Comment on Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment? by BobRyan.
BobRyan: Well I certainly agree that the law regarding entropy “is also†preserved on the Sun. My point is — that is not how science first came to observe the law of increased entropy being preserved here on earth. The reason is that every energy transfer we see here on earth — still obeys that law even without the need to “add something in†the equation regarding events on the sun.
Sean
The concept of thermodynamic entropy is based on evaluation of closed systems which do not receive additional energy which could be used to do useful work from outside of the system. When you are talking about living things, the system in question always includes the Sun because that is where the energy of living things is ultimately derived. Therefore, when you are talking about the entropy of living things, you cannot exclude the Sun. Living things are not closed systems.
1. All living systems require the existence of biochemical reactions in order to “live”.
2. All of those chemical reactions exhibit the principle of increased entropy even without adding in “the sun” to each of the balanced chemical equations.
3. All transfer of energy is less than 100% efficient – (even in a living cell) – thus the Gibb’s energy increases with each one – regardless of where you are in our Galaxy when the chemical reaction takes place.
4. Entropy can also be seen at the net total amount of energy in the system itself instead of “energy transfer by energy transfer increases in entropy” and when total system energy is being measured — you get the same result “including the sun” because the aggregate of all your localized increases in entropy plus all the suns localized increases in entropy — turns out to still be an “increase in entropy”.
My point is simply that evolutionists observe their “massive decrease in entropy†problem at the local level for their “molecule to human mind story telling†and then “imagine” that they are solving it – by “appealing to the sun.”
Thus I said
Bob said –
Which is where the evolutionist argument fails. They would like to try and get the Sun to “make up the difference†but that is not how the measurements for entropy work at all.For example – We do not argue that the reaction HCL + NAOH –> H20 + NACl — will only exhibit an increase in entropy IF you take into account the entropy at the Sun.
Recall – that if the cell has no biochem reactions taking place — it is at equilibrium — it is dead.
Sean said
Again, you are referring to isolated systems which need no ultimate energy from the Sun to proceed. This chemical reaction you mention will work as a closed system. This is not true of living things, gene pools, or an argument against the evolution of living things.
The point is that you do not apply the amount of energy produced by the sun in the equation – you simply use some tiny value (let’s say heat or UV light as a catalyst or energy input) – as it turns out – heat and UV light can be generated by many sources not just the sun and the principle is unchanged – the measured entropy is unchanged, because the cell like everything else on the planet does not engage in 100% efficient energy transfers.
As it turns out the amount of energy – regardless of the source — that you use as input to the system will always be more than the system itself can use (an increase in entropy) AND this will happen at EACH transition point in the process. EVERY chemical reaction inside the cell will result in an increase in entropy (less energy available to do work) if you take into account all the attributes of the localized chemical reaction.
Sean
There is plenty of thermodynamic energy available for evolutionary progress. Therefore, a lack of thermodynamic energy to do useful work is simply not the problem with the ToE.
Certainly I agree with you – that if I had ever made the argument “there is not enough thermodynamic energy” – then — I can see why you would offer the response that would be of the form “the Sun has a lot more thermodynamic energy than a cell will ever need” (ignoring the fact that the cell will be instantly destroyed by all that thermodynamic energy of course).
But since I have not once argued the that “there is not enough thermodynamic energy left to do the work” – I will go back to the key point here. My argument can be restated as “every plumbing system is leaky” using water as a metaphor for usable energy. It does not matter if you have a sun sized reservoir or a cup sized container – my argument is that they all “leak” — there is always a reduction in the amount of useable energy to do work as long as energy transfer events are taking place.
The evolutionists like to imagine that a small reservoir “collects more water than it can hold – until it naturally becomes a larger stronger reservoir”. My argument (which is the one you find in physics and in Asimov’s statements) is that the small reservoir simply “leaks and overflows” and if excess water is poured in — the small reservoir simply breaks apart — which is comparable to frying that precious little single celled animal in the blazing sun, turning up the heat, turning up the UV light intensity etc in an effort to turn a single celled animal into a multicelled animal.
No “appeal to the sun” will solve that problem for them as it turns out, and that has been my point. Thus I never argue “not enough thermodynamic energy in the sun to do something here on earth”.
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?
What it argues for, and what Grismer clearly believes, is the idea that all life is related through process of common descent by innumerable tiny modifications from a common ancestor life form – a process that required hundreds of millions of years of time.
Hence the care Grismer takes in only commenting on “closest relative” without further specifying his bigger vision for complex life forms evolving from simpler life forms over millions of years.
Certainly every animal (yes even a labradoodle) is going to have a “closest relative”. 😉
in Christ,
Bob
Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?
BobRyan said
Recall that in the case of the dropping ball, and the iron rusting and the water evaporating — the definion for “universe†that was needed to observe those examples demonstrating entropy was simply “an isolated and localized system and it’s immediate surroundings†EVEN if that system is standing out in broad daylight (or in complete darkness). No need to “reach for the sun†before you can see the increase in entropy as iron oxidizes. Speaking of “oxidation demonstrating entropy†– our biology courses admit to that oxidation process as well.
Sean said –
You forget that the reverse of all these processes you use as examples of increases in local entropy can be reversed as well, by using energy derived from the Sun. The ball can be driven uphill, as can the water in the rivers that run downhill. Therefore, local reductions in entropy can be achieved by using the increase in entropy of the Earth-Sun system…
1. When iron rusts it deforms — no amount of photon energy from the sun – restores the shape of the iron object in a “descreased entropy” fashion.
Not all reactions are reversible (frying an egg for example) but all involve an increase in entropy if the local system and its immediate surroundings (i.e. not the sun) are taken into account.
Every transition from PE to KE and then from KE to PE (i.e. EACH of the cycles taken individually) always increase entropy. Moving water to the top of a mountain-based reservoir to created PE — increases entropy. Letting the water fall through the center of Raccoon Mountain iin Tenn to created electric power during the day — increases entropy. BOTH the KE to PE and the PE to KE cycles involve an increase in entropy.
2. Driving a car or a ball up hill using some kind of power – always involves energy transfer that is less than 100% efficient – always involves individual transactions that all increase entropy.
There is no such thing as a decrease in entropy IF you take into account the local system and its immediate surroundings. We see that even in the case of a living cell trying to stave off the effects of entropy by eating food and using food energy — as was shown previously.
That is interesting because it involves a living system.
Entropy is a non-stop non-suspendable fact at the local level. Like gravity acting on an hour glass. The sand falls from upper container to lower and as it does – it may indeed form a “hill of sand” that grows taller as more sand falls. But in no case – is gravity suspended.
Every grain of sand — every interaction – is always in the presence of gravity that always pulls toward the center of gravity of the earth. The little hill that is formed at the bottom of the hour glass is not an example of “negative gravity” nor of “anti-gravity”.
The same holds for entropy.
Thus evolutionists who quickly admit that molecule-to-human-mind evolutionism (storytelling) requires “a massive DECREASE in entropy†as the net result over billions of years (at the local isolated system level of course )– are leaving themselves with no place to go.
in Christ,
Bob
Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?
Thus evolutionists who quickly admit that molecule-to-human-mind evolutionism (storytelling) requires “a massive DECREASE in entropy” as the net result over billions of years (at the local isolated system level of course )– are leaving themselves with no place to go.
Recall that in the case of the dropping ball, and the iron rusting and the water evaporating — the definion for “universe” that was needed to observe those examples demonstrating entropy was simply “an isolated and localized system and it’s immediate surroundings” EVEN if that system is standing out in broad daylight (or in complete darkness). No need to “reach for the sun” before you can see the increase in entropy as iron oxidizes.
Speaking of “oxidation demonstrating entropy” – our biology courses admit to that oxidation process as well.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
Gentlemen,What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind
