Ron Paul Doesn't Accept Evolution?

[Natural Citizen]

[amy31416]

Oops. Didn't notice the date on the OP.

[staerker]

What WOULD violate the laws of thermodynamics is something spontaneously becoming more complex and more ordered,

Are you saying that water never freezes naturally?

[GunnyFreedom]

Are you saying that water never freezes naturally?

Water molecules do become more ordered when freezing. Likewise carbon molecules when being pressed into graphite or diamond.

[staerker]

Water molecules do become more ordered when freezing. Likewise carbon molecules when being pressed into graphite or diamond.

Exactly. The entropy of systems all over the earth naturally decrease. The universe as a whole is the only system whose entropy cannot decrease (per the 2nd Law.)

[PaulConventionWV]

I answered the question you asked and said you hadn't yet been given an answer to. Crystallization is certainly a case in nature of order arising from disorder, and there’s more to the process of crystallization than you're characterizing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal

In your quote of Prigogine, you conveniently edited out the sentence where he refers to crystals in this regard. Also, the link you gave doesn't go to a source of the quote, and Prigogine wouldn't be an "evolutionist" if he believed what you're suggesting. Below is the full first paragraph of your quote that one finds on the web:



---

Crystallization is an example of molecules arranging into their lowest potential energy level at certain temperatures. However, as I've mentioned, it's a dead end. The fact remains that there's no demonstration of heat being added to a system (as opposed to taken away, such as in the case of crystals) that arises in more order. In fact, heat IS disorder and characterizes a higher state of entropy because the molecules are moving faster.

My Ilya Prigogine quote says what it says regardless of what else it says. He says crystallization doesn't explain the development of biological structures. He can say that and still be an evolutionist because, like you, he probably has faith and the alternative chaps his hide so he chooses to believe in evolution rather than take both sides from a neutral stance.

All of this is blowing way over my whole point for posting here, though. All I want is for people to admit that evolution is not scientific and it requires some faith to believe. You are free to believe in all these weird theories of how it possibly could have maybe happened, but none of them are testable, observable, or repeatable, so they're not science and they don't belong in public schools funded by taxpayer dollars. That's all I want people to admit. Even if you think crystallization is a possible engine for evolution, that doesn't make it a scientific belief. It takes faith to think that something you've never seen or heard of happening can and did happen despite all the obvious problems with that idea.

[PaulConventionWV]

Are you saying that water never freezes naturally?

Water doesn't become more complex by moving into its lowest energy state by subtracting heat. You could say it becomes more ordered, depending on which definition of "ordered" you use, but for all intents and purposes, nothing is changing except the arrangement of water molecules.

[PaulConventionWV]

Water molecules do become more ordered when freezing. Likewise carbon molecules when being pressed into graphite or diamond.

Sure, it all depends on your definition of ordered, but perhaps I should have been more clear about the distinction between order and complexity. Evolution requires complexity, new function and new information being added. Molecules arranging themselves the way they are designed based on temperature is not that.

[PaulConventionWV]

Exactly. The entropy of systems all over the earth naturally decrease. The universe as a whole is the only system whose entropy cannot decrease (per the 2nd Law.)

That's not true. Sunlight is the only thing that comes into the Earth's system barring comets or aliens. It comes in the form of heat. Heat is a characteristic of high entropy. We can observe this all around us. Things break down and deteriorate when they're left in the sun unless they're already living and have an already-developed system for harnessing the raw power of sunlight that, otherwise, would break down and deteriorate non-living things.

If you want to believe some other form of weird, unknown energy came and started life on earth, then feel free to do so, but realize you just left science and jumped into religion.

[staerker]

That's not true. Sunlight is the only thing that comes into the Earth's system barring comets or aliens. It comes in the form of heat. Heat is a characteristic of high entropy. We can observe this all around us. Things break down and deteriorate when they're left in the sun unless they're already living and have an already-developed system for harnessing the raw power of sunlight that, otherwise, would break down and deteriorate non-living things.

If you want to believe some other form of weird, unknown energy came and started life on earth, then feel free to do so, but realize you just left science and jumped into religion.

The post that you quoted is the correct form of the 2nd Law. Anything else is an incorrect application. Note that I say "cannot," not "is unlikely to."

So what I am about to say is pointless, but I will say it because you are wrong on two fronts:

Heat is also dissipated back into space by the Earth. So, the entropy of the Earth can practically decrease, not just theoretically.

But it is a pointless conversation, because whether the entropy of the Earth is increasing or decreasing is not being discussed. What is being discussed is the entropy of specific chemicals at specific locations, on Earth.

[jmdrake]

Oops. Didn't notice the date on the OP.

Right. I only bumped it to refute idiots who wanted to attack Jack Hunter for an article posted on rand2016 Facebook page that stated that Bill Nye is wrong to be telling parents they shouldn't teach their children creationism. One would think that is an open and shut case. Freedom of ideas etc. But it appears that for some people freedom actually isn't popular. That want to force their own views on everyone else and talk down to people who disagree with them. If you point out a problem with their theory (OMG! Don't even call it a theory), they act like a Catholic responding to someone questioning Mary's perpetual virginity. (And I'm not saying that to slam Catholics. I'm saying this to point out the virtual religious fervor adopted by people claiming not to be religious). The truth is evolution is open for debate. You can embrace science without embracing Darwinism. And you can embrace small lateral change (moths turning for dark grey to light and then back to dark grey) or downward changes (cave fish losing its eyes over many generations) without embracing changes from a lower level of complexity to a higher level. At this point the thread has taken a life of its own that's really pretty silly.

[robert68]

Sure, it all depends on your definition of ordered, but perhaps I should have been more clear about the distinction between order and complexity. Evolution requires complexity, new function and new information being added. Molecules arranging themselves the way they are designed based on temperature is not that.

The goal post moves again. Now the primordial soup recipe has to be produced. Please.

...

My Ilya Prigogine quote says what it says regardless of what else it says. He says crystallization doesn't explain the development of biological structures. He can say that and still be an evolutionist because, like you, he probably has faith and the alternative chaps his hide so he chooses to believe in evolution rather than take both sides from a neutral stance.

It was a creationist doctored quote with your spin, and your link was bogus.

[PaulConventionWV]

The post that you quoted is the correct form of the 2nd Law. Anything else is an incorrect application. Note that I say "cannot," not "is unlikely to."

So what I am about to say is pointless, but I will say it because you are wrong on two fronts:

Heat is also dissipated back into space by the Earth. So, the entropy of the Earth can practically decrease, not just theoretically.

But it is a pointless conversation, because whether the entropy of the Earth is increasing or decreasing is not being discussed. What is being discussed is the entropy of specific chemicals at specific locations, on Earth.

You're right. I can see we're not getting anywhere, but I did notice you don't seem to object to my claim that your beliefs require faith. If anything, I just want people like you to take that to heart and not try to proselytize your ideas as science when they're not scientific at all.

[PaulConventionWV]

The goal post moves again. Now the primordial soap recipe has to be produced. Please.

Every time the discussion advances from one topic to another, you accuse me of moving the goalposts. That's just not true. The subject just changed a little. I even gave credit for the crystallization answer, but saying how that doesn't prove evolution does not mean I'm moving the goal posts. I'm being really careful to avoid you accusing me of moving the goalposts, but apparently that's just not possible because you would rather do that than actually respond with meaningful answers. Think about it, how many times have I accused you of moving the goalposts? I could have if I really wanted to, but I'm focusing on the subject matter and not trying to weasel my way around arguments by accusing others of moving the goal posts. I also never said anything about a primordial soup recipe, so I don't know where you're getting that idea.

It was a creationist doctored quote with your spin, and your link was bogus.

No, it wasn't a "doctored" quote. The quote says plainly that crystallization "cannot explain" biological structures. Does it or does it not say that?

Once again, if you want to believe that life developed randomly despite nobody ever having witnessed it, then feel free to believe that, but don't call it science. Believing that requires just as much faith as believing in God.

[jmdrake]

Are you saying that water never freezes naturally?

Let's see if I understand your argument. The issue with the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that things tend to go from a higher state of order to a lower state. The evolutionists response to that is an external input of energy. So are you claiming that the external input of solar energy causes ice to freeze? Really, you seem to be proving PaulConventionWV's point about solar energy tending to be a destructive force.

[PaulConventionWV]

Let's see if I understand your argument. The issue with the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that things tend to go from a higher state of order to a lower state. The evolutionists response to that is an external input of energy. So are you claiming that the external input of solar energy causes ice to freeze? Really, you seem to be proving PaulConventionWV's point about solar energy tending to be a destructive force.

Lol. My point really doesn't need proving. People can observe this every single day by looking at old things that get left in the sun for long periods of time. Heat is the opposite of order, so the sun's heat doesn't help unless it's being used by living organisms.

What they do instead is see these things and they choose to interpret it in a way that it does not conflict with their deeply held beliefs in evolution.

[staerker]

You're right. I can see we're not getting anywhere, but I did notice you don't seem to object to my claim that your beliefs require faith. If anything, I just want people like you to take that to heart and not try to proselytize your ideas as science when they're not scientific at all.

I am an anarchist (@ your public school comment,) who does not subscribe to the theory of evolution. I merely dropped in to correct an error in your argument.

Let's see if I understand your argument. The issue with the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that things tend to go from a higher state of order to a lower state. The evolutionists response to that is an external input of energy. So are you claiming that the external input of solar energy causes ice to freeze? Really, you seem to be proving PaulConventionWV's point about solar energy tending to be a destructive force.

Your second sentence is a...misconstrued oversimplification of the 2nd Law. My point was, even if the entropy of the Earth is increasing, the entropy of subsystems on the Earth decrease all the time. Whether it is water, or some sort of life form.

[PaulConventionWV]

I am an anarchist (@ your public school comment,) who does not subscribe to the theory of evolution. I merely dropped in to correct an error in your argument.



Your second sentence is a...misconstrued oversimplification of the 2nd Law. My point was, even if the entropy of the Earth is increasing, the entropy of subsystems on the Earth decrease all the time. Whether it is water, or some sort of life form.

Well, I don't believe I ever made the claim that entropy never decreases. Of course it does, or else we wouldn't be here regardless of whether evolution is plausible or not. Just that the sun, the only energy that comes into the earth's open system, cannot be responsible for creating life on earth.

[jmdrake]

I am an anarchist (@ your public school comment,) who does not subscribe to the theory of evolution. I merely dropped in to correct an error in your argument.

Your second sentence is a...misconstrued oversimplification of the 2nd Law. My point was, even if the entropy of the Earth is increasing, the entropy of subsystems on the Earth decrease all the time. Whether it is water, or some sort of life form.

Ummmm....okay. I see absolutely no relation to your point about water to anything being discussed in this thread...but okay.

[otherone]

Just that the sun, the only energy that comes into the earth's open system, cannot be responsible for creating life on earth.

In what ways does the sun's presence affect the earth other than heat?

[PaulConventionWV]

In what ways does the sun's presence effect the earth other than heat?

Yeah, yeah. Light, but what about it? It doesn't change the fact that we see things deteriorate in the sun. Do you know of any studies that have been done that show light can make molecules form into amino acids or amino acids into proteins?

[GunnyFreedom]

Exactly. The entropy of systems all over the earth naturally decrease. The universe as a whole is the only system whose entropy cannot decrease (per the 2nd Law.)

http://ask.metafilter.com/82984/Crys...ase-in-entropy

There's quite a bit going on thermodynamically in the solidification of a liquid, and you've touched on a few ideas here already, but I'll try to fill in some of the gaps here.

Basically, for any system, you can define a quantity called "free energy" which is defined as:

U-TS

where U is the energy term (also called enthalpy), T is the temperature, and S is the entropy.

Systems will always behave in a way that lowers the "free energy"

The temperature term is important because it determines just how the system goes about lowering the free energy. So at a high temperature, the system can decrease the free energy more effectively by increasing entropy, but at low temperature it is more effective to lower the enthalpy. This is why we have solid ice at lower temperatures and liquid water at higher temperatures. From an energy standpoint, water molecules are attracted to each other and want to clump together. Bringing two water molecules close together lowers the energy of the system (releases energy) and separating them raises the energy (requires energy to be input). But when water molecules clump together, they are more ordered than when they are floating about freely, so there is a competing entropy cost. At low temperatures (because entropy is multiplied by temperature in the free energy term), solid ice occurs spontaneously because crystal ice is a lower energy structure than liquid water. It is more ordered, but this is OK because the temperature is low, so the entropy contribution is low. When the temperature is higher, crystal ice is still generally a lower energy structure than water, but entropy becomes more and more important to the point where even though it requires energy to remove a water molecule from the ice crystal and put it into the liquid phase, the increase in entropy makes it thermodynamically favorable.

posted by oneirodynia at 6:44 PM on February 6, 2008

[otherone]

Yeah, yeah. Light, but what about it? It doesn't change the fact that we see things deteriorate in the sun. Do you know of any studies that have been done that show light can make molecules form into amino acids or amino acids into proteins?

Just heat and light?

[PaulConventionWV]

Just heat and light?

Okay, genius. What's the big secret?

[givemeliberty2010]

Right. I only bumped it to refute idiots who wanted to attack Jack Hunter for an article posted on rand2016 Facebook page that stated that Bill Nye is wrong to be telling parents they shouldn't teach their children creationism. One would think that is an open and shut case. Freedom of ideas etc. But it appears that for some people freedom actually isn't popular. That want to force their own views on everyone else and talk down to people who disagree with them. If you point out a problem with their theory (OMG! Don't even call it a theory), they act like a Catholic responding to someone questioning Mary's perpetual virginity. (And I'm not saying that to slam Catholics. I'm saying this to point out the virtual religious fervor adopted by people claiming not to be religious). The truth is evolution is open for debate. You can embrace science without embracing Darwinism. And you can embrace small lateral change (moths turning for dark grey to light and then back to dark grey) or downward changes (cave fish losing its eyes over many generations) without embracing changes from a lower level of complexity to a higher level. At this point the thread has taken a life of its own that's really pretty silly.

What does Bill Nye's statement have to do with being free or not? Nye, as I understand him, was not saying that people should not be free to be bad parents. He's just telling people not to be bad parents. Is that controversial? Can freedom-supporters (not Bill Nye but freedom-supporters who agree with him on science) not ever give advice about being a good parent?

[jmdrake]

What does Bill Nye's statement have to do with being free or not? Nye, as I understand him, was not saying that people should not be free to be bad parents. He's just telling people not to be bad parents. Is that controversial? Can freedom-supporters (not Bill Nye but freedom-supporters who agree with him on science) not ever give advice about being a good parent?

What's wrong with minding your own business thank you very much? It's not "good advice" to tell parents to teach their kids what those parents don't believe just because you think you know better. That's not "pro liberty" even if it's being couched as "friendly advice." I would't go up to an atheist and say "You really should teach your children about Jesus even if you don't believe it." It's also disingenuous to pretend this is about "science education" when some of the best educated kids are homeschooled and there are children in public school that can't read words like "cat" and "dog". If you really care about science education, go volunteer at an inner city public school and leave parents alone.

[idiom]

Dudes, worldwide, atheism is about 13%, in America its 2%, and at least half of those are ultra left wing.

You are not going to win if you make atheism your platform.

[givemeliberty2010]

What's wrong with minding your own business thank you very much? It's not "good advice" to tell parents to teach their kids what those parents don't believe just because you think you know better. That's not "pro liberty" even if it's being couched as "friendly advice." I would't go up to an atheist and say "You really should teach your children about Jesus even if you don't believe it." It's also disingenuous to pretend this is about "science education" when some of the best educated kids are homeschooled and there are children in public school that can't read words like "cat" and "dog". If you really care about science education, go volunteer at an inner city public school and leave parents alone.

As I said, it's just advice. Nye probably wouldn't be waiting for anyone outside their homes to keep nagging them about creationism. Saying something in a video is still minding your own business.

The example about Christian beliefs is not comparable. Evolution is scientifically establishd; Christianity is not. Even then, I think Nye may just be saying not to teach creationism, not necessarily to teach evolution.

[jmdrake]

As I said, it's just advice. Nye probably wouldn't be waiting for anyone outside their homes to keep nagging them about creationism. Saying something in a video is still minding your own business.

He has a right to say what he wants and I have a right to tell him to go screw himself.

The example about Christian beliefs is not comparable. Evolution is scientifically establishd; Christianity is not. Even then, I think Nye may just be saying not to teach creationism, not necessarily to teach evolution.

I take it you didn't read the thread. Anyway, here's a "comparable" for you. Bill Nye also thinks parents shouldn't teach their children that global warming is debatable because, supposedly, that's "established scientifically". So line up and pay your carbon taxes already.

Here's the deal. The jackass had his own TV show. Millions of parents, creationists and evolutionists alike, welcomed him into their home. He had the chance to spread whatever scientific "fact" or propaganda he wanted to. Now he's just being a jerk. You want to defend that? Later for you too.

[givemeliberty2010]

He has a right to say what he wants and I have a right to tell him to go screw himself.



I take it you didn't read the thread. Anyway, here's a "comparable" for you. Bill Nye also thinks parents shouldn't teach their children that global warming is debatable because, supposedly, that's "established scientifically". So line up and pay your carbon taxes already.

Here's the deal. The jackass had his own TV show. Millions of parents, creationists and evolutionists alike, welcomed him into their home. He had the chance to spread whatever scientific "fact" or propaganda he wanted to. Now he's just being a jerk. You want to defend that? Later for you too.

I did read most of the thread. Evolution does not become scientifically debatable because of differing views that misunderstand science. And yes, human-caused global warming appears to be scientifically established.