Author Topic: Christians and Islamics agree (Read 772 times)

Sandman · « **on:** December 19, 2002, 12:37:02 AM »

http://www.islam-online.net/English/Science/2002/12/article04.shtml?

funkedup · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2002, 01:35:24 AM »

Those words are nice but there are equations that go along with them, that are more important than the words. There aren't (to my knowledge) any processes involved in evolution that violate thermodynamic laws.

It would not be that difficult to create a mathematical model of some very small scale evolution that does not violate thermodynamic laws. And you can form any level of evolution from a series of these small scale changes. If each step in the series does not violate the laws, then it follows that the series as a whole does not violate the laws.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2002, 01:45:33 AM »

But doesnt that law seem to imply that something is just left there to rot with no new input of energy to counter the decay. Certainly a new active lifeform which eats and lives and maintains its body would be considered such an input of energy.

-dead- · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2002, 03:12:00 AM »

Anyone know how humans grow into huge complex organised clusters of billions of cells from a single zygote without violating the second law?

Karnak · « **Reply #4 on:** December 19, 2002, 03:13:53 AM »

I agree with GRUNHERZ.

That model completely fails to describe what we can do to replicate DNA outside of a living animal or plant, let alone what a living thing can do to reproduce its DNA.

funkedup · « **Reply #5 on:** December 19, 2002, 03:19:40 AM »

You guys missed the point. The second law is correct. If something contradicts the second law then it contradicts physics as we know it. Hell it would contradict our entire concept of time. The guy who wrote the article is simply wrong in interpreting the second law as something that doesn't allow mutations and evolution. He read "Thermodynamics for Complete Morons" and misinterpreted it.

The law says that the entropy of the universe will increase as time moves forward. But that does not mean that local entropy can not decrease. It just takes some energy flow to make it happen. And the sun gives plenty of that.

I assume MT posted the article for the reason that the guy was so obviously clueless that we could have a laugh.
But somebody already thought of it.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3631/christian_right_lobbies.html

Leslie · « **Reply #6 on:** December 19, 2002, 04:23:13 AM »

My opinion is modern science is in the stone ages.

It is impossible to prove how life began on this planet, and therefore, is an investigation of a conundrum.

Scientists have better things to do than try to figure this out. Talk about wasted time.

Biology is a very theoretical science. Physics cannot be trusted completely, as we know it. The only true science is math. It is exact and is a universal language. The only other "exact" science may be visual depictions, which people from other worlds may or may not understand, i.e. ART.

I believe art is more important than most people think. It is a form of communication, and is probably universally practiced. And, in the case of aliens from other worlds, might be the standard by which they size up our civilization.

It's worth a thought.

Les

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #7 on:** December 19, 2002, 04:41:44 AM »

Agreed! Lets give up on science alltogether!

StSanta · « **Reply #8 on:** December 19, 2002, 09:22:46 AM »

Oh gee. How uncommon - religious people misunderstanding the second law of thermodynamics.

Here's an exerpt from a site explaining it:

"However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature? "

For an indepth discussion and rebuttal of the silly claim here which is really a straw man argument: they say 2nd law of thermodynamics violates creation of life/evolution NOT because it violates 2nd law of thermodynamics, but because there needs to be an energy conversion mechanism, which is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the question of open vs closed systems) see this page:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

This is just typical mumbo jumbo justification made by religious people. That they agree is not proof. The science is out there, and it contradicts their statements.

Their argument really isn't against evolution or abiogenesis. Their argument is an attempt to make the 2nd law into something it is not. Merely distortions and misunderstandings. It might fool those who know little about the 2nd law, but if you've read about it it becomes blindingly apparent that not only are they misrepresenting the theory, they're building a straw man that has absolutely nothing to do with their original claim.

Next, please.

Sandman · « **Reply #9 on:** December 19, 2002, 09:31:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
I assume MT posted the article for the reason that the guy was so obviously clueless that we could have a laugh.
But somebody already thought of it.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3631/christian_right_lobbies.html

You're right except the part about MT.

Apache · « **Reply #10 on:** December 19, 2002, 09:36:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta
Oh gee. How uncommon - religious people misunderstanding the second law of thermodynamics.

Here's an exerpt from a site explaining it:

"However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature? "

For an indepth discussion and rebuttal of the silly claim here which is really a straw man argument: they say 2nd law of thermodynamics violates creation of life/evolution NOT because it violates 2nd law of thermodynamics, but because there needs to be an energy conversion mechanism, which is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the question of open vs closed systems) see this page:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

This is just typical mumbo jumbo justification made by religious people. That they agree is not proof. The science is out there, and it contradicts their statements.

Their argument really isn't against evolution or abiogenesis. Their argument is an attempt to make the 2nd law into something it is not. Merely distortions and misunderstandings. It might fool those who know little about the 2nd law, but if you've read about it it becomes blindingly apparent that not only are they misrepresenting the theory, they're building a straw man that has absolutely nothing to do with their original claim.

Next, please.

Well geewhiz StSanta, when's the last time you talked to a sand dune?

midnight Target · « **Reply #11 on:** December 19, 2002, 09:41:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You're right except the part about MT.

I'd like to accept this award for sandman....

sandman couldn't be here today due to complications suffered after posting a "questionable" picture of ...well

Clinton's favorite angel.

Thank You.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #12 on:** December 19, 2002, 11:14:20 AM »

hehe the invisable friend debate.

if god is omnicient and omnipotent and the guys who wrote the bible weren't why does it suprise one if the text differs from gods message ,apperently (reference genisis)we suprise even god in our capability to screw up things. pointless ideolog misunderstanding science is what i got out of it.

probly be blowing up clinics in the name of god next week.

funkedup · « **Reply #13 on:** December 19, 2002, 12:42:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You're right except the part about MT.

Doh, I R Tard.

mrfish · « **Reply #14 on:** December 19, 2002, 01:03:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
It would not be that difficult to create a mathematical model of some very small scale evolution that does not violate thermodynamic laws. And you can form any level of evolution from a series of these small scale changes. If each step in the series does not violate the laws, then it follows that the series as a whole does not violate the laws.

what he said! finally someone's not beating physics to make their point.

you could also say -if the negative entropy of a system is less than the positive entropy of it's surroundings then the overall sum entropy of system and surroundings is positive and the law is maintained.

sheesh- get off the 2nd law thing already people, it's not taking you anywhere.