Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

Be specific.

"origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture."

You seem to be taking the position that, unless we can provide a convincing alternative, we must accept your supernatural explanation for the origins of life. We don't.

More importantly, we don't have to accept it as science, because it's not. You might not find evolution theory convincing, and that's fine, but it is science. Supernatural explanations are not.

Fair enough But you see I have stated I can't show evidence that proves Gods existence.I can only provide evidence that infers a designer. Daws however takes a story about the past and acts like it is a fact because he simply does not understand fact from possibility. You can choose to believe that if you wish it's fine but don't act like it refutes anything like he or she does.

I would argue that is not science.

excuse me? that should read: I (YWC) however take a story about the past and act like it is a fact because I simply do not understand fact from possibility."
ALSO, THE ONLY INFERENCE ywc can make is he believes there is a designer as there is no evidence to bolster that claim.

 

[daws101]

No I am not claiming cells are closed systems and does it really matter.

The Harvard scientist, John Ross, comments:

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.6

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?

Creationists who cite the entropy principle against the evolutionary philosophy are, time and again, dismissed as either ignorant of thermodynamics or dishonest in their use of the second law.

Yeah, that pretty much covers it.

In an open system (such as the earth receiving an influx of heat energy from the sun), the entropy always tends to increase

Which doesn't stop cells, or complex organisms, from getting more complex or evolving.

Your comment is predictable.

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *

The popular syndicated columnist, Sydney Harris, recently commented on the evolution/entropy conflict as follows:

There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.1

As Harris points out, the law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity. Creationists have been pointing out this serious contradiction for years, and it is encouraging that at least some evolutionists (such as Harris) are beginning to be aware of it.

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?


Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics?



As far as I interpret it, the law of ever increasing entropy states that "a system will always move towards the most disordered state, never in the other direction".

Now, I understand why it would be virtually impossible for a system to decrease it's entropy, just as it is virtually impossible for me to solve a Rubik's cube by making random twists. However the (ever so small) probability remains.

Why does this law underpin so much of modern physics? Why is a theory that breaks this law useless, and why was Maxwell's demon such a problem? Does this law not just describe what is most likely to happen in complex systems, not what has to happen in all systems?
thermodynamics statistical-mechanics entropy arrow-of-time
shareimprove this question

edited Oct 28 '12 at 23:22
Qmechanic♦
19.1k42151

asked Oct 28 '12 at 22:58
Hannesh
1283

1 Answer
active oldest votes
up vote 9 down vote accepted


Hannesh, you are correct that the second law of thermodynamics only describes what is most likely to happen in macroscopic systems, rather than what has to happen. It is true that a system may spontaneously decrease its entropy over some time period, with a small but non-zero probability. However, the probability of this happening over and over again tends to zero over long times, so is completely impossible in the limit of very long times.

This is quite different from Maxwell's demon. Maxwell's demon was a significant problem because it seemed that an intelligent being (or more generally any computer) capable of making very precise measurements could continuously decrease the entropy of, say, a box containing gas molecules. For anyone who doesn't know the problem, this entropy decrease could be produced via a partitioning wall with a small window that the demon can open or close with negligible work input. The demon allows only fast-moving molecules to pass one way, and slow-moving ones the other way. This effectively causes heat to flow from a cold body of gas on one side of the partition to a hot body of gas on the other side. Since this demon could be a macroscopic system, you then have a closed thermodynamical system that can deterministically decrease its entropy to as little as possible, and maintain it there for as long as it likes. This is a clear violation of the second law, because the system does not ever tend to thermodynamic equilibrium.

The resolution, as you may know, is that the demon has to temporarily store information about the gas particles' positions and velocities in order to perform its fiendish work. If the demon is not infinite, then it must eventually delete this information to make room for more, so it can continue decreasing the entropy of the gas. Deleting this information increases the entropy of the system by just enough to counteract the cooling action of the demon, by Landauer's principle. This was first shown by Charles Bennett, I believe. The point is that even though living beings may appear to temporarily decrease the entropy of the universe, the second law always catches up with you in the end.

thermodynamics - Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics? - Physics Stack Exchange

Henry Madison Morris was an American young earth creationist and Christian apologist. He was one of the founders of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. He is considered by many to be "the father of modern creation science." He wrote numerous creationist and devotional books, and made regular television and radio appearances.


again no credibility due to religious bias...

 

[daws101]

1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.

having that dream again?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Exactly. YWC is just trolling because he already has all the wrong "answers" from those misinformed creationist websites.

Yeah, let's just look the other way and claim irrelevant or nonsense even though the problem is acknowledge by scientists.

The misinformation is to assume the 2nd law is contradicted by any system. What's really funny is ,you are surrounded by evidence supporting the law of entropy and you can see the evidence in the heavens as well ,and yet,you try to wiggle around it like it doesn't exist.

You've already admitted you don't know enough about physics to be able to argue about thermodynamics. What makes you think that the creationist sites are competent or unbiased enough to give an accurate assessment in the first place? Just because they are telling you what you want to hear doesn't mean they are telling you the truth.

Take a physics class before you claim to understand what's going on with thermodynamics and entropy.

Because I can see the contradiction that either are ignored or tried to be explained away.

Then turn to rhetoric and attack the creationist for bringing it up. Hell even people that are not creationist admit to the problem then they are attacked for agreeing with the problem raised.sorry but that is not how the science community should act if they truly are seeking the facts.

 

[Steven_R]

"origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture."

You seem to be taking the position that, unless we can provide a convincing alternative, we must accept your supernatural explanation for the origins of life. We don't.

More importantly, we don't have to accept it as science, because it's not. You might not find evolution theory convincing, and that's fine, but it is science. Supernatural explanations are not.

Fair enough But you see I have stated I can't show evidence that proves Gods existence.I can only provide evidence that infers a designer. Daws however takes a story about the past and acts like it is a fact because he simply does not understand fact from possibility. You can choose to believe that if you wish it's fine but don't act like it refutes anything like he or she does.

I would argue that is not science.

Then you don't understand what science is. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

The best part is if those ideas are wrong, science will fix itself. Wrong ideas get kicked to the curb, period. It might take a while but the truth will out. So far there has been nothing within the scientific communities to overturn those ideas, only from zealots from outside the scientific community. Even the scientists like Behe aren't publishing peer-reviewed papers in support of their ideas, but rather are appealing to a scientifically illiterate general public with claims that the science is wrong; a public that doesn't understand the technical aspects of science.

Look at you. You're defending creationist arguments about physics, using their ideas, yet you yourself have said you don't understand the physics in the first place. You're arguing without being able to judge your own evidence for itself.

 

[Youwerecreated]

what the **** to you mean by early life..?
Microbial mats of coexisting bacteria and archaea were the dominant form of life in the early Archean and many of the major steps in early evolution are thought to have taken place within them.[2] The evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, around 3.5 Ga, eventually led to the oxygenation of the atmosphere, beginning around 2.4 Ga.[3] The earliest evidence of eukaryotes (complex cells with organelles) dates from 1.85 Ga,[4][5] and while they may have been present earlier, their diversification accelerated when they started using oxygen in their metabolism. Later, around 1.7 Ga, multicellular organisms began to appear, with differentiated cells performing specialised functions.[6] Bilateria, animals with a front and a back, appeared by 555 million years ago.[7]
The earliest land plants date back to around 450 Ma (million years ago),[8] although evidence suggests that algal scum formed on the land as early as 1.2 Ga. Land plants were so successful that they are thought to have contributed to the late Devonian extinction event.[9] Invertebrate animals appear during the Ediacaran period,[10] while vertebrates originated about 525 Ma during the Cambrian explosion.[11] During the Permian period, synapsids, including the ancestors of mammals, dominated the land,[12] but most of this group became extinct in the Permian–Triassic extinction event 252.2 Ma.[13] During the recovery from this catastrophe, archosaurs became the most abundant land vertebrates, displacing therapsids in the mid-Triassic;[14] one archosaur group, the dinosaurs, dominated the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.[15] After the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 Ma killed off the dinosaurs,[16] mammals increased rapidly in size and diversity.[17] Such mass extinctions may have accelerated evolution by providing opportunities for new groups of organisms to diversify.[18]
Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture.

what an odd thing for you to say everything you've ever posted is conjecture...******* specious too ,not to mention based on a false premise ..

The very post you quoted I stated a fact you really are clueless.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well daws sorry only saw one post worthy of a response.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture."

You seem to be taking the position that, unless we can provide a convincing alternative, we must accept your supernatural explanation for the origins of life. We don't.

More importantly, we don't have to accept it as science, because it's not. You might not find evolution theory convincing, and that's fine, but it is science. Supernatural explanations are not.

Fair enough But you see I have stated I can't show evidence that proves Gods existence.I can only provide evidence that infers a designer. Daws however takes a story about the past and acts like it is a fact because he simply does not understand fact from possibility. You can choose to believe that if you wish it's fine but don't act like it refutes anything like he or she does.

I would argue that is not science.

Then you don't understand what science is. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

The best part is if those ideas are wrong, science will fix itself. Wrong ideas get kicked to the curb, period. It might take a while but the truth will out. So far there has been nothing within the scientific communities to overturn those ideas, only from zealots from outside the scientific community. Even the scientists like Behe aren't publishing peer-reviewed papers in support of their ideas, but rather are appealing to a scientifically illiterate general public with claims that the science is wrong; a public that doesn't understand the technical aspects of science.

Look at you. You're defending creationist arguments about physics, using their ideas, yet you yourself have said you don't understand the physics in the first place. You're arguing without being able to judge your own evidence for itself.

Really ? please don't go down this road and you're a practicing scientist

 

[Steven_R]

Yeah, let's just look the other way and claim irrelevant or nonsense even though the problem is acknowledge by scientists.

The misinformation is to assume the 2nd law is contradicted by any system. What's really funny is ,you are surrounded by evidence supporting the law of entropy and you can see the evidence in the heavens as well ,and yet,you try to wiggle around it like it doesn't exist.

You've already admitted you don't know enough about physics to be able to argue about thermodynamics. What makes you think that the creationist sites are competent or unbiased enough to give an accurate assessment in the first place? Just because they are telling you what you want to hear doesn't mean they are telling you the truth.

Take a physics class before you claim to understand what's going on with thermodynamics and entropy.

Because I can see the contradiction that either are ignored or tried to be explained away.

Then turn to rhetoric and attack the creationist for bringing it up. Hell even people that are not creationist admit to the problem then they are attacked for agreeing with the problem raised.sorry but that is not how the science community should act if they truly are seeking the facts.

There is no contradiction to be explained away. The people writing those websites you're relying on are crackpots and zealots who are misrepresenting what the science says, either from a lack of their own understanding or deliberately or because they just throw away science in favor of a Bronze Age creation myth. The general public doesn't understand enough about thermodynamics to know the arguments the creationists are putting forth is just nonsensical.

It's not a question of not wanting to "teach the controversy." It's a question of no controversy existing at all.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture."

You seem to be taking the position that, unless we can provide a convincing alternative, we must accept your supernatural explanation for the origins of life. We don't.

More importantly, we don't have to accept it as science, because it's not. You might not find evolution theory convincing, and that's fine, but it is science. Supernatural explanations are not.

Fair enough But you see I have stated I can't show evidence that proves Gods existence.I can only provide evidence that infers a designer. Daws however takes a story about the past and acts like it is a fact because he simply does not understand fact from possibility. You can choose to believe that if you wish it's fine but don't act like it refutes anything like he or she does.

I would argue that is not science.

Then you don't understand what science is. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

The best part is if those ideas are wrong, science will fix itself. Wrong ideas get kicked to the curb, period. It might take a while but the truth will out. So far there has been nothing within the scientific communities to overturn those ideas, only from zealots from outside the scientific community. Even the scientists like Behe aren't publishing peer-reviewed papers in support of their ideas, but rather are appealing to a scientifically illiterate general public with claims that the science is wrong; a public that doesn't understand the technical aspects of science.

Look at you. You're defending creationist arguments about physics, using their ideas, yet you yourself have said you don't understand the physics in the first place. You're arguing without being able to judge your own evidence for itself.

I was converted from your side, and it was a very easy transition.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You've already admitted you don't know enough about physics to be able to argue about thermodynamics. What makes you think that the creationist sites are competent or unbiased enough to give an accurate assessment in the first place? Just because they are telling you what you want to hear doesn't mean they are telling you the truth.

Take a physics class before you claim to understand what's going on with thermodynamics and entropy.

Because I can see the contradiction that either are ignored or tried to be explained away.

Then turn to rhetoric and attack the creationist for bringing it up. Hell even people that are not creationist admit to the problem then they are attacked for agreeing with the problem raised.sorry but that is not how the science community should act if they truly are seeking the facts.

There is no contradiction to be explained away. The people writing those websites you're relying on are crackpots and zealots who are misrepresenting what the science says, either from a lack of their own understanding or deliberately or because they just throw away science in favor of a Bronze Age creation myth. The general public doesn't understand enough about thermodynamics to know the arguments the creationists are putting forth is just nonsensical.

It's not a question of not wanting to "teach the controversy." It's a question of no controversy existing at all.

Sorry but creationists have been pointing it out for many years.

 

[itfitzme]

"I can only provide evidence that infers a designer"

And this is the problem, seeing a pattern in toast and concluding it infers a designer.

 

[daws101]

origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture.

what an odd thing for you to say everything you've ever posted is conjecture...******* specious too ,not to mention based on a false premise ..

The very post you quoted I stated a fact you really are clueless.

your favorite lie !

 

[daws101]

Fair enough But you see I have stated I can't show evidence that proves Gods existence.I can only provide evidence that infers a designer. Daws however takes a story about the past and acts like it is a fact because he simply does not understand fact from possibility. You can choose to believe that if you wish it's fine but don't act like it refutes anything like he or she does.

I would argue that is not science.

Then you don't understand what science is. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

The best part is if those ideas are wrong, science will fix itself. Wrong ideas get kicked to the curb, period. It might take a while but the truth will out. So far there has been nothing within the scientific communities to overturn those ideas, only from zealots from outside the scientific community. Even the scientists like Behe aren't publishing peer-reviewed papers in support of their ideas, but rather are appealing to a scientifically illiterate general public with claims that the science is wrong; a public that doesn't understand the technical aspects of science.

Look at you. You're defending creationist arguments about physics, using their ideas, yet you yourself have said you don't understand the physics in the first place. You're arguing without being able to judge your own evidence for itself.

I was converted from your side, and it was a very easy transition.

people are only converted because they have never really broken free of their religious indoctrination.
you were only playing at non belief .
like any addict you fell off the wagon...

 

[daws101]

Because I can see the contradiction that either are ignored or tried to be explained away.

Then turn to rhetoric and attack the creationist for bringing it up. Hell even people that are not creationist admit to the problem then they are attacked for agreeing with the problem raised.sorry but that is not how the science community should act if they truly are seeking the facts.

There is no contradiction to be explained away. The people writing those websites you're relying on are crackpots and zealots who are misrepresenting what the science says, either from a lack of their own understanding or deliberately or because they just throw away science in favor of a Bronze Age creation myth. The general public doesn't understand enough about thermodynamics to know the arguments the creationists are putting forth is just nonsensical.

It's not a question of not wanting to "teach the controversy." It's a question of no controversy existing at all.

Sorry but creationists have been pointing it out for many years.

they are pointing at nothing then...an imaginary tempest in a teapot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your comment is predictable.

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *

How is it that you remain so befuddled about the pointless exercise of cutting and pasting volumes of material from creationist charlatans?

Befuddled not me. You didn't read this.

"Hannesh, you are correct that the second law of thermodynamics only describes what is most likely to happen in macroscopic systems, rather than what has to happen. It is true that a system may spontaneously decrease its entropy over some time period, with a small but non-zero probability"


"I believe. The point is that even though living beings may appear to temporarily decrease the entropy of the universe, the second law always catches up with you in the end."

thermodynamics - Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics? - Physics Stack Exchange

"I believe. The point is that even though living beings may appear to temporarily decrease the entropy of the universe, the second law always catches up with you in the end."

Who ever claimed living beings decrease the entropy of the universe?

The only thing increasing in this thread is your idiocy.

 

[daws101]

How is it that you remain so befuddled about the pointless exercise of cutting and pasting volumes of material from creationist charlatans?

Befuddled not me. You didn't read this.

"Hannesh, you are correct that the second law of thermodynamics only describes what is most likely to happen in macroscopic systems, rather than what has to happen. It is true that a system may spontaneously decrease its entropy over some time period, with a small but non-zero probability"


"I believe. The point is that even though living beings may appear to temporarily decrease the entropy of the universe, the second law always catches up with you in the end."

thermodynamics - Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics? - Physics Stack Exchange

"I believe. The point is that even though living beings may appear to temporarily decrease the entropy of the universe, the second law always catches up with you in the end."

Who ever claimed living beings decrease the entropy of the universe?

The only thing increasing in this thread is your idiocy.

bump!

 

[YWN666]

Who really cares when all knowledge is supplanted by and subordinate to "the gawds did it"

Exactly. YWC is just trolling because he already has all the wrong "answers" from those misinformed creationist websites.

You're agreeing with the biggest troll in this forum and her name is hollie,just ask her mentor ruggedtouch. They are twins.

She is not a troll. She is effectively exposing your dishonesty as are many other people here. Do you lack the capacity to be embarrassed?

 

[YWN666]

1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.

Is that how you see it? LOL. In reality, YWC is kicking his own ass.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How is it that you remain so befuddled about the pointless exercise of cutting and pasting volumes of material from creationist charlatans?

Befuddled not me. You didn't read this.

"Hannesh, you are correct that the second law of thermodynamics only describes what is most likely to happen in macroscopic systems, rather than what has to happen. It is true that a system may spontaneously decrease its entropy over some time period, with a small but non-zero probability"


"I believe. The point is that even though living beings may appear to temporarily decrease the entropy of the universe, the second law always catches up with you in the end."

thermodynamics - Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics? - Physics Stack Exchange

"I believe. The point is that even though living beings may appear to temporarily decrease the entropy of the universe, the second law always catches up with you in the end."

Who ever claimed living beings decrease the entropy of the universe?

The only thing increasing in this thread is your idiocy.

I believe that was sarcasm directed at people like yourself,You can ask him yourself.



Mark Mitchison

Currently doing a PhD in Controlled Quantum Dynamics at Imperial College and the University of Oxford.

thermodynamics - Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics? - Physics Stack Exchange