The Flood
Moderator: Community Team
Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
A is absolutely and completely more scientifically supported than B? How about we tackle one part at a time? Has there been an overall increase in entropy in the universe if particles evolved into atoms and atoms into molecules and molecules into worlds and stars and galaxies and inorganic compounds evolved into living materials and living materials evolved into more and more complex plants and animals and into humans who can now intelligently control future evolution?
-
tzor
- Posts: 4051
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Long Island, NY, USA
- Contact:
Re:
YesLionz wrote:Has there been an overall increase in entropy in the universe if particles evolved into atoms and atoms into molecules and molecules into worlds and stars and galaxies and inorganic compounds evolved into living materials and living materials evolved into more and more complex plants and animals and into humans who can now intelligently control future evolution?
First of all, the second law of thermodynamics, applies to closed systems, "The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay observable in nature. It is measured and expressed in terms of a property called entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium; and that the entropy change dS of a system undergoing any infinitesimal reversible process is given by δq / T, where δq is the heat supplied to the system and T is the absolute temperature of the system. In classical thermodynamics, the second law is a basic postulate applicable to any system involving measurable heat energy transfer, while in statistical thermodynamics, the second law is a consequence of the assumed randomness of molecular chaos, see fundamental postulate." It has to be applied to the universe as a whole and as a whole the enthropy of the universe is increasing.
Secondly, particles did not "evolve" into atoms. They coalessed into atoms as they lost energy due to enthropy. Non atomic forms of matter requires higher energy states; that is why you need a really big particle collider powered by a really big power supply to get near big bang conditions at the very small scale. (Most colliders have to even use really big atoms, like gold, to get enough energy in them so that when they smash together the energy can approach the required levels at the atomic scale.)
The creation of complex molecules requires a significant amount of enthropy. Sure, those molecules looked ordered, but something else became highly disordered as a result. Considering the sun is currently belching out enthropy at a massive rate (nuclear fusion is highly enthropic) it is possible for many sub systems to cheat and steal from that outflox of enthropy. Without the sun, no complex molecules would be possible on the earth.
1) If everything that exists is not a closed system, then what is?
2) Where has entropy increased to counter all of that if it has increased to counter that somewhere? The universe went from a speck to what it is now and yet entropy has somehow increased across the universe overall?
3) You might have understood me wrong or have quite a rigid definition of evolve or both. You say enthropy meaning entropy and coalessed meaning coalesced? Would particles uniting together to form atoms not be an example of order increasing and entropy decreasing?
4) If there was a big bang that produced hydrogen and helium, then where did the other 105 plus elements come from?
5) Do you personally claim that all matter is self created and that inorganic self created matter created life and intelligence? Do you stand by the RNA World Theory?
2) Where has entropy increased to counter all of that if it has increased to counter that somewhere? The universe went from a speck to what it is now and yet entropy has somehow increased across the universe overall?
3) You might have understood me wrong or have quite a rigid definition of evolve or both. You say enthropy meaning entropy and coalessed meaning coalesced? Would particles uniting together to form atoms not be an example of order increasing and entropy decreasing?
4) If there was a big bang that produced hydrogen and helium, then where did the other 105 plus elements come from?
5) Do you personally claim that all matter is self created and that inorganic self created matter created life and intelligence? Do you stand by the RNA World Theory?
-
tzor
- Posts: 4051
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Long Island, NY, USA
- Contact:
Re:
1) I'm not sure where that question comes from. I wrote "It has to be applied to the universe as a whole ..."Lionz wrote:1) If everything that exists is not a closed system, then what is?
2) Where has entropy increased to counter all of that if it has increased to counter that somewhere? The universe went from a speck to what it is now and yet entropy has somehow increased across the universe overall?
3) You might have understood me wrong or have quite a rigid definition of evolve or both. You say enthropy meaning entropy and coalessed meaning coalesced? Would particles uniting together to form atoms not be an example of order increasing and entropy decreasing?
4) If there was a big bang that produced hydrogen and helium, then where did the other 105 plus elements come from?
5) Do you personally claim that all matter is self created and that inorganic self created matter created life and intelligence? Do you stand by the RNA World Theory?
2) You know, I might use your second question to explore the notion that the expanding universe drives the second law of thermodynamics, but my arguments are going over your head higher than the space shuttle (although perhaps not as high as geosynchronious orbit) so I won't.
3) Particles coming together (either to form super particles through the interaction of the strong nuclear force or into quantum mechanical relationships to each other) do so through a loss of energy and thus an increase of enthropy. It is easier for an atom to fall together than it is for an atom to fall apart.
4) The "Big Bang" is a highly abuseable term. The general event of transparency (the point where the early universe went from opaque to transparent, releaseing a high flox of high energy photons into the early small universe) occured far before the formation of hydrogen. All atoms up to carbon are created through regular fusion reactions. All atoms above carbon require a really big event; generally these events are those stellar events called "super novae."
5) It's been over a year since I stuck my toe into the astrophysics world. I think I'm still favoring the Hawkings model applied to an open universe that interferes with other open universes. This still only requires one to envision the universe to an Aleph Null order of infinity.
What does the RNA World Hypothesis (it's not a theory) have to do with this?
1) What do you define the Universe as, if you don't define it as all that exists?
2) There might not be any good reason to try to make ourselves look high and mighty. How about we explore together and you not assume that I won't be able to understand something?
You mean to argue that the heavens are expanding and it's caused entropy to have increased? And that it has caused enough of an increase to have balanced out for all that exists having organized itself together from a speck of nothing? Simply looking around in nature can help us figure out what's actually occured perhaps. When does something become more organized without usable energy coupled with a mechanism able to harness and direct the energy? Are you going to leave clumps of dirt in a room and come back to it millions of years later and find that the clumps organized themselves into spheroids with living organisms on them?
3) Do you have a source that claims particles uniting to form atoms would be an example of increasing entropy? Would that happening for a first time not naturally be a decrease in entropy even if it requires energy to break down an atom? Maybe we're in a moot area either way... you might hold that atoms naturally turned into yourself over billions of years...
4) Can you adamantly claim with a straight face that the universe went from opaque to transparent or adamantly claim that something released a high flox of high energy photons into an early small universe or adamantly claim that something occured far before a formation of hydrogen? I'm not sure if I was born in 1983 and you're fully aware of intricate details about stuff that happened billions of years ago? Maybe we should try to be humble and not act like we know exactly what's happened? Wikipedia might contradict you. See a Big Bang page? Neutrons combined with protons a few minutes into expansion to form the Universe's deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis and most protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei?
5) Multiple planes of existance inferring with one another would still come together to collectively be the Universe perhaps, but maybe Universe can be defined more than one way and you've said it meaning a three dimensional plane of existance called outer space. What would theorizing about there being more than one really help explain? You might be pushing back problems.
You search RNA World Theory in a search engine and come across a wikipedia RNA World Hypothesis article address in results? Who says it's the RNA World Hypothesis and not the RNA World Theory?
What would it have to do with discussion regarding the Universe and entropy and what's occured in the past? What would it not have to do with that? What came first out of protein and DNA and RNA if one did?
2) There might not be any good reason to try to make ourselves look high and mighty. How about we explore together and you not assume that I won't be able to understand something?
You mean to argue that the heavens are expanding and it's caused entropy to have increased? And that it has caused enough of an increase to have balanced out for all that exists having organized itself together from a speck of nothing? Simply looking around in nature can help us figure out what's actually occured perhaps. When does something become more organized without usable energy coupled with a mechanism able to harness and direct the energy? Are you going to leave clumps of dirt in a room and come back to it millions of years later and find that the clumps organized themselves into spheroids with living organisms on them?
3) Do you have a source that claims particles uniting to form atoms would be an example of increasing entropy? Would that happening for a first time not naturally be a decrease in entropy even if it requires energy to break down an atom? Maybe we're in a moot area either way... you might hold that atoms naturally turned into yourself over billions of years...
4) Can you adamantly claim with a straight face that the universe went from opaque to transparent or adamantly claim that something released a high flox of high energy photons into an early small universe or adamantly claim that something occured far before a formation of hydrogen? I'm not sure if I was born in 1983 and you're fully aware of intricate details about stuff that happened billions of years ago? Maybe we should try to be humble and not act like we know exactly what's happened? Wikipedia might contradict you. See a Big Bang page? Neutrons combined with protons a few minutes into expansion to form the Universe's deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis and most protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei?
5) Multiple planes of existance inferring with one another would still come together to collectively be the Universe perhaps, but maybe Universe can be defined more than one way and you've said it meaning a three dimensional plane of existance called outer space. What would theorizing about there being more than one really help explain? You might be pushing back problems.
You search RNA World Theory in a search engine and come across a wikipedia RNA World Hypothesis article address in results? Who says it's the RNA World Hypothesis and not the RNA World Theory?
What would it have to do with discussion regarding the Universe and entropy and what's occured in the past? What would it not have to do with that? What came first out of protein and DNA and RNA if one did?
Re:
Are you suggesting that the wikipedia entry on "RNA World Hypothesis", does not refer to the concept that you refer to as "RNA World Theory", and if they do not refer to the same principle, to what do you refer when you write "RNA World Theory"?Lionz wrote:You search RNA World Theory in a search engine and come across a wikipedia RNA World Hypothesis article address in results? Who says it's the RNA World Hypothesis and not the RNA World Theory?
-
tzor
- Posts: 4051
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Long Island, NY, USA
- Contact:
Re:
I generally define the "universe" as the four dimensional (plus any number of minor sub-dimensions that string theory might support assuming string theory is true) space time dimensions and all energy/matter within it.Lionz wrote:1) What do you define the Universe as, if you don't define it as all that exists?
Thus there might exists multiple universes (and they might or might not impact each other) and there might be something inbetween those universes. It is only possible to know what one can observe. It is not possible to know what can not be observed.
So what I mean is that God revealed to man a structure which went beyond their understanding, which they in turned mapped into their understanding. Thus while we now consider the "stars" or the firmament as potentially infinite in nature (assuming the open universe) the "heavens" where God resides is "beyond" the firmament or in effect outside of space time which is really the firmament.
The basic difference between our two approaches is that I do not look at Genesis as a simple literal truth but as a complex truth that points forward to truths unknown, or in other words pre-figures other truths. Just as the second tree in the garden pre-figures or points to the cross and the "fruit of the tree of life" pre-figures and points to (as does the manna in the dessert) the Eucharist.
-
PLAYER57832
- Posts: 3075
- Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
- Gender: Female
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re:
The answers to all your questions can be found through more than curosory study of real and true science as put forth by just about everyone EXCEPT any Young Earth Creationists.Lionz wrote:1) If everything that exists is not a closed system, then what is?
2) Where has entropy increased to counter all of that if it has increased to counter that somewhere? The universe went from a speck to what it is now and yet entropy has somehow increased across the universe overall?
3) You might have understood me wrong or have quite a rigid definition of evolve or both. You say enthropy meaning entropy and coalessed meaning coalesced? Would particles uniting together to form atoms not be an example of order increasing and entropy decreasing?
4) If there was a big bang that produced hydrogen and helium, then where did the other 105 plus elements come from?
5) Do you personally claim that all matter is self created and that inorganic self created matter created life and intelligence? Do you stand by the RNA World Theory?
Study, or accept that the rest of the world will consider you an idiot.. .and every word you speak proves it further.
Timminz,
They might simply be names for the same thing. There's one or more did the chicken or egg come first type problem concerning protein and DNA and they're both names that refer to something which holds RNA came before them maybe. Even if RNA came first, did clay or an organic broth burp out a whole strand of RNA that had the ability to evolve information or that had encoded information for making a cell? And was there an unguided, unplanned, and undirected assembly of atoms and molecules into amino acids and further into proteins, enzymes and the DNA Double Helix?
Tzor,
Maybe it shouldn't be surprising to anyone if there are multiple 4D space time dimensions. Do you propose that an increase in entropy in one would be able to naturally balance out for a decrease in entropy in another?
Player,
http://morgellonswatch.com/wp-content/u ... rarchy.jpg
They might simply be names for the same thing. There's one or more did the chicken or egg come first type problem concerning protein and DNA and they're both names that refer to something which holds RNA came before them maybe. Even if RNA came first, did clay or an organic broth burp out a whole strand of RNA that had the ability to evolve information or that had encoded information for making a cell? And was there an unguided, unplanned, and undirected assembly of atoms and molecules into amino acids and further into proteins, enzymes and the DNA Double Helix?
Tzor,
Maybe it shouldn't be surprising to anyone if there are multiple 4D space time dimensions. Do you propose that an increase in entropy in one would be able to naturally balance out for a decrease in entropy in another?
Player,
http://morgellonswatch.com/wp-content/u ... rarchy.jpg
-
tzor
- Posts: 4051
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Long Island, NY, USA
- Contact:
Re:
No. If they have no connections with each other then they are separate of each other. If they have connections then the enthropy of the whole will increase over time; one may have decreasing enthropy but the other will have increasing enthropy greater than the decreasing enthropy.Lionz wrote:Tzor,
Maybe it shouldn't be surprising to anyone if there are multiple 4D space time dimensions. Do you propose that an increase in entropy in one would be able to naturally balance out for a decrease in entropy in another?
(If you think that makes a great Dr. Who episode it is because it was one.)
Would believing that there are seperate coexisting space time dimensions helping to balance entropy out within one another not be an example of faith in the unknown? Why would someone not choose to believe that an energetic and intelligent Creator older than atoms helped organize things over believing that? What suggests to you that natural processes guided by no intelligence at all led to matter and life and intelligence coming into existance? I'm not sure what you believe and you don't think that's the case for all I know perhaps, but what are you arguing for if you hold that He designed atoms and heavenly bodies and an original living cell anyway? On a geeky side note maybe... were you considering time to be a fourth dimension?
Re:
Which leads me to wonder, why would you question the link? If the wikipedia page is indeed referencing the hypothesis that you describe, what is the problem? And if it does not describe the hypothesis you were referencing, in what way(s) do the two concepts differ?Lionz wrote:Timminz,
They might simply be names for the same thing.
-
tzor
- Posts: 4051
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Long Island, NY, USA
- Contact:
Re:
First of all, the unknown is just that, unknown. Faith, on the other hand comes from revalation; from the unknown becoming known.Lionz wrote:Would believing that there are seperate coexisting space time dimensions helping to balance entropy out within one another not be an example of faith in the unknown? Why would someone not choose to believe that an energetic and intelligent Creator older than atoms helped organize things over believing that? What suggests to you that natural processes guided by no intelligence at all led to matter and life and intelligence coming into existance? I'm not sure what you believe and you don't think that's the case for all I know perhaps, but what are you arguing for if you hold that He designed atoms and heavenly bodies and an original living cell anyway? On a geeky side note maybe... were you considering time to be a fourth dimension?
The notion of the four dimensional space time is generally associated with relativity, although it was first used in 1754. Here is a wiipedia article on the subject. The concept is generally represented in a Minkowski space model.
-
rdsrds2120
- Posts: 6274
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:42 am
- Gender: Male
Re: The Flood
I understand completely, Noah was Canadian. It explains where he got the wood, and where...oh, wait, Canada doesn't have 2 of every animal...maybe he had storks fly in some from other countries? Yeah, that makes sense! But totally, with all the wood that's there, and it would explain why Canadians are generally nicer than most, being of holy decent and all. Shucks, now I'm jealousTHORNHEART wrote:Well its moi and I havnt been around lately cause of the childishness and pointlessness and because there are no new forum users only the old ones and we all know what eachother believes but anyways
here we are something to discuss??
If the flood could instantly kill these dinos then why couldn't a world wide flood have wiped out life as the bible claims ?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37883844/ns ... ?GT1=43001
once again evolution is fucked up and stupid because they accept a theory but refuse that theory at the same time on a grander scale when the flood is perfect for the extinction of species.
