If complexity requires design, where did the Deity come from?

"The Earth isn't a closed system either. The sun is constantly adding heat. Therefore, the entropy can decreased."Decreased to a degree. Your point being? The Amount of disordered possibilities is still an unthinkable number, even in an open system."Order from disorder via a natural process. "In order for less entropy to occur, work needs to occur, and entropy in any system must increase in the system. This happens when heat is extracted from the water molecule, and heat is added to the system. This is the work. The hexagonal shape of snowflakes is nothing more than the 'V" shaped ice molecules bound together. The shape of the snowflake is dependant on the rate of temperature change, and has been measured. One could also argue that snowflakes are not ordered, since no two are alike, and would be a prime example of extreme entropy. Either way.Chemical change due to temperature is not order. It is a physical law.

"And yet which do you think looks more ordered...?"Thats an interesting statement. I didn't know that opinion counted as science. You could ask that question to 100 people and get varied response, because you are asking for an opinion, not examining, and testing for observable results. The point of this would be to show definitely which contains more entropy, no matter who conducted the experiment.BTW, glad to see this website was up and running again.

A quote from a 'non-creos' website:"Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy) was formulated in the middle of the last century by Clausius and Thomson following Carnot's earlier observation that, like the fall or flow of a stream that turns a mill wheel, it is the "fall" or flow of heat from higher to lower temperatures that motivates a steam engine. The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic "force" (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process. Clausius coined the term "entropy" to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis. The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference.
The active nature of the second law is intuitively easy to grasp and empirically demonstrate. If a glass of hot liquid, for example, as shown in Figure 3, is placed in a colder room a potential exists and a flow of heat is spontaneously produced from the cup to the room until it is minimized (or the entropy is maximized) at which point the temperatures are the same and all flows stop."Peptides For Sale USA - Buy SARMS and Peptides Online

Wow, this website must have been up for a while, because I'm being bombarded...lets get to you now:"Are you saying that even though the Earth is an open system, evolution is still "too much" for the 2LoT? Aren't you just basing this on an ad-hoc reaction from your personal beliefs?"No. I'm basing it on real calculations from scientific websites."Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening are worse than 1 in 1*10^50, then that event will NEVER HAPPEN. Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of biophysics at Yale University, estimated that
the probability of the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism
known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000. One out of ten to the 340 millionth power is
unimaginable odds. This large figure is a "1" followed by 340,000,000 zeroes. As you can
see, Morowitz' odds against even the simplest life evolving were infinitely more than
1*10^50, making them impossible.The very popular evolutionist, Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University, figured even steeper odds against the simplest life beginning naturally on a planet such as earth. According to Sagan, the probability would be about 1 out of 10^2,000,000,000. Try to imagine ten to the 2 billionth power. Pretty astounding odds. Interestingly, these impossible odds against evolution came from one of the most prominent evolutionists of our time. "
Evolution What Are The Odds | PDF | Odds | UniverseThe quote above even shows an evolutionist giving odds that are unbelievable."Huh? That doesn't make any sense at all. What are you trying to say?"This response was to someone else. But it says exactly what it reads, that the work required for less entropy is the heat exchange."Before forming, we have all the necessary water molecules moving around in a disordered mess. After forming, they have ordered themselves into a pretty little snowflake."That depends on your version of 'disordered mess'.http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/water_molecule.jpgIf that looks disordered to you, then that is an opinion, not a fact. Water molecules freeze the way they do BECAUSE of the shape they maintain in a liquid form. Any further questions?Oh yes..."You're claiming that the liklihood of this happening by natural processes is "extremely minute"."WRONG. If you read the above quote, according to Borels Law, I'm saying it is amazingly impossible."Then I don't know what you're referring to as "order". Please explain."Who said I was arguing order? Am I supposed to do your job too?

"I see you still refuse to actually look at scientific sources for your information about science. This whole order, disorder crap you creos keep pushing is bullshit."Prove it."go to a non-creo site"Okay.

quote:

---

Entropy is a macroscopic property of a system that is a measure of the microscopic disorder within the system. It is an important part of the second law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamic systems are made up of microscopic objects, e.g. atoms or molecules, which "carry" energy. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the thermodynamic entropy is a measure of the amount of energy which does no work during energy conversions.
Entropy - Wikipedia

---

"Again, entropy is not the same as order and disorder. The creo sites are lying to you."So is wikipedia?"It is not what you claim or want it to be, no matter how many times you claim."Wikipedia seems to disagree with you."By the way you might want to read the forum rules."Thanks. But as long as I 'quote' my source, and list where the information is found, I think it is perfectly valid. But I will try to make my arguements in my own words from now on.Taking information from creos sites is no better or worse than taking information from evolution sites. Every site contains bias to one viewpoint or another. So you are saying that only information found in evolution friendly websites is true. But that is not the case. There are thousands of websites that contain perfectly valid information, that support an ID viewpoint, just as there are thousands of evolution websites that have perfectly valid information.To say that both of us are only allowed to gather information from sites that support evolution is illogical, since I could just as easily argue that the sites you get your information from are lying to you, because they support evolution. It is the INFORMATION itself that needs to be factual. If I pull information from a website that is not factual, correct me. I will happily admit defeat if shown evidence for the contrary that makes logical sense.Until next time, keep fit, and have fun!

quote:

---

The article mentions that atoms and molecules "carry" energy.

---

quote:

---

Entropy has often been loosely associated with the amount of order, disorder, and/or chaos in a thermodynamic system. The traditional qualitative description of entropy is that it refers to changes in the status quo of the system and is a measure of "molecular disorder" and the amount of wasted energy in a dynamical energy transformation from one state or form to another.[32] In this direction, a number of authors, in recent years, have derived exact entropy formulas to account for and measure disorder and order in atomic and molecular assemblies.[33][34][35][36] One of the simpler entropy order/disorder formulas is that derived in 1984 by thermodynamic physicist Peter Landsberg, which is based on a combination of thermodynamics and information theory arguments. Landsberg argues that when constraints operate on a system, such that it is prevented from entering one or more of its possible or permitted states, as contrasted with its forbidden states, the measure of the total amount of disorder in the system is given by the following expression.
Entropy - Wikipedia

---

And if you would have bothered to read any of the source, you would have found that entropy applies to my arguement as well.Even though the amount of energy stays the same, the total amount of energy capable of doing work decreases, and reaches equilibrium. In an open system, energy is never at an equilibrium, so entropy is either slowly decreasing, or vice versa. The suns rays (discussed earlier as evidence that the earth is not a closed system) are generally harmful, causing harmful effects in humans including dry skin, sunburns, actinic keratosis, and changes in skin collagen.Since the sun introduces ultraviolet rays, that are harmful (minus plants and other organisms that can harness the energy), entropy should increase over time.

quote:

---

The more "spread out" the energy is, the less work it can do.

---

Which is also a perfectly valid arguement for everything (energy included) tends to disorder. Since energy is required for work to maintain order in a system.

quote:

---

No, which is why you were obliged to misunderstand some of it and ignore the rest all by yourself, instead of having a creationist website do it for you.

---

I notice you poked fun at my source, yet offered no rebuttal to the information provided. If in any way the information I quoted was incorrect, please, let me know, now is a good time to make me look stupid.See previous post with wikipedia quote. Theres no point in reposting it. You don't like creation science sites, only evolution sites.

See previous post with wiki quote, you and Dr. Adequate get the same treatment. I am not reposting the same information three times.You also offered no rebuttal to my information. If I am wrong, PROVE IT.My websites are wrong? All your websites sound like the books I read to my kids."A long time ago, in a land far far away. When no one was around" blah blah blah.Get over yourself. If I'm wrong, PROVE IT, otherwise, goodbye.

quote:

---

And yet somehow every single time I shuffle a pack of cards they end up in one of these 8*10^62 orders.

---

Either you didn't bother to read up on the law, or you misunderstood. Since your odds of getting results that were predetermined are next to impossible.For example:I could shuffle a deck and get AN arrangement of cards. But if I NEEDED an arrangement of:23456789(10)JQKA of each respective suit in sequencial order and suited, this would be next to impossible by simply shuffling cards over and over again.Since only CERTAIN arrangements of nucleotides have meaningful information, simply 'shuffling' nucleotides does not produce anything of value.

quote:

---

As we know that they have lied about Borel

---

This book (written by Emile Borel) seems to disagree with you:

quote:

---

...10^-50 as a universal probability bound below which chance could definitely be precluded-that is, any specified event as improbable as this could not be attributed to chance. english translation]

---

quote:

---

We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not too much.... In our theory of how we came to exist, we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck. This ration has, as its upper limit, the number of eligible planets in the universe.... We [therefore] have at our disposal, if we want to use it, odds of 1 in 100 billion billion as an upper limit (or 1 in however many available planets we think there are) to spend in our theory of the origin of life. This is the maximum amount of luck we are allowed to postulate in our theory.
Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker,"1987, pp. 139

---

Since this probability far exceeds even Dawkins allowances, I fail to see who is on your side...since everyone seems to be on mine.Dr. Carl Sagan:Carl Sagan - WikipediaDr. Harold Morowitz:http://www.eoht.info/page/Harold+MorowitzAnd you are?

I made a mistake on the quote for Emiles book. The book is called:Probability and Life, 1962 [English Translation]My apologies. Just thought I should add this so you can go look it up for yourself.

Post 79, the information from wikipedia that talks about order/disorder, and entropy (as well as the formulas to calculate these if you click the link).

quote:

---

And if Borel had written that, which he didn't 'cos he isn't Dembski, it still wouldn't be "Borel's Law", because "Borel's Law" refers to something else.

---

Borel's Law tells us that anything with a probability less than 1 in 10^50 is "mathematically impossible." There are 10^80 particles (electrons and protons) in the universe (best number I could find online) estimated. Even if each particle in the universe performed (10^20) events per second, and the universe was 15 billion years old (10^18 seconds), then 10^80 x 10^20 x 10^18 = 10^118. Even in the most generous situation, the number far exceeds Borels Law. You have better odds of winning the lottery (1:13,983,816, 6/49), than convincing me that Borels Law does not apply to chemical evolution.

quote:

---

I am not inclined to take his word about what anyone else means by anything.

---

So you are not inclined to accept what I wrote, you would rather attack his character, than answer intelligently. DING! Next.

quote:

---

Got any quotes

---

Yes. I do.

quote:

---

Nobody has actually seen evolution take place over a long period but they have seen the after effects, and the after effects are massively supported. It is like a case in a court of law where nobody can actually stand up and say I saw the murder happen..."
Charles Dawkins

---

quote:

---

Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology

---

Sure. Thats not where I got it, but it's probably there too. All the more reason to respond?

quote:

---

Really, if everyone is on your side you'd think you could quote some of them saying so.

---

I already got one, but I'll go get more:

quote:

---

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission)

---

quote:

---

"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, 1979)

---

quote:

---

"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, New Scientist, April 28, 1983)

---

quote:

---

"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock.' The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987)

---

quote:

---

"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971)

---

quote:

---

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

---

We both have faith Doc. Yours faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen.DennisEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.

quote:

---

But it doesn't. It just doesn't. Borel's Law is just the Law Of Large Numbers as it applies to the statistics of experiments.

---

Fair. So then would you perform an experiment 10^118 chances of getting the desired outcome? You are a math whiz. Do the math.

quote:

---

And I believe that I have already explained why things at long odds are not actually "mathematically impossible".

---

So you are saying that the lottery is the best bet for retirement savings...I got it.

quote:

---

Well, the subject in which I have a PhD is in fact mathematics.

---

Yet somehow you still expect me to play the lottery.

quote:

---

"Got any quotes?"

---

You asked me for quotes twice. Read your message.

quote:

---

If you wish to be shamefully and ludicrously wrong about something that is not on topic in this thread, then start another thread.

---

1. I don't know how.2. I don't want the responsibility of running a thread. I have enough problems posting in the ones there are.

quote:

---

Pointing out that Borel's Law does not say what creationist liars say it says does not require me to do any math so much as have a passing familiarity with it.

---

Just answer the question:Is chemical evolution reasonable, mathematically speaking?

quote:

---

What I am saying is that stupid creationist liars tell stupid creationist lies.

---

So the odds of chemical evolution are so likely there is no other plausible explanation for the origin of life then?

quote:

---

You should not interpret this as advice on your retirement fund.

---

But you just said that 10^118 is not impossible to achieve. So if lottery odds are a minut fraction of that, then the odds of winning the lottery are so good I'd be stupid NOT to play.I'm using your logic here. You agree that 10^118 (best possible odds of chemical evolution, since each particle would have to react with every other one, even though we know this is not the case) is an extremely likely possibility. I'm not a math doctor, you are. I have to take your advice on this. If you think those odds are likely, then my lottery retirement should be in my account by year end.

quote:

---

If you don't, that's good too. I am not urging you to be wrong about something else

---

Wrong? Are you sure? Because I bought a lottery ticket today. If I win, you are right.