Evolution, Entropy, the Big Bang, and the Second Law

[Fiddley Acusector]

let me offer this as a rebuttal to your blitzkrieg: RUN!!!

[vipr230]

Professor Indiana Jones

As a person well versed on the subject of both science AND religion, this is all I have to say on this matter.

To Christians and other religious sects:
Religion is a faith based construct. It means you believe your religion despite the fact that others say it's not truthful or that it's false. God is not tangible, nor are his works and actions, at least not by the scientific sense of the term, and you really shouldn't want him to be.

If God is a spiritual being, then don't cheapen him by trying to find him using science. Don't argue with people who have chosen their own belief system based on empirical evidence. True faith is not something you should need to justify with a textbook. As a believer myself, I don't want the purely theological idea of creation being taught in a biological science class.

Stop trying to make religion into science. Religion is not a science, it's a spiritual choice, that should be enough for you people without trying to rain on Science's parade. Creation is not science. It's a personal spiritual belief.

To Athiests/Scientists/People who act like internet tough-guys and jack off to threads about the non-existence of god:
You are almost as much to blame in this as the religious people, and here's why. Rather than accept the fact that somebody has decided to view things in a different light than you do, you choose to instead hound and belittle them for their choices, believing yourselves to be more enlightened or intelligent because of the fact that you've weighed the facts and rejected the existence of a god or a creator.

Fair enough, however, there are also those who haven't weighed the facts and rejected god or a creator, and just chosen to reject them flat out. Just as there are religious people who have decided to do the same thing. A different viewpoint does not a more intelligent person make. You simply view the world differently, and that's fair, but it doesn't make you any more superior. In the end all you've really accomplished is... well nothing really.

Except calling genuine believers ignorant and foolish, despite the fact that they've done you no harm. In essence, bullying people's beliefs just as much as they can bully yours.

In the end, neither of you is any better than the other, so shut the hell up and stop posting these irritating s**t-storm threats.

Jesus Christ...

You mind doing me a favor and pointing out when we were EVER arguing in this thread against a god? In fact, where we were arguing against faith in general here? We constantly have been berating the guy for his refusal to provide evidence and validate his claims, he claims he has support, yet refuses to support himself. He claims validity when he has none. This is what we constantly take offense to. If you had read the thread, you'd notice that I went to great lengths to explain why Dodge Beast was in fact setting up a false dichotomy, equating evolution to a non-existence of god. If we had been arguing against god, that wouldn't be a terribly good place to start.

No, this is more about "you claim you have support, you constantly say your side has some validity, yet you utterly REFUSE to support yourself." This is the problem at hand, we're not calling them ignorant and foolish because they are genuine believers, we are calling them ignorant and foolish because they claim to have support and validity for that which contradicts the evidence and refuse to provide any evidence themselves.

[Jaaten Syric]

I believe he was speaking generally,vipr, not attempting to point out that one/all of us had committed such a crime.

That said, I find the whole 'to atheists' bit to be rather stupid. I'm not aware of a great many of us who honestly give a damn what theists believe, simply how they act on those beliefs, and what they have evidence for. That being said, beliefs, no matter how deeply held are not, in my mind, ever to be regarded as sacred cows, and as such no belief is beyond criticism. Believe whatever you wish, but by airing it in a public forum, especially in a thread where the views of the OP and/or the regular posters is known to be hostile to your point of view completely removes your right to b***h about having its holes and internal contradictions shoved in your face in a less than courteous manner.

[VoijaRisa]

Dipped_In_Octane

Quote:

However, there is an even more fundamental flaw with the argument as it is presented, that obfusticates even the part of the Second Law that they do use. To understand this, let's again look at an example. If we take a look at water at a molecular level, it's rather disordered. The arrangement of the molecules in regards to one another has no rhyme or reason.

The only thing I see wrong with your arguement is this part. Water DOES have order. If i remember correctly its called polorization. That is even though water's structure are supposedly neutral, it isnt. One end has a slight positive charge while the other has a slight negative.
See drawing sad 0 = oxygen 8 =2 hydrogen)

+ 08 -

Now with the slight charge they are able to form slight bonds to form something like:

+08-+08-+08-+08-+08-+08-+08 -

Given its very similar to magnitizing a piece of metal. However the bond is alot weaker.

Thats the reason water forms dropplets.

Way to catch that!

However, it doesn't hurt my argument in any way since it's right along the lines of what I'm talking about. You're right that water does have some order, even in liquid form. The polarization does lead to some structure, but really only in the presence of a magnetic field or at very specific places like the surface. Inside the droplet, the net magnetic field from all the randomly aligned polarizations cancels one another out so there's no real structure.

However, it's also these polarizations and the structure of the water molecule that allows ice to form in the first place. The combination of these two is what determines the very regular structure of the ice crystal. It's a governing force under the right conditions (ie, when it's cold). Under other conditions (like when it's liquid) the polarization is dwarfed by the random motions of particles.

So my point still stands. When the second law is used appropriately water is no mystery. It behaves as the minimization of entropy under the governing forces. However, if you use the Creationist nonsense version of the second law, it still makes no sense because it's still getting more "ordered" when you remove energy from the system. Water may have the very slight structure at the boundaries, but it still has far more as a solid. Thus, the way Creationists attempt to bastardize the second law is still lame and pathetic.

[DCVI]

VoijaRisa

Lord Plate

I love your threads, but unfortunately, it's like a blitzkrieg of information... I have nothing to add or discuss, except my agreement and delight.

Well, people are always free to discuss incidents in which they have seen ignorant creationists use the arguments I demolish, or, if they are ignorant creationists, to admit their ignorance and discuss how wonderful it will be to use that brain their God gave them.

See, there's always room for discussion in my threads.

As a side note:

Sagacity and haughtiness are inversely proportional.

No one wants to hear your "truth" when you spit it in their faces.

[VoijaRisa]

Bumpdated with large new section from Pharyngula.

[vipr230]

VoijaRisa

Bumpdated with large new section from Pharyngula.

*gasp* You're back! It's been a while. PS, ExtantDodo's been suspended again >.> Creationists are working hard on youtube.

[Blackhorn- the Legend]

I can only hope that this thread (and others) informs some of those poor, misguided creationists/IDists into finding a more plausible argument.

One complaint I would like to register is that by continuing to contain multiple topics (evolution & Big Bang, in this case) you are furthering the misconception that they have anything do do with one another (other than persecution by Christians). Just a casual complaint, nothing too angry. ^_^

Overall, I like and approve of this thread. I'll be checking in on it from time to time.

[0Katiepie0]

Put a link to Eric Chaisson's book 'Cosmic Evolution: the Rise of Complexity in Nature' in the OP, it specifically addresses this issue in great detail.

[VoijaRisa]

Bumpdated with a link to a summary of a study showing "ordered" crystals can form spontaneously due to entropy.

[VoijaRisa]

Amy-Frost

Don't lump old earth creationists with all creationists. I know several religious scientists who are very intelligent people. If you're getting a lot of complaints about this perhaps you should change your opening post and people might be more likely to listen to what you have to say instead of taking offense.

Old-Earth Creationists are just as full of pseudo-scientific bullshit as the rest of them.

It has nothing to do with being "intelligent". It has to do with the quality of the arguments and Creationists, regardless of what kind, fail overwhelmingly.