|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Thermodynamics | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jordo86 Inactive Member |
I would have thought that the fact that they believe that a worldwide flood occured with Noah in an ark, that they would be less likely to be uniformitarians. But hey, you debate them so youd have a better idea than I. But anyways we are getting off topic. If theres anything anyone else would like to say about the thermodynamic laws in closing i would love to hear it. (Basically summarize everything you'v said, but only if you guys have time and can be bothered)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4128 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: So what are the others? If you don't know, how do you know if there are several? maybe you mean like this? http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/macinnis/story.htm This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 19 February 2005 09:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Jordo86 writes: Now correct me if im wrong but i remember reading somewhere (this is about 2 years ago) that they have found fossilised trees spanning several of these layers. I dont have any links or anything sorry because this was in a book i saw in the school library, and all this talk of layers made me remember it. Now how does anyone explain this? Creationists call them polystrate fossils, while geologists commonly refer to them as fossil forests or in situ trees. Both Creationists and geologists explain them pretty much the same way: they were buried quickly in time periods ranging from less than a day (e.g., a hurricane or volcano) to decades (e.g., a river basin's flood plain). Creationists believe polystrate fossils were created during the year of Noah's flood. This hypothesis makes several predictions that can be tested:
There's a lot of information about this on the web. For example, see"Polystrate" Fossils for a fairly non-technical description, or there's"Polystrate" Tree Fossils for those already pretty familiar with the geological literature. A Google of "polystrate fossils" will return a mix of Creationist and scientific sites. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
With such a nice clear topic title like "Thermodynamics" why would be get into tree fossils? Let's not let a tidy topic trend to tumbled talk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Don't worry, I have the topic well in mind. Jordo felt comfortable enough with the answers about 2LOT to move the discussion forward to consideration of 1LOT. The question became how we knew 1LOT held at and before the Big Bang, and the answer was that we didn't. This led to a couple posts describing how theory is only a reflection of observations of the natural world, which led to descriptions of how hypotheses are tested by observation using Noah's flood and polystrate fossils as examples. Once Jordo thinks he agrees, or at least thinks he understands the point even if he doesn't agree with it, then I was going to tie it back in to 1LOT and the Big Bang.
I actually like where this thread has gotten to a lot. While the topic is thermodynamics, the forum is [forum=-11], which hopefully justifies a diversion into why 1LOT is still science even though we don't know if it applies at the Big Bang. The manner in which Jordo is raising these issues makes this thread somewhat epistemological, and hopefully a brief digression into how we know what we think we know will prove helpful. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Too clever by half! Why too clever for me to argue with. I hope everyone else can keep that in mind too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jordo86 Inactive Member |
Yeah thats why i titled it "Thermodynamics", i was hoping it would move from the second law to the first (though it covered more than i hoped for). Its been very educational, thanks guys for your patience. Im pretty satisfied with this topic for now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jordo86 Inactive Member |
Unless theres anything more youd like to discuss of course
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
The difficulty in moving from 2LOT to a lot of 1LOT seems to arrive from determing if "the creature" below(bold added) is a living thing, a no longer living thing, or just a sack of chemicals in:
The book presents the evidence for the author's concept that the origin and evolution of life is none other than the origin and evolution of thermodynamic self-organized (self-assembled) polyhierarchic systems. Neglecting the influence of the Almighty God, the author's approach is based only on Gibbs' thermodynamic principles.
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/review.htmlBy now it is well known that Darwin's theory cannot explain many observations and preserves its interest only for historians of science. Because of this circumstance, new approaches to biological evolution should find an attentive audience and without discussing the origins of the thermodynamic principles applied. (Is the originator the Almighty God or His creature Gibbs?) The book consists of two chapters. The first treats the conventional view of how life forms evolve, but introduces Gibbs' thermodynamics in the treatment of a few systems. However, the major interest is in system changes, not the thermodynamics of the processes. The author analyzes the main points which a physical theory of evolution should be able to explain and proceeds to propose a model which can do so. The author's thesis is that under the action of the sun's energy, substances which are thermodynamically stable in the early conditions of the earth are transformed into various products of photosynthesis, those transforms being regulated by thermodynamic principles. During this process, from the resulting products only those stable suprastructures are selected which correspond to minimum states of the free energy of a biosystem. These structures are formed into micro- and macrovolumes of the system. I can not decide if the following
quote: transparency remands Fisher's analogy of his fundamental genetic theorem to some LOT or not. Western University | 404 Error - file not found Professor Eddington has recently remarked that "The law that entropy always increases - the second law of thermodynamics - holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of nature". It is not a little instructive that so similar a law should hold the supreme position among the biological sciences. (Fisher 1930 The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection).. But as Dr. Gladyshev has recently remarked in Norway it all depends on *knowledge* of the thermal process(es) constiuitive, my intial reaction to his correspondenceEvC Forum: GP Gladyshev's paper (s)or mine? was confused precisely because I failed to appreciate how important thermoSTATICS were for hierarchical thermodynamics of his wording(s) and I did not see that my notion at a use of Faraday's "thermal current" (temperature difference induced electricity)was in no way indicative of a different idea. If flesh in any way can be shown to adapt to changes in thermal currents it seems time to consider the differential equations {relevant equations} underlying macrothermodyanmics and attempt to derive evolutionary theory from a configuration of 1LOT which might find say molecular free path lengths, fitness, entropy increases to be aspects of the same statistical physics. That is my guess on how the lots park the vehicle but if it is a bike instead all bets are off. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-09-2005 09:54 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024