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

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.

Ringo and Dr A have already responded to try to show you your error so I won't bother. You won't listen anyway.What you are doing is exactly what the creo sites do. You search for a certain word and a certain sentence and use that one sentence as the whole argument. Read the whole wiki article, or better yet read a whole science article about entropy. Then if you really think it means what you have been claiming then you go try to make an argument for it. But let me give you some advice. No scientist thinks entropy is what you think it is. Because it isn't. You don't get to make up your own definitions and explanations of scientific terms.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

That isn't a scientific website, it's a creationist lie-fest. Let's look at what they have to say, shall we? --- It follows that since any particular ordering of 52 playing cards is 1 in 8*10^62, it will NEVER HAPPEN that shuffling a pack of cards will produce any given order.And yet somehow every single time I shuffle a pack of cards they end up in one of these 8*10^62 orders.You might conclude from this that this "Borel" chap was a halfwit with no understanding of probability theory. But you would be wrong. The real explanation, of course, is that creationists are lying about what Borel's law is. As we know that they have lied about Borel, it would not be beyond them to lie about Sagan and Morowitz (who?)I should like therefore to see these supposed calculations in the words of Sagan and Morowitz rather than in the words of a liar and a fraud. Especially as the statements attributed to them (like the imaginary "law" attributed to Borel in place of his real one) display the sort of mathematical and scientific illiteracy that one associates more with creationists than with men of science.

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.

That's a nice line in pseudoscience you've got there.I don't suppose you could show your working? Oh, right, you haven't done any.Well, how about measurements of the increase in entropy. The sun was shining today, how much did the entropy of the biosphere increase?No?No, you've just got a pointless jumble of words fabricated out of your ignorance of thermodynamics, in which the sun may be the ultimate source of energy for all life on Earth (except arguably the communities living round "black smokers") but it gives people sunburn. Sure, they'd be dead without it, but it's still bad, and "bad" means "causing an increase in the entropy of the Earth's biosphere", for reasons that are obvious to any idiot ... but, strangely, not to people who have studied thermodynamics.Your pseudonobel pseudoprize for pseudophysics is in the post. And when, thanks to increasing entropy, the sun goes out, the biosphere will indeed collapse.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No I didn't. Stop making stuff up. I had no objection to the information provided, but rather to the way that you misunderstood a tiny bit of it and then completely ignored the rest. I had no objection to the information provided, but rather to the way that you misunderstood a tiny bit of it and then completely ignored the rest. I do tend to prefer truth to bullshit, yes. But tastes differ.---P.S: It occurs to me that the post to which I am replying would be slightly less stupid if it was intended as a reply to my post 78 rather than my post 76. But there's not much in it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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).

Not only did I read up on the law, I linked you to it so that you could see that it said no such thing. And what is "predetermined" about life? Are you committing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy?Moreover, your statement of this made-up "law" said nothing about being "predetermined". That's not a quotation from Borel. That's a quotation from Dembski's Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology in which he says what he thinks Borel means. Having read the mess that Dembski has made out of the statements of other scientists (for example, his nonsense about the No Free Lunch Theorem) I am not inclined to take his word about what anyone else means by anything.Got any quotes from Borel?(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.) And you base this on ... a non-quote from Borel, a non-quote from Morowitz, and a non-quote from Sagan.Really, if everyone is on your side you'd think you could quote some of them saying so.---The relevance of all this to any actual biological question remains somewhat unclear.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Try these on for size. They may be a little complex for you since you seem to think wiki is a hard science site.

quote:

---

is often asserted by creationists that the evolution of life is impossible because this would require an increase in order, whereas the second law of thermodynamics states that "in any natural process the amount of disorder increases", or some similar claim. "Entropy" is frequently used as a synonym for "disorder".

​

Of course, this represents a serious misunderstanding of what thermodynamics actually states. It can be explained patiently (or less than patiently, after the 1000th iteration or so) that entropy only strictly increases in an isolated system; that there are no completely isolated systems in nature, save maybe the universe as a whole; and that the whole idea of isolated systems is really an abstraction for pedagogical purposes; but still the creationist won't let go. There just has to be some reason why "order cannot come from disorder", and the reason must be in thermodynamics. That's the science that talks about order and disorder, isn't it?

​

In fact, it isn't. Look through any thermodynamics text. You will find discussions about ideal gases, heat engines, changes of state, equilibrium, chemical reactions, and the energy density and pressure of radiation. Entropy and the second law are powerful tools that allow one to calculate the properties of systems at equilibrium. At the very most, there may be a paragraph or two somewhere in that thick book alluding to some kind of relation between entropy and "disorder". Writers of pop science books like to make the same kind of relation, and will ask their readers to consider things like the state of their rooms--tidy or messy--and compare the (supposed) decrease in orderliness of the room over time to the "tendency of entropy to increase". But what of entropy and disorder? Where does that identification fit into the structure of thermodynamics?

​

The answer is, nowhere. It is not an axiom or first principle, it is not derived from any other basic principles, and nowhere is it required or even used at all to do any of the science to which thermodynamics applies. It is simply irrelevant and out of place except as an interesting aside. The only reason that that identification has been made stems from the different field of study called "statistical mechanics". Statistical mechanics explains thermodynamics, which is a science based on observed phenomena of macroscopic entities, such as a cylinder full of gas, in terms of more basic physics of microscopic entities, such as the collection of molecules that comprises the gas. This was a great achievement of nineteenth-century physics, led by Ludwig Boltzmann, who wrote down the only equation that connects entropy with any concept that might be called "disorder". In fact, what is commonly called "disorder" in Boltzmann's entropy equation has a meaning quite different from what creationists--and some writers of pop science--mean by disorder.

​

The equation in question reads:

​

S = k ln W.

​

That admittedly won't tell the reader much without some background. Boltzmann's entropy equation talks about a specific kind of system--an isolated system with a specified constant total energy E (although the constant E does not explicitly appear in the equation, it is implied and crucial) in a state of equilibrium. It tells us how to calculate the entropy, S, of that system in terms of the microscopic particles (molecules) which make it up. On the right hand side, k is a universal constant now known as Boltzmann's constant [1.38 10-23 joules/kelvin, for the curious --Ed]. The function "ln" is the natural logarithm, and the argument of the logarithm function is the quantity W. W is a pure number that connects the microscopic with the macroscopic.

---

You need to read the whole article.Next, try this explanationFinally

quote:

---

The creationist argument is that advanced organisms are
more orderly than primitive organisms, and hence as evolution
proceeds living things become more ordered, that is less
disordered, that is less entropic. Because the second law of
thermodynamics prohibits a decrease in entropy, it therefore
prohibits biological evolution.
This argument rests upon two misconceptions about entropy.
Disorder is a metaphor for entropy, not a definition for
entropy.3,4 Metaphors are valuable only when they are not
identical in all respects to their targets. For example, a
map of Caracas is a metaphor for the surface of the Earth
at Caracas, in that the map has a similar arrangement but a
dissimilar scale. If the map had the same arrangement and
scale as Caracas, it would be no easier to navigate using
the map than it would be to navigate by going directly to
Caracas and wandering the streets. The metaphor of disorder
for entropy is valuable and thus imperfect. For example,
take some ice cubes out of your freezer, smash
them, toss the shards into a bowl, and then allow the ice to
melt. The jumble of ice shards certainly seems more disorderly
than the bowl of smooth liquid water, yet the liquid
water has the greater entropy.5
Although the entropy of the universe increases with time,
the entropy of any part of the universe can decrease with
time, so long as that decrease is compensated by an even
larger increase in some other part of the universe.6 For
example, any hot cup of coffee left to its own devices on a
tabletop decreases in entropy.

---

Daniel F. Styer, "Entropy and evolution," American Journal of Physics, Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008,Do you still want to argue with scientists about this? Is this "proof" for you?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

As I said, the problem isn't with reading, it's with comprehension. Your source doesn't say quite what you think it says. Whenever you read anything about thermodynamics, you should be thinking in terms of energy, not "things". Entropy is a quantity that can be measured and/or calculated. "Harm" is a quality - and a pretty subjective one at that. It can't be easily quantified. That's a clue that "harm" doesn't necessarily imply an increase in entropy.So you can say that entropy increases over time but you can't really say that the entropy of "things" increases over time.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

39 The mutation rate in humans has been measured. A child has on the order of 100 mutations non existent in the parents. That would fall under the definition of new.84 I used to count cards years ago. I didn't NEED to win any particular hand. All I needed was an edge against the house.In abiogenesis chemistry is not random and there would be a huge number of simultaneous experiments going on.The way you are using your "increase in entropy argument" it would apply equally well to a simple increase in the size of a population and disprove that such an occurrence were possible.. Ah.. the appeal to authority.. or an admission to lack thereof?..