Not true. Even the imagined scenario proposed by Isaac …

Comment on Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University by Sean Pitman.

Not true. Even the imagined scenario proposed by Isaac Asimov would not violate the 2LoT since the Earth is not a closed thermodynamic system and since, even if it were, the “useful work” necessary to organize or disorganize something would be equivalent. The state of functional organization or disorganization is irrelevant to the thermodynamic entropy of a system.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University
Dinosaur fossils are real, no trick, but there is good evidence that they aren’t millions of years old. Extremely well preserved elastic soft tissues with largely intact sequencable immunogenic proteins strongly argue that these bones are of recent origin. Kinetic chemistry theories of protein degeneration have long argued that it would be effectively impossible for such proteins to remain intact longer than 100,000 years or so – certainly not tens of millions of years.

As far as the Big Bang theory, why would SDAs have a problem with that? The argument that the universe has a beginning actually favors the concept that the universe was designed – according to many well-known physicists. You see, the argument isn’t that the entire universe is young, but that life on this planet is young.

And, talk about turning your brain off when you try to imagine a random explosion producing our finely tuned universe or any mindless mechanism producing the most simple living thing – or even one of the biomachines within the most simple living thing that requires more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid building blocks. Such just-so story telling for how the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations and natural selection produced such complex biomachines simply isn’t rationally tenable nor is it scientific – not even given trillions of years of time…

Sean Pitman

Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University
Configuration or conformation entropy of macroscopic systems is based on a similar concept to thermodynamic entropy, to be sure – i.e., where entropy is defined as the amount of additional information needed to specify the exact physical state of a system among all possible states the system could take.

In other words, there is a very large but finite number of different possible arrangements that a protein molecule (different possible “rotametric states”) or pool balls on a pool table, for example, could take. The amount of “additional information” it takes to specify the exact physical state of such a molecule or pool balls on a table would be equivalent to its “conformation entropy” – the same as if we were dealing with a collection of gas molecules in a box – which also have conformational entropy.

However, there is a distinct difference here. The conformation entropy of macroscopic systems within a thermodynamic system need not be related to the heat distribution or thermodynamics of a system. Add heat to a pool table and what do you get? A bunch of hot pool balls. That’s it. Also, does a difference in arrangement of non-moving pool balls make one more or less able to obtain “useful work” from them? The same would be true for a fan in a system – a hot fan vs. a cold fan, it still works the same in a thermodynamic system. Also, the arrangement of a protein molecule or pool balls on a table isn’t related to if the thermodynamic system within which it exists is open or closed or in a state of maximum entropy or not. The same could be said for the “conformation entropy” of a room crowded with a bunch of people. The people in the room are not governed by the 2LoT with regard to how they decide to arrange themselves. Yet, their collective arrangement does have “conformation entropy” that can be increased or decreased at will without violating the 2LoT. In this respect, conformation entropy is equivalent to Shannon entropy or Kolmogorov/Chaitin complexity.

You see, the 2LoT only deals with the thermodynamic aspects of a system, not with the conformational entropy of the system outside of the thermodynamic properties of the system. That is why the 2LoT does not govern the other various kinds of entropy that may exist within a thermodynamic system. This is why humans can create various forms of “order” from “disorder” within our thermodynamic system. We can create cars and airplanes and computers, etc. Theoretically, we could even repair our own DNA and cure all genetic diseases and genetic deterioration. Yet, we would not violate the 2LoT by doing so because the 2LoT is distinctly about the thermodynamic potential of a system – not about what conformational order or disorder is produced via this thermodynamic potential.

Again, these various entropy concepts are certainly related, but they are not the same. The 2LoT only deals with a very limited type of entropy – with a particular type of conformational entropy that is based on heat distribution within a system and the ability or potential of this heat distribution to give rise to “useful work”.

So, please, do try to keep these concepts separate and do not continue to argue that evolution violates the 2LoT – a law which does not deal with the structural or functional order or disorder or conformational entropy of macrosystems.

Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University
Not all types of “entropy” are about the 2LoT. The 2LoT only deals with thermodynamic entropy.

The paper you reference is about “conformational entropy”, not thermodynamic entropy. These are different types of entropy. Conformational entropy is associated with the physical arrangement of a polymer chain that assumes a compact or globular state in solution. This concept is most commonly applied to biological macromolecules such as proteins and RNA, but can also be used for polysaccharides and other polymeric organic compounds.

In short, conformational entropy isn’t about the thermodynamic potential of a system. Therefore, conformational entropy isn’t about the 2LoT just like the functional or non-functional states of machines within a thermodynamic system have nothing to do with the 2LoT either.

Again, thermodynamics is an entirely separate topic. Don’t confuse things that are not related to the thermodynamic potential of a system with the 2LoT.

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!

The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…

The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…

Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?

Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.