Uniformitarianism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

drj11 -> Uniformitarianism (8/19/2008 5:35:37 PM)

This is a continuation of a discussion moving off topic in another thread.

DrMark said:
quote:


Been there, done that, drj! You misunderstand me so I will clarify. The evidence is all the same. One's interpretation of the evidence based on preconceived assumptions leads to conclusions. Robust evidence supports YE chronology - it's been presented in numerous threads besides yours. You choose to interpret it through your religion of uniformitarian naturalism. I'm sorry you cannot accept this simple fact.


So you reject uniformitarianism.. but it sounds like you would agree that current evidence, research etc would support the prevailing scientific theories regarding the age of the earth, evolution, etc IF one accepted the premise of uniformitarianism. With-in that framework, do the prevailing scientific theories make sense?

Furthermore, to open up the topic to others as well... do you accept uniformitarianism? Why or why not?



Jhud -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/19/2008 5:40:53 PM)

I think drmark is simply a uniformitarianantiestablishmentarian-contrarian, not anti-uniformitarianist per se.



drj11 -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/19/2008 6:14:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

I think drmark is simply a uniformitarianantiestablishmentarian-contrarian, not anti-uniformitarianist per se.


I'm all for anti-establishment (if there's good reason for it), but creationism is arguably just as 'establishment' as evolution.



drmark -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/19/2008 6:17:27 PM)

quote:

I'm all for anti-establishment, but creationism is arguably just as 'establishment' as evolution.
Absolutely correct, drj! The only difference is the veracity of the establishment.



BVZ -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 4:19:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

I'm all for anti-establishment, but creationism is arguably just as 'establishment' as evolution.
Absolutely correct, drj! The only difference is the veracity of the establishment.


Could you please stop stating your opinion as fact? It is irritating.

On the topic: Creationists reject anything that would force them out of thier comfort zone if they have to acept it. Interestingly, they often accept that the laws of nature are constant if it suits them.



drmark -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 8:12:16 AM)

quote:

Could you please stop stating your opinion as fact? It is irritating.
I'm sure it is to you - 1 Cor 1:18-19. You see BVZ, we Believers on a Christian discussion forum know the difference between opinion and fact!

quote:

On the topic: Creationists reject anything that would force them out of thier comfort zone if they have to acept it. Interestingly, they often accept that the laws of nature are constant if it suits them.
Actually, the topic is uniformitarianism so your statement should read:

On the topic: Uniformitarians reject anything that would force them out of thier comfort zone if they have to acept it. Interestingly, they often accept that the laws of nature are inconstant if it suits them.



iluvatar -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 8:38:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
On the topic: Uniformitarians reject anything that would force them out of thier comfort zone if they have to acept it. Interestingly, they often accept that the laws of nature are inconstant if it suits them.


What laws of nature would those be and in which cases does it suit us for them to be inconstant?

-Dan.



drmark -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 9:53:35 AM)

quote:

What laws of nature would those be and in which cases does it suit us for them to be inconstant?
The most obvious one is entropy which must be suspended by evolutionists for life to evolve more complex forms over zillions of years. And no, I won't be responding to the tired old "closed/open system" debate if you wish to raise it.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 10:09:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

What laws of nature would those be and in which cases does it suit us for them to be inconstant?
The most obvious one is entropy which must be suspended by evolutionists for life to evolve more complex forms over zillions of years. And no, I won't be responding to the tired old "closed/open system" debate if you wish to raise it.


There is no debate. The Second Law only applies to closed systems. Living creatures (or the biosphere, or the surface of the earth) is not a closed system. Your statement is just wrong. If it were true, zygotes could not become babies, and living things would quickly die of energy hunger.



Jhud -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 10:31:57 AM)

quote:

There is no debate. The Second Law only applies to closed systems. Living creatures (or the biosphere, or the surface of the earth) is not a closed system. Your statement is just wrong. If it were true, zygotes could not become babies, and living things would quickly die of energy hunger.


Well, no it doesn't 'only apply to closed systems' - it applies differently for closed and open systems. Either way, the application of energy to a system is irrelevant if that energy isn't utilized in a way that allows it to do work.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 11:46:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

There is no debate. The Second Law only applies to closed systems. Living creatures (or the biosphere, or the surface of the earth) is not a closed system. Your statement is just wrong. If it were true, zygotes could not become babies, and living things would quickly die of energy hunger.


Well, no it doesn't 'only apply to closed systems' - it applies differently for closed and open systems. Either way, the application of energy to a system is irrelevant if that energy isn't utilized in a way that allows it to do work.


Although there are several different formulations of the Second Law, they are all equivalent. The one relevant to drmark's remark is:

"The entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

Other formulations of the second law, such as "heat flows from hot to cool" or "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" apply more generally, but do not say anything directly about entropy.



Jhud -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 11:50:19 AM)

quote:

Although there are several different formulations of the Second Law, they are all equivalent. The one relevant to drmark's remark is:

"The entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

Other formulations of the second law, such as "heat flows from hot to cool" or "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" apply more generally, but do not say anything directly about entropy.


Restatements of the 2nd law do nothing to change the fact that application of energy to a system is irrelevant if that energy isn't utilized in a way that allows it to do work.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 12:34:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Restatements of the 2nd law do nothing to change the fact that application of energy to a system is irrelevant if that energy isn't utilized in a way that allows it to do work.


A parcel of air will do work on its surroundings when energy is applied to it. I don't see how this is a stumbling block for either biological life or evolution.



Jhud -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 12:43:40 PM)

quote:

A parcel of air will do work on its surroundings when energy is applied to it. I don't see how this is a stumbling block for either biological life or evolution.


But what is at issue is how a 'parcel of air' (or any unguided application of energy) will act on it's surroundings. Obviously a tornado can rearrange things, but this application of energy is unlikely to result in a more ordered structure or system.



Veritas -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 1:59:12 PM)

If I go to the beach and build a sand castle, do you think I have violated the Second Law of Thermodynamics?



Jhud -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 2:01:28 PM)

quote:

If I go to the beach and build a sand castle, do you think I have violated the Second Law of Thermodynamics?


Not at all, because I have employed my mind to utilize machinery to put energy to work to organize a structure.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 2:29:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

A parcel of air will do work on its surroundings when energy is applied to it. I don't see how this is a stumbling block for either biological life or evolution.


But what is at issue is how a 'parcel of air' (or any unguided application of energy) will act on it's surroundings. Obviously a tornado can rearrange things, but this application of energy is unlikely to result in a more ordered structure or system.


Snowflakes and crystals and lipid bilayers become more ordered at the expense of the entropy of their surroundings. They don't form everywhere and anywhere, so in that sense they are 'unlikely', but when the right conditions are met, their formation is essentially unavoidable.



Veritas -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 3:33:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

If I go to the beach and build a sand castle, do you think I have violated the Second Law of Thermodynamics?


Not at all, because I have employed my mind to utilize machinery to put energy to work to organize a structure.

You were fine as far as "Not at all". The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes no allowances for a mind. Entropy increases whether there is a mind involved or not.



Jhud -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 4:25:09 PM)

quote:

You were fine as far as "Not at all". The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes no allowances for a mind. Entropy increases whether there is a mind involved or not.


So is the building of a sand castle an increase in entropy, or a decrease?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 5:16:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

You were fine as far as "Not at all". The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes no allowances for a mind. Entropy increases whether there is a mind involved or not.


So is the building of a sand castle an increase in entropy, or a decrease?


Your phrasing is apposite. The building process (like just about any process) results in an increase in entropy of the universe.



Jhud -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 6:04:07 PM)

quote:

Your phrasing is apposite. The building process (like just about any process) results in an increase in entropy of the universe.


Sure; but the castle represents a more ordered system than it did previously.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 6:38:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Your phrasing is apposite. The building process (like just about any process) results in an increase in entropy of the universe.


Sure; but the castle represents a more ordered system than it did previously.


Yes, and if you kick over a sand castle, it becomes less ordered.
And if a raindrop freezes into a snowflake, it becomes more ordered.
And if a snowflake melts into a raindrop, it becomes less ordered.

So we have established that the entropy of a non-isolated system can either increase or decrease.

Thus, getting back a bit closer to the OP, evolution does not require a suspension of this 'law' of entropy.



Veritas -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 7:20:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

You were fine as far as "Not at all". The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes no allowances for a mind. Entropy increases whether there is a mind involved or not.


So is the building of a sand castle an increase in entropy, or a decrease?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows for a local decrease in entropy, provided there is an equal or greater increase in entropy elsewhere.

When you consider the builder and the sand, the net result of the building of a sand castle is an increase in entropy. As essentialsaltes said, evolution does not require a suspension of any of the Laws of Thermodynamics.



iluvatar -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 7:55:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

What laws of nature would those be and in which cases does it suit us for them to be inconstant?
The most obvious one is entropy which must be suspended by evolutionists for life to evolve more complex forms over zillions of years. And no, I won't be responding to the tired old "closed/open system" debate if you wish to raise it.


Ok, if you won't accept the major problem with that argument, what other laws qualify?

-Dan.



Jhud -> RE: Uniformitarianism (8/20/2008 10:30:12 PM)

quote:

Yes, and if you kick over a sand castle, it becomes less ordered.
And if a raindrop freezes into a snowflake, it becomes more ordered.
And if a snowflake melts into a raindrop, it becomes less ordered.

So we have established that the entropy of a non-isolated system can either increase or decrease.

Thus, getting back a bit closer to the OP, evolution does not require a suspension of this 'law' of entropy.


Not so fast there hoss.

A snowflake's crystalline structure may be the product of a localized decrease in entorpy, but a sandcastle is not - it's the product of the application of intelligence utlizing machinery to do work. The question ID asks of course, is whether there a difference in terms of the sorts of structures that result from either situation. What we need to know is, with all the energy continually being applied to beaches around the world, why don't sandcastles regularly arise as is the case wiuth snowflakes?



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI