drowningpool212
Ok entropy is the probability of a certian thing happening.
No, entropy is the transfer of thermal energy. I would know, that's what I get told in all my college science classes. Crack open a Physical Science textbook. Failing that,
read read read.
The probability of something happening is called "Probability." Anybody who tells you otherwise is misunderstanding something.
Quote:
It was founded my steamers who used the second law of therodynamics as it is acually named, says that the
probability of life evolving (cant spell) is equivalent to a Boeing 747 being created from a gust of wind blowing threw a junkyard.
Which is a factually incorrect statement because the probability of the plane from the junkyard is dependent on forces ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from those involved in Evolution. The short reply is that RANDOM CHANCE ALONE is not the same as EVOLUTION, therefore thinking that one applies to the other is bullshit.
The longer explanation is that random chance (RC from now on) is only ONE SINGLE PART of the Evolutionary process, the other parts being Selective Pressures. There are many different kinds of Selective Pressures, and Evolution gets the most out of Natural Selection (environmental pressures) and Sexual Selection (social or behavior pressures regarding the choice of a mate).
An extremely basic Selective Pressure would be the nature of Chemical and Physical laws. Certain elements and particals react to others
in certain ways only, and never react in certain other ways. Carbon simply LOVES to bind to other elements, whereas Krypton does not want to bind with anything if it can be helped. There are chemical properties of electronegativity that affect a substance's affinity for making and breaking bonds, and there are patterns to chemical interactions so basic and intrinsic that the entire Period Table is arranged to reflect them. The fact that certain substances react to others in certain ways means that
IT IS NOT JUST RANDOM CHANCE ALONE! The probability of Krypton and Neon atoms coming together to form a molecule by themselves is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH less than that of Carbon and Hydrogen atoms bonding together. This is a form of SELECTION.
What does selection have to do with random chance, RC, and what does RC have to do with things like Evolution and Abiogenesis (life from non-life)? Simply this: Because there are basic chemical, physical, natural, and social mechanisms of selection, there are always less possible and less likely outcomes than RC alone would dictate because selective pressures SELECT from all possibilities and make some things more or less likely than others. Thus, any RC calculation is an
ABSOLUTE MAXIUM improbability that will most likely never ever be reflective of reality. Because RC calculations do not reflect reality, especially not the reality of Evolution, Abiogenesis, or even basic chemistry,
they do not prove one Designerdamned thing other than that the person making assumptions based off of RC calculations has
NO IDEA what they're talking about.
Besides, calculating the chances for the origin of life or certain evolutionary pathways requires knowledge we don't have, so it can't be done accurately.
So says Borel.
Quote:
Evolution
statisticly is inprobable and could not of happened with out a intellagent desginer
A) Improbable never means Impossible by itself. It just means "unlikely."
B) It's impossible (yes, not just improbable) to prove that an Ingelligent Designer made or didn't make anything about life on Earth, but everything we have in the way of evidence suggests that there is no guiding intelligence behind any of it.
C) String "Theory" has what exactly to do with biology?
D) If Brian Greene is relying on these old, disproven, debunked, and thoroughly wrong arguments to make the claim that life requires a Designer, he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Maybe he is a good physicist/mathematician/whatever, but if he really is making these claims he's an idiot when it comes to biology. It happens all the time, sadly enough.
-
However, being familiar with Greene's stuff, I doubt he is really making these claims. Instead I suspect that an IDist or other Creationist has
quotemined him in some way to make it seem like he's saying something he isn't.
They're notoriously infamous for doing this. If you could give us a section of the original text or article from which this "calculation" was pulled, with the appropriate context, that would be enormously helpful.
If you want to hear Brian Greene talk about ID directly and why it isn't scientific (as opposed to string 'theory'), check out
this link. ID = Not Science, Strings = Nascent Science In Progress.
Somehow I don't think appealing to Greene will help you out any.
