T-BagBikerStar
2007-02-10, 10:17
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/22533.html
Okay, I think its great that they're trying to understand the scientific theories and even to use them to put them into a logical argument against theories they disagree with such as evolution; however, it's not okay that a supposedly respectable news source would publish articles which completely misrepresent the theories which they attempt to deny to get backing for their own personal beliefs.
"Entropy does occur in open systems. We discovered entropy here on Earth which is an open system in relation to the Sun. However, entropy applies only to spontaneous or chance processes.
The spontaneous (the unaided or undirected) tendency of matter is always towards greater disorder -- not towards greater order and complexity as evolution would teach. Just having enough energy from the Sun is not sufficient to overcome entropy. This tendency towards disorder which exists in all matter can be temporarily overcome only if there exists some energy converting and directing mechanism to direct, develop, and maintain order."
Yes, we did discover entropy on earth, yet as with all open systems if there are other things effecting the entropy of a system being added or subtracted from it they must be taken into account. If you know the temperature of all points in a room at a certain point which is a closed system than you can say that the thermal energy will remain constant in the room so long as no energy in other forms are being added to it, but if you put a flame under the room, then it's gonna throw off your calculations, just as the sun can have an effect on entropy calculations on earth.
They present this and their entire article as if they have calculated the entropy of the entire planet and concluded that these things are thereby impossible to happen. Entropy doesn't deny that the forces of nature still exist either and that they will pull chemicals together in certain ways. Entropy was designed as a simple model to say that if you have a bunch of molecules in a certain arranged pattern, like filling up a bottle, and then you open the top of that bottle, the molecules would spread out chaotically through space. Ugh, there's so much more I could go into where the science is wrong in this article, but it'd take forever to type and nobody would read it.
"The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the mathematical probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell occurring by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power or roughly equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet. It is not rational to put faith in such odds for the origin of life."
This is my favorite quote that I hear spouted by denyers of evolution. The units don't even make sense. The odds of it happening are 1 in 10^40000 for just the random set of atoms coming together in any instant? Or is it 1 in 10^40000 for anywhere on the earth in the history of the earth. Or did he somehow with the little data he had claim that it was for the entire universe on the time period of the history of the universe. So, for it to make sense the units would have to be odds/volume/time. Fred Hoyle furthermore, was an astronomer, not a chemist and knew nothing on the subject, wikipedia writes about his views where he presented this theory:
"In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of chemical evolution to explain the naturalistic origin of life. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets.
In his 1981/4 book Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), he calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance."
Life evolved in space, and changes on life on earth happen from viruses in space? Is that why we can observe evolution amongst species in a clean laboratory happening such as bacteria becoming resistant to anti-bacterials? About the airplane thing, if we visualized that airplane dumps were the size of molecules, and the tornadoes as well, and then we set up airplane parts the size of molecules across all of space getting hit by these tornadoes everywhere along a time period the length of the universe, is it possible that over the course of all of history something that was capable of flying (any life form, not just the simplest we know of) could have been constructed, and if it was capable of flying for a certain distance (surviving to reproduction) it would then be rebuilt by humans who would make copies of it, possibly with some failures that couldn't fly, while also with others that could fly betting creating more evolved airplanes?
Okay, I think its great that they're trying to understand the scientific theories and even to use them to put them into a logical argument against theories they disagree with such as evolution; however, it's not okay that a supposedly respectable news source would publish articles which completely misrepresent the theories which they attempt to deny to get backing for their own personal beliefs.
"Entropy does occur in open systems. We discovered entropy here on Earth which is an open system in relation to the Sun. However, entropy applies only to spontaneous or chance processes.
The spontaneous (the unaided or undirected) tendency of matter is always towards greater disorder -- not towards greater order and complexity as evolution would teach. Just having enough energy from the Sun is not sufficient to overcome entropy. This tendency towards disorder which exists in all matter can be temporarily overcome only if there exists some energy converting and directing mechanism to direct, develop, and maintain order."
Yes, we did discover entropy on earth, yet as with all open systems if there are other things effecting the entropy of a system being added or subtracted from it they must be taken into account. If you know the temperature of all points in a room at a certain point which is a closed system than you can say that the thermal energy will remain constant in the room so long as no energy in other forms are being added to it, but if you put a flame under the room, then it's gonna throw off your calculations, just as the sun can have an effect on entropy calculations on earth.
They present this and their entire article as if they have calculated the entropy of the entire planet and concluded that these things are thereby impossible to happen. Entropy doesn't deny that the forces of nature still exist either and that they will pull chemicals together in certain ways. Entropy was designed as a simple model to say that if you have a bunch of molecules in a certain arranged pattern, like filling up a bottle, and then you open the top of that bottle, the molecules would spread out chaotically through space. Ugh, there's so much more I could go into where the science is wrong in this article, but it'd take forever to type and nobody would read it.
"The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the mathematical probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell occurring by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power or roughly equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet. It is not rational to put faith in such odds for the origin of life."
This is my favorite quote that I hear spouted by denyers of evolution. The units don't even make sense. The odds of it happening are 1 in 10^40000 for just the random set of atoms coming together in any instant? Or is it 1 in 10^40000 for anywhere on the earth in the history of the earth. Or did he somehow with the little data he had claim that it was for the entire universe on the time period of the history of the universe. So, for it to make sense the units would have to be odds/volume/time. Fred Hoyle furthermore, was an astronomer, not a chemist and knew nothing on the subject, wikipedia writes about his views where he presented this theory:
"In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of chemical evolution to explain the naturalistic origin of life. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets.
In his 1981/4 book Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), he calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance."
Life evolved in space, and changes on life on earth happen from viruses in space? Is that why we can observe evolution amongst species in a clean laboratory happening such as bacteria becoming resistant to anti-bacterials? About the airplane thing, if we visualized that airplane dumps were the size of molecules, and the tornadoes as well, and then we set up airplane parts the size of molecules across all of space getting hit by these tornadoes everywhere along a time period the length of the universe, is it possible that over the course of all of history something that was capable of flying (any life form, not just the simplest we know of) could have been constructed, and if it was capable of flying for a certain distance (surviving to reproduction) it would then be rebuilt by humans who would make copies of it, possibly with some failures that couldn't fly, while also with others that could fly betting creating more evolved airplanes?