The contradiction of the Second law of thermodynamics and the big bang and Darwinism
The second law of theromdynamics states that the amount of entropy in a system will increase unless acted upon by an outside force.Entropy is defined as the amount of disorder in a system.In other words, if you leave a pile of bricks on the ground, it will not become a house unless someone builds it into one.It will deteriorate and crumble back into the earth instead.That being said, both the theory of evolution and the big bang theory require a bell curve of order in which a given system goes from a point of low order and simplicity and then goes to a period of highest order only to deteriorate back into a simpler, less orderly form-directly contradicting the Second Law of Thermodynamics.According to physicists, the big bang began with a quantum singularity containing all of the matter in the universe that was about the size of our sun.This was the point of lowest order.Then it exploded and all of the elements, beginning with hydrogen formed form the ether.After the elements were formed, it became complex systems, stars, planets, solar systems, galaxies and galaxy clusters.Then the stars began to collapse and form black holes-at the bottom of which are-you guessed it-quantum singularities!(And yes, I know, at the center of every galaxy is a dormant supermassive black hole, but ,for simplicity's sake, I am not adding that to the mix.)Life on earth can be explained in much the same way-going from a point of no biological life, to simple amino acid chains into bacteria, single celled organisms to animals and plants to ecosystems.Then at some given time, it all starts a slow process of deterioration and lower bio-diversity.To me, this calls into question the whole theory of how life and the universe started.I do not deny a certain amount of natural selection, nor do I deny the expanding universe.I do, however think that the origins of all we know are not happenstance and point to intelligent design.Intelligent design is the only thing that is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.Something to think about.
__________________
1998 Nissan Frontier XE/2wd/5spd 1 owner, 264k miles
1985 Olds Cutlass, 350 Chevy, owned for 14 years
WANTED: 1968-1973 Datsun 510 or 1991-1994 Sentra SE-R http://www.myspace.com/junkyardengineer
Last edited by himilefrontier : Aug 28th, 2003 at 12:17 PM.
a very good point indeed, you also have to think about the evolution of humans' size. Way back in the day it was unheard of for anyone to be over 6' tall, 7' tall people were considered living giants and typical people were around 5' tall. Nowadays most guys are around 6', many are up around 6'6", and there are still quite a few up around 7' or more. Not really sure what this has to do with anything....just thought I'd add it in there. I guess if the law states that everything slowly goes toward chaos, then why are humans getting bigger? Or why does a baby mature and turn into an adult instead of withering away into nothingness? Humans start off as 1 cell, and they grow into billions of cells before they start going towards chaos and death.
It's nice to learn something new...Does that mean we will start to de-evolve?
__________________
Nissan Forums Anti Ghettofication Lead Inspector:cool:
2 Door Sentra?!?!?! WTF... It's a 200SX SE-R
2 Door WRX?!?!? WTF... It's an GC8
If you've been in OT between 1AM and 4AM you have no life :thumbup:
Well, there is a certain range of biodiversity built into each species genetic code.When certain traits are more profitable, the population with those dominant traits will survive and increase in population.When these traits become less desireable, those in the population who do not have these traits will thrive instead.Think of it in terms of the influenza outbreak of 1918-the most deadly pandemic in recorded history.It did not stop until all of the people who were genetically susceptible were killed off by it.Those who were not susceptible survived.This does not mean the genetic predisposition was eradicated from the human race, it remained as a recessive trait in some of the survivors.Therefore, it is still a part of our bio-diversity, and not an evolutionary step.
__________________
1998 Nissan Frontier XE/2wd/5spd 1 owner, 264k miles
1985 Olds Cutlass, 350 Chevy, owned for 14 years
WANTED: 1968-1973 Datsun 510 or 1991-1994 Sentra SE-R http://www.myspace.com/junkyardengineer
Last edited by himilefrontier : Aug 27th, 2003 at 10:01 PM.
I think in the case of evolution, the period for something like this to occur is far longer than we can possibly fathom, where life simply deterriorates. Also, who said that the whole process was supervised. Could not also simply setting the cogs in motion and let them act out their processes be enough to follow the law. Once the forced is introduced, the inherent nature of the disorder is changed, and the rest is based on whatever results come of the disorder. Could we still not be a disorder defined simply by the chaos that is life?
__________________
"I swear Boris, if you didnt have bad luck you sure as hell wouldnt have any at all"-Nostrodomas, story of my life
Lewis Black quote of the Week:
"Baseball should go back to its roots and bring back performance hindering substances. If not for me, do it for the children."
Stephen Hawking predicted that in the previous universe, no de-evolution or deterioration occured. He predicted that the previous life forms became so advanced that eventually they were able to split the smallest form of matter called a "quark". The amount of energy in a single quark is so massive that it would simply destroy the entire universe(most likely by self implosion). So this might have been happening over and over. When each new life form in the universe(the most advanced one), discovers how to split a quark the entire universe starts over again.
Far be it for me to argue with Stephen Hawking(probably one of the most brilliant people to ever have lived!Some of my information comes from him too.)His theory presupposes that thre were previous universes prior to our own, and since the prior universe cannot be observed, it is impossible to say what it was like.Remember also that even Einstein was wrong on many accounts as there are areas that even the most intelligent of us can only guess at since our knowledge base is so limited.Plus, a Quark is a theoretical particle that is evidenced by the interactions of other subatomic particles, but has never been actually observed(Like gravitons, gluons, etc.).
__________________
1998 Nissan Frontier XE/2wd/5spd 1 owner, 264k miles
1985 Olds Cutlass, 350 Chevy, owned for 14 years
WANTED: 1968-1973 Datsun 510 or 1991-1994 Sentra SE-R http://www.myspace.com/junkyardengineer
Re: The contradiction of the Second law of thermodynamics and the big bang and Darwinism
Quote:
Originally posted by himilefrontier The second law of theromdynamics states that the amount of entropy in a system will increase unless acted upon by an outside force. Entropy is defined as the amount of disorder in a system.In other words, if you leave a pile of bricks on the ground, it will not become a house unless someone builds it into one.It will deteriorate and crumble back into the earth instead.That being said, both the theory of evolution and the big bang theory require a bell curve of order in which a given system goes from a point of low order and simplicity and then goes to a period of highest order only to deteriorate back into a simpler, less orderly form.According to physicists, the big bang began with a quantum singularity containing all of the matter in the universe that was about the size of our sun.This was the point of lowest order.Then it exploded and all of the elements, beginning with hydrogen formed form the ether.After the elements were formed, it became complex systems, stars, planets, solar systems, galaxies and galaxy clusters.Then the stars began to collapse and form black holes-at the bottom of which are-you guessed it-quantum singularities!(And yes, I know, at the center of every galaxy is a dormant supermassive black hole, but if I discuss that, I'll have to write a novel)Life on earth can be explained in much the same way-going from a point of no biological life, to simple amino acid chains into bacteria, single celled organisms to animals and plants to ecosystems.Then at some given time, it all starts a slow process of deterioration and lower bio-diversity.To me, this calls into question the whole theory of how life and the universe started.I do not deny a certain amount of natural selection, nor do I deny the expanding universe.I do, however think that the origins of all we know are not happenstance and point to intelligent design.Intelligent design is the only thing that is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.Something to think about.
Yeah all you say is true, but where is your theorizing point?
Wheres the contradiction? I'm not sure I see it...
__________________
Electrical Engineer in da his house.
"If you eliminate the impossible then whatever left, however improbable must be the truth!"
Re: Re: The contradiction of the Second law of thermodynamics and the big bang and Darwinism
Quote:
Originally posted by UNISH25 Yeah all you say is true, but where is your theorizing point?
Wheres the contradiction? I'm not sure I see it...
if I understand it correctly, he's asking how can life build from a single cell organism into perfectly working, complex beings such as humans when the natural tendancy of life is to move towards chaos.
Re: Re: Re: The contradiction of the Second law of thermodynamics and the big bang and Darwinism
Quote:
Originally posted by sr20dem0n if I understand it correctly, he's asking how can life build from a single cell organism into perfectly working, complex beings such as humans when the natural tendancy of life is to move towards chaos.
Natural tendancy of life is to move towards chaos? I think you got that the opposite way.
Everything is moving towards a state of non-chaos..as stated by himile frotier in his bell curve assessment. But after it reaches perfection harmony at the peak of the bell curve, then it starts to move toward chaos.
But what is contradiction about it with the second law of thermodynamics..
__________________
Electrical Engineer in da his house.
"If you eliminate the impossible then whatever left, however improbable must be the truth!"
Re: Re: Re: Re: The contradiction of the Second law of thermodynamics and the big bang and Darwinism
Quote:
Originally posted by UNISH25 Natural tendancy of life is to move towards chaos? I think you got that the opposite way.
Everything is moving towards a state of non-chaos..as stated by himile frotier in his bell curve assessment. But after it reaches perfection harmony at the peak of the bell curve, then it starts to move toward chaos.
But what is contradiction about it with the second law of thermodynamics..
Quote:
Originally posted by himilefrontier The second law of theromdynamics states that the amount of entropy in a system will increase unless acted upon by an outside force.Entropy is defined as the amount of disorder in a system.
that is the second law of thermodynamics, it says exactly what I just said
Interesting points by all, but I must point out that everyone is making the assumption that evolution (i.e. going from a single cell organism all the way to a human) is defined as 'progress.' I think the important variable is change, which could be viewed as entropy. Going from a single cell to a human is not contrary to entropy, in fact, it almost supports it.
Originally posted by zeno Interesting points by all, but I must point out that everyone is making the assumption that evolution (i.e. going from a single cell organism all the way to a human) is defined as 'progress.' I think the important variable is change, which could be viewed as entropy. Going from a single cell to a human is not contrary to entropy, in fact, it almost supports it.
definition of entropy:
A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.
how can going from a single cell bacteria to a multi-billion cell organism with a heart, brain, circulatory and nervous systems all in a delicate balance be considered deterioration, random, or disorderly?
Because you are making a judgment (a very human thing to do) that all those things are somehow superior to a simpler system. More complex does not mean better, maybe a single cell organism is vastly superior because it has everything it needs w/o billions of cells, organs, and a dumbass brain to fuck shit up. I don't know, I'm just raising the point. My main point is that we have no right to rank ourselves in some hiearchy of superior and inferior creatures.
