Thermodynamics and "Open" Systems

[Mr Jack]

If you have an open system, what is it open to?

If you can’t explain that, you have to assume a closed one

Why? Why not assume the other way round? More to the point, it's eminently obvious that everything on Earth is an open system.

With a closed system entropy tells us that there was a beginning and there will be
an end

An end? Not really. It tells us that everything will tend towards a uniform state.

Logic tells us that there had to be a Beginner

No, it doesn't. It tells us we can't know that.

 

[chrysostom]

Why? Why not assume the other way round? More to the point, it's eminently obvious that everything on Earth is an open system.


.

Oh I forgot the earth is open to the universe

I also forgot what the universe is open to

Can you help me out there?

 

[Mr Jack]

Oh I forgot the earth is open to the universe

More to the point, the Earth is open to the Sun, which is where the energy for all life comes from.

I also forgot what the universe is open to

Can you help me out there?

The universe shows no sign of being an open system. Are you now going to go on to some point regarding the origin of the universe? That's the fallacy of composition.

 

[Nick M]

If Bob b were wrong, somebody would have a perpetual motion machine.

 

[Mr Jack]

If Bob b were wrong, somebody would have a perpetual motion machine.

Wrong.

 

[chair]

If Bob b were wrong, somebody would have a perpetual motion machine.

Huh? How did you get to that conclusion?

 

[Palladius]

It doesn't. But at least you can jettison the idea of evolution. That would be a step in the right direction.

I feel I am not qualified to make an informed opinion on this subject matter since I have not studied it in great depth. That being said and assuming that Granville Sewell's argument is valid, I don't see his argument as necessarily supporting "creationism" (at least not as the term is defined by biblical literalists). Rather I see his argument as possibly filling in a missing component in the theory of evolution - namely, that there is an innate intelligence at play in nature itself. In other words, I see his argument as a possible argument supporting theistic evolution.

 

[bob b]

Bob,

For the sake of argument, let us assume that compelling evidence exists that highly suggests "intelligent design." How is this proof that the Genesis creation story is historically accurate?

As I have said before, a few years ago I began to examine whether anything well established in Science conflicted with the Genesis account. So far I have found nothing significant.

One can not say this for any other god that might qualify as the "Intelligent Designer".

This is not the "proof" you desire, but it is far better than the evolutionary fairytale.

 

[Johnny]

It doesn't. But at least you can jettison the idea of evolution. That would be a step in the right direction.

Eh, not so. Just some parts of evolution. Michael Behe believes that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Obviously he didn't jettison the whole idea of evolution.

 

[bob b]

Eh, not so. Just some parts of evolution. Michael Behe believes that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Obviously he didn't jettison the whole idea of evolution.

Nobody's sinless except Jesus.

 

[ThePhy]

a few years ago I began to examine whether anything well established in Science conflicted with the Genesis account. So far I have found nothing significant.

... This is not the "proof" you desire, but it is far better than the evolutionary fairytale.

A few years ago bob b critiqued some elementary algebra in this forum. In so doing, he showed he couldn’t do elementary algebra correctly.

A few years ago bob b postulated a scenario with some simple statistics. Then several people showed his math was nonsense.

A few years ago bob tried to rotate the earth to explain Joshua’s long day. Except he ignored the field of vector analysis in so doing.

A few years ago bob alluded to Carl Sagan mocking the idea that there might be collisions in the solar system, but it was pointed out that Sagan strongly asserted that such collisions were inevitable.

The list goes on. Can anyone show a single example in the thousands of posts bob b has made in which he clearly demonstrated a non-trivial working knowledge of the principles of science?

And bob b is competent to decide what ideas are fairytales?

 

[SUTG]

A few years ago bob b critiqued some elementary algebra in this forum. In so doing, he showed he couldn’t do elementary algebra correctly.

A few years ago bob b postulated a scenario with some simple statistics. Then several people showed his math was nonsense.

A few years ago bob tried to rotate the earth to explain Joshua’s long day. Except he ignored the field of vector analysis in so doing.

A few years ago bob alluded to Carl Sagan mocking the idea that there might be collisions in the solar system, but it was pointed out that Sagan strongly asserted that such collisions were inevitable.

The list goes on. Can anyone show a single example in the thousands of posts bob b has made in which he clearly demonstrated a non-trivial working knowledge of the principles of science?

And bob b is competent to decide what ideas are fairytales?

I remember alot of that, specifically his METHINKS ITS A WEASEL thread. :chuckle:

What I find most interesting is that he pretends that his issues with evolution, geology, and cosmology are based on some sort of scientific errors that he has noticed, not the fact that they conflict with his interpretation of Genesis. If you really think you can find all of the "Answers in Genesis", why not just come right out and say that you choose Genesis over science? I never understood the "pretending it's about the science" stance...

 

[bob b]

I remember alot of that, specifically his METHINKS ITS A WEASEL thread. :chuckle:

What I find most interesting is that he pretends that his issues with evolution, geology, and cosmology are based on some sort of scientific errors that he has noticed, not the fact that they conflict with his interpretation of Genesis. If you really think you can find all of the "Answers in Genesis", why not just come right out and say that you choose Genesis over science? I never understood the "pretending it's about the science" stance...

Actually I rejected evolution long before I started to realize that Genesis was not invalidated by any solid scientific evidence.

Dawkin's "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" is so dumb I am surprised that anyone would defend it.

 

[SUTG]

Dawkin's "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" is so dumb I am surprised that anyone would defend it.

What do you think Dawkins intended to show with that example?

Have you seen Bob Enyart's evolve.exe? What do you think of that? What do you think Bob inteded to show with his example?

 

[bob b]

What do you think Dawkins intended to show with that example?

It was a propaganda tool to convince the naive how easy it was for random mutations to create order.

Dawkins apparently knew the example was flawed but used it anyway.

 

[SUTG]

It was a propaganda tool to convince the naive how easy it was for random mutations to create order.

Dawkins apparently knew the example was flawed but used it anyway.

As expected, you missed the point completely.

 

[Yorzhik]

Non-living systems can do that as well. Think of a sorting machine, which creates order by separating two types of materials. A robot, if you like. Or a distillation apparatus that separates two materials. Energy is used to create order.

Right, if you have a machine you can channel the energy.

 

[Yorzhik]

As expected, you missed the point completely.

If BobB were really wrong you would have said what the real point of Dawkins program was. You're just blowing smoke.

 

[Johnny]

If BobB were really wrong you would have said what the real point of Dawkins program was. You're just blowing smoke.

This sentence coming from you couldn't possibly be more ironic.

 

[SUTG]

If BobB were really wrong you would have said what the real point of Dawkins program was. You're just blowing smoke.

Do you have any idea what Dawkins was trying to show? I already know, I just want to see if you or bob b can follow a simple line of thought.