydroelectric generating plant that takes power from the flow of water and converts it to electricity.

In any of these cases there is a heat loss/energy loss as the 2LOT relentlessly continues to operate.

Just as a hydroelectric plant must be designed and built with specific blueprints and planning and intelligence, organisms are sophisticated organic machines with a tremendous amount of specified information causing them to be able to obtain energy from various sources (sunlight or sulfur or methane at the base level) so that with intelligence and work they will operate for a few hours or days or weeks or years (depending on the organism) before experiencing death.

Yes, organisms have this ability but the point is that they had to have been designed to do it. The 2LOT tells us that rocks and chemicals don't just bonk into each other and become living things. This is why Darwinism is so ridiculous. Biogenesis is still true, life does not come from non-life. Thermodynamics is still true, everything is losing heat or energy and all things are tending towards entropy. In order for organisms to exist, they have to exist the same way a Chevrolet Impala exists. Someone had to design and build it. The primary difference is that organisms are far more sophisticated than automobiles and they also reproduce. Can you imagine the incredible amount of design and the sheer bulk of a Chevy Impala that could make more Impalas? It would be far too huge to drive.

The fact that organisms exist tells us that intelligence, information and work was brought into the world to create them because they cannot "arise" from the natural world by natural processes.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

Do you believe that it the natural formation of life is a violation of the 2LOT? Or, do you believe organisms evolving over time through mutations and natural selection, as is generally understood by evolution today, violates the 2LOT?

lava

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Darwinists claim that the 2LOT does not apply to the Earth"

Wrong. Please point us to any "Darwinist" who claims that the 2nd LOT doesn't apply to the Earth.

"because it is an "open system""

That's not saying that the 2nd LOT doesn't apply, it's saying that it does apply, but obviously the Earth is not a closed system, and it receives heat input from somewhere other than Earth.

"whereas there really is no such thing as a closed system anywhere as far as we know. A truly closed system is only possible theoretically."

Then why the heck would you pretend the Earth is a closed system?

You just destroyed your own (albeit flimsy) argument.

"The 2LOT tells us that rocks and chemicals don't just bonk into each other and become living things."

Where exactly do you think it does that?

"Thermodynamics is still true, everything is losing heat or energy and all things are tending towards entropy."

Aye, but not universally at the same rate. There are local decreases of entropy. That's the part that creationists always like to skip over.

BTW, Jon Woolf nailed it (though it has been pointed out to you before):

"Living things, of course, maintain their bodies at relatively low entropy by taking in fresh supplies of energy as food, and excreting used energy as waste products. This allows them to do all sorts of "entropy-violating" things - grow, reproduce, stay alive, etc. - without actually violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Since evolution is merely a long, long series of individual organisms living and reproducing, and organisms doing those things don't violate the 2nd Law, evolution doesn't violate the 2nd Law either. "

radar said...

Radar,

Do you believe that it the natural formation of life is a violation of the 2LOT? Or, do you believe organisms evolving over time through mutations and natural selection, as is generally understood by evolution today, violates the 2LOT?

lava


The natural formation of life was proved impossible by the Law of Biogenesis, which still stands. Also, chemical barriers to the standalone formation of the components of life preclude it from happening. The lack of information sources from nature also preclude it. But if you take all that away, yes, the 2LOT would say that mud and rocks and water and chemicals would not organize themselves into life were it possible.

Organisms do not evolve over time. They speciate, which is not the same thing. There is a large amount of genetic information within cells held in DNA from which organisms are formed and natural selection is the description of how and why some traits are passed down in specific environments and some are not. Mutations are deleterious and do not build but rather break. That mutations occur is predictable by 2LOT. Organisms are designed to overcome mutations by various means, depending upon the organisms, but in human beings we have quality control systems which identify and repair mutations before they are passed on. They cannot get them all.

2LOT would tend to cause organisms to pile up mutations and go extinct and that is what we observe. So 2LOT is seen working in the world of organisms in the reverse order that Darwinism describes.

radar said...

So Jon Woolf nailed nothing. He has no argument. Somebody say something coherent that in some way addresses the issue, please?

Lava asked intelligent questions. The commenter after him was so illogical it hurts the brain. Get this straight - there is NO KNOWN VIOLATION OF THE 2LOT recorded in history, none! Energy is always being converted to entropy. If you see energy or order increasing anywhere, you can be sure that it is decreasing somewhere else in the observed process to cause it to happen.

Jon Woolf presents no argument to address, actually, he just makes an unsupported statement that is no more interesting than what a grade-schooler is taught in propaganda (oops, I mean science) class.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Lava asked intelligent questions. The commenter after him was so illogical it hurts the brain."

The first non-anonymous commenter after lava that had an actual argument was drivebycommenter:

"The fundamental misunderstanding on which all the YEC arguments re. the 2nd LOT appear to be based is the misunderstanding that entropy increases evenly and universally. Entropy quite obviously decreases locally all the time, and that's not a violation of the 2nd LOT."

Is that the statement you were referring to?

If so, why does this hurt your brain? What do you think is illogical about it?

"Get this straight - there is NO KNOWN VIOLATION OF THE 2LOT recorded in history, none!"

That's right, and no so-called "Darwinist" is claiming that that is case. Reproduction with variation doesn't violate the 2nd LOT. Evolution by natural selection doesn't violate the 2nd LOT.

"Energy is always being converted to entropy."

What happens when a plant grows?

radar said...

What happens when a plant grows is not unlike what happens when a group of people envision, plan, blueprint, get funding and workers and build a building. However, the growth and sustenance of a plant is more complex than the building and maintenance of the local grocery store.

Photosynthesis is a remarkable process that is far more advanced than anything man has invented to convert sunlight into energy. For a plant to be able to grow from a leaf or a seed requires a tremendous amount of engineering and information and all super-efficient in order to allow for the self-building process of a plant.

You really think that something like that just happens by chance? You are completely illogical and brainwashed to even consider it! By the 2LOT, a seed found laying on the ground would decay and eventually degrade into dust and dirt. For a seed to turn itself into a plant required brilliant engineering input into the first plants to cause them to be self-replicating as well as self-sustaining.

Your car needs you to put in fuel, keep the battery in shape, the oil and other fluids changed or topped off, the timing belt replaced at 80 thousand miles or so and etc. In order for it to operate you have to turn it on and know how to put it into gear and steer it down the road and stop and turn it.

But plants have the information within to get their own nutrition and reproduce themselves. So do all organisms. Some less complex organisms split to form two new organisms but most have a form of reproduction that involves seed of some kind. In humans it is the male seed and the female egg. Again, your fact-free assertions that such things do not violate the 2LOT do hurt the logical mind.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"What happens when a plant grows is not unlike what happens when a group of people envision, plan, blueprint, get funding and workers and build a building."

It's actually very much unlike that. We don't have a group of people envisioning, planning, blueprinting, getting funding then building a plant. Unless you have some stunning new info that the rest of mankind isn't privy to.

You're suggesting an active intelligence (actually a number of active intelligent entities) at work. If you want this analogy to stand, then please provide evidence of the active intelligence that builds each and every plant.

Next paragraph: argument from incredulity.

Next: "You really think that something like that just happens by chance?" Strawman argument. No, I don't think it "just happens by chance". If that's your argument, then you haven't grasped the most basic aspects of the theory of evolution and are utterly unqualified to comment on it.

Next: "By the 2LOT, a seed found laying on the ground would decay and eventually degrade into dust and dirt." If you think this statement is true (and apparently you do, because you just published it), then either all seeds found lying (not laying) on the ground would actually decay and eventually degrade into dust and dirt (which we know isn't true) or the 2nd LOT is not valid (which as far as we know is also not true).

Since we do think the 2nd LOT is true, according to all our observations, and since we can observe that a seed quite frequently does not decay and eventually degrade into dust and dirt, your statement is complete nonsense.

The overall entropy of a system increases, yes. But there are local decreases of entropy. We see them all around us all the time.

I don't know why your (supposedly logical) mind is so frequently hurt by simple logic.

But that's on you. I don't expect you to understand it. No commenter here does, really.

Incidentally, I notice you never get anyone agreeing with you commenting here any more.

radar said...

The one entity at work in regards to the plant is God, who input all the information and designed the reproductive process of that plant and all other living organisms. Organisms are far more complex than the things man builds, and almost all things that we build are team efforts and not the work of one person. But God designed organisms to adjust to environmental changes and be self-sustaining and also able to replicate. Such astounding engineering has been studied and revealed to the world in the last 100 plus years and it is amazing to me that you Darwinists cannot grasp the simple concept that *poof* doesn't build things!

Jon W said...

"The one entity at work in regards to the plant is God,"

That's superstition, not science.

"Energy is always being converted to entropy."

Gaah. The stupid, it burns hotter than Sirius-A.

The First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: In a closed system, entropy will always tend to increase.

Energy and entropy are different concepts. Energy is a thing; entropy is a measurement. Energy CANNOT be converted into entropy, any more than a rock can be converted into a direction.

"If you see energy or order increasing anywhere, you can be sure that it is decreasing somewhere else in the observed process to cause it to happen."

If you see energy increasing, you know something is putting energy into the system from outside. If you see order increasing, you know that work is being done, some form of energy is being converted to heat, and over-all entropy is increasing.

How can you believe you're qualified to discuss the esoterica of evolution and genetics, when you can't even get the simplest elements of basic physics right?

radar said...

Painfully wrong, Jon!

Definition of entropy and energy from The American Heritage® Science Dictionary:

Entropy-
"A measure of the amount of energy in a physical system not available to do work. As a physical system becomes more disordered, and its energy becomes more evenly distributed, that energy becomes less able to do work. For example, a car rolling along a road has kinetic energy that could do work (by carrying or colliding with something, for example); as friction slows it down and its energy is distributed to its surroundings as heat, it loses this ability. The amount of entropy is often thought of as the amount of disorder in a system. See also heat death."

Energy-
"The capacity or power to do work, such as the capacity to move an object (of a given mass) by the application of force. Energy can exist in a variety of forms, such as electrical, mechanical, chemical, thermal, or nuclear, and can be transformed from one form to another. It is measured by the amount of work done, usually in joules or watts. See also conservation of energykinetic energy/potential energy. Compare powerwork"

Go back to school, Jon! Your last comment is incorrect and gets an "F" from science. Energy and Entropy are the same thing to an extent, states of the system going from more to less heat. Energy is indeed going towards Entropy and only work brought into the system can change that process and only temporarily.

So all things are going from more to less energy in this Universe. The overall march of the 2LOT is going to continue on to Heat Death unless God ends the world before that occurs, which is close to certain.

The idea that God created is superstitious but *poof* created is not is at the heart of your failure to grasp the findings of the 21st Century. God creating everything matches the advancement of science in the fields of biology and geology whether you and fellow Darwinists like it or not.

Jon W said...

"So all things are going from more to less energy in this Universe. "

Less energy? Less energy??

[sigh]

The First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

Or phrased another way: In a closed system, the total amount of energy is a constant.

radar said...

Jon, you've then agreed that Darwinism is nonsense. If nothing naturally is created or destroyed, it took the supernatural God to create it all.

Otherwise you are just playing games with semantics. You know fully well what I mean when I say these things because order is moving to disorder, energy to entropy and that is a fact. You wish to parse words, fine, but in the process of restating the LOT you have killed Darwinism and Naturalism, Thanks!