Bible Discussion: Equilibrium Thermodynamics

Equilibrium Thermodynamics
Posts: 38

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

IknowHimDoYou
2003-10-25 11:31:35 EST
Equilibrium Thermodynamics vs Evolution

Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:

"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the
coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly
small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is
therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years
during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."

Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31

Comment:
Neither abiogenesis not heterogenesis(spontaneous generation of inorganic
chemicals into living orgainc macromolecules) is possible within the pale
of science. It only remains specultion and opinion of those who claim it
occured.

Steven J.
2003-10-25 12:10:59 EST

"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2510030831350001@pm6-33.kalama.com...
> Equilibrium Thermodynamics vs Evolution
>
> Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
>
> "The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
> molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the
> coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly
> small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is
> therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years
> during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
>
> Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
>
Surely the relevant point here is "life in its present form." Prigogine's
comments address the plausibility of "spontaneous generation" in its classic
sense, the direct origin of complex cells, with the complete complement of
enzymes, genes, and membranes, in one fell swoop. Bacteria have not been
observed to form directly from inorganic chemicals, and Prigogine's point is
that we should not expect to see it. But of course modern research into
abiogenesis seeks ways in which individual components of living things --
very simple proteins and self-replicating nucleic acids, rudimentary
membranes, etc. -- could organize spontaneously and then gradually increase
in complexity. This would not be "life in its present form," nor is
Prigogine stating that this sort of "prebiotic evolution" is highly
improbable.
>
> Comment:
> Neither abiogenesis not heterogenesis(spontaneous generation of inorganic
> chemicals into living orgainc macromolecules) is possible within the pale
> of science. It only remains specultion and opinion of those who claim it
> occured.
>
Given that the spontaneous self-organization of inorganic molecules into
organic molecules has been observed, and spectroscopic indicators of such
molecules have been found even in interstellar dust clouds, it seems a bit
extreme to say that it is not possible.

-- Steven J.



The_Sage
2003-10-25 12:40:19 EST
>Reply to article by: IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou)
>Date written: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 08:31:35 -0700
>MsgID:<IknowHim-2510030831350001@pm6-33.kalama.com>

>Equilibrium Thermodynamics vs Evolution
>Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:

>"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
>molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the
>coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly
>small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is
>therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years
>during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
>Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31

>Comment:
>Neither abiogenesis not heterogenesis(spontaneous generation of inorganic
>chemicals into living orgainc macromolecules) is possible within the pale
>of science. It only remains specultion and opinion of those who claim it
>occured.

Correction:
It only remains specualation and opinion for those who believe in spontaneous
genesis...which is a very very small minority of scientists in the world. In
that case, and only in that case, Ilya is correct. Furthermore, if you want to
twist Ilya's words around to mean that evolution is not thermodynamically
possible, then you would be making you and Ilya out to be complete idiots since

What Ilya was talking about is a local decrease in entropy and not a total
decrease in entropy. Local decreases in entropy are not unique to living things
and not contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. The second law says only that
the total entropy of a system increases. For example, self-organization is a
characteristic of non-living things as well as living things, hence the reason
that, as my textbook on thermodynamics states, "A second point of view to be
made regarding entropy is that frequently entropy is associated with
probability. From this point of view an irreversible increase in entropy would
be associated with a change of state from a less probable state to a more
probable state". Take notice of the fact that it does not say anything about
going from more complex to less complex because isn't it obvious that everything
around us is proceeding from less complex to more complex all the time? For
example, hydrogen atoms are combining together to become the more complicated
helium atom in stars all the time. Complex crystals are forming from their less
ordered constituents deep within the earth's crust as we speak. And more
complicated lifeforms constantly evolve from simpler lifeforms because the odds
are that they will. All of these examples I mentioned happen because probability
favors them happening and not because the second law of thermodynamics
supposedly is being violated. Two hydrogen atoms are more likely to combine
together than a helium atom is to split apart. Many minerals are more likely to
form crystals under heat and pressure than become more amorphous. And life is
more likely to develop and evolve than is not to. Everything is proceeding from
less probable states to more probable states, without ever violating the second
law of thermodynamics as creationists ignorantly proclaim.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The biggest problem in the world, could have been solved
when it was small..." -- Lao Tzu
=============================================================

ZenIsWhen
2003-10-25 12:56:27 EST

"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2510030831350001@pm6-33.kalama.com...
> Equilibrium Thermodynamics vs Evolution
>
> Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
>
> "The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
> molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the
> coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly
> small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is
> therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years
> during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
>
> Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31

If you bothered to read, post and comprehend the whole article - he was NOT
saying abiogenesis is impossible - he was merely stating that our theories
on how abiogenesis HAPPENED were not PROBABLE.

He went on to state that there needs to be an expanded explanation/theory of
abiogenesis which incldes variations in thermodynamics in closed and open
systems.



>
> Comment:
> Neither abiogenesis not heterogenesis(spontaneous generation of inorganic
> chemicals into living orgainc macromolecules) is possible within the pale
> of science.

That's NOT what was said, moron!




It only remains specultion and opinion of those who claim it
> occured.

The fact that we cannot, yet, explain in perfect scientific detail HOW it
happened, does NOT mean it didn't happen. There is a VAST amount of evidence
that it DID happen! How? We're not exactly sure.

Try being less than obviously ignorant when you bellow against reality!




FBC
2003-10-25 14:17:22 EST
> The fact that we cannot, yet, explain in perfect scientific detail HOW it
> happened, does NOT mean it didn't happen. There is a VAST amount of
evidence
> that it DID happen! How? We're not exactly sure.

hmmm.

In other words you choose to believe it based on evidence but not proof.

Sounds like faith.

And not a faith a great deal unlike my faith in Christ.

I don't have all the answers either. But I choose to believe God.

You choose to believe this. Whatever it is that all this techno-babble adds
up to. But ultimately it is a choice.

PC



R Brown
2003-10-25 14:44:27 EST

"FBC" <fbcnoreply@cta.com> wrote in message
news:S6zmb.4613$hV5.2648@news01.roc.ny...
> > The fact that we cannot, yet, explain in perfect scientific detail HOW
it
> > happened, does NOT mean it didn't happen. There is a VAST amount of
> evidence
> > that it DID happen! How? We're not exactly sure.
>
> hmmm.
>
> In other words you choose to believe it based on evidence but not proof.
>
hmmm.
This person obviously thinks, wrongly, that science is about proof. A
classic, basic flaw. Mathematics might be about proof; science is about
evidence and the explanation for that evidence. We have the evidence; work
continues on the explanation. Being science, the explanation will not
involve the supernatural. Mind you, neither does Tax Accounting, although we
all pray for a bigger refund.

> Sounds like faith.
>
Scientists do not believe in evolution any more than they believe in
electrons. It is not, despite your attempt, a faith-based system of choice.
Your characterizations are used to promote the "equal time" argument. If I
were to give equal time in my classroom I'd be in a real pickle: I have kids
from many religious backgrounds in my class. If I were to try and teach all
their respective creation stories I'd never finish the unit. Plus, I have no
qualifications to do it. Would you really want me to try and teach your
religion? Wouldn't you be worried that I might muck it up? I wouldn't be
allowed to do it anyway as we have a clear separation between church and
state. Or were you just thinking of only one religion? Silly question on my
part: my bad.

> And not a faith a great deal unlike my faith in Christ.
>
It is nothing like it at all. However, as this is your world view, you no
doubt think all other views must also be faith-based too. Don't corrupt your
faith in Christ by confusing it with science. Science doesn't have the
spiritual answers and inspiration you are looking for in Christ and the
Bible wasn't meant to be used as a science text book.

> I don't have all the answers either. But I choose to believe God.
>
Science doesn't have all the answers either. But it doesn't involve God or
Gods because they cannot be tested. Would you be willing to accept the
possibility of a falsified hypothesis involveing God? Of course not. That's
what got Galileo into trouble.

> You choose to believe this. Whatever it is that all this techno-babble
adds
> up to. But ultimately it is a choice.
>
Nope. It's explanation based upon materialistic, naturalistic evidence. Your
reference to techno-babble simply means you're too lazy or too afraid to
examine the evidence closely. Ultimately, we have to deal with reality as we
find it; not as we would like it to be. The physical evidence does not
support your choice. You choose to ignore it in favour of your comfort with
your religious perspective. That's fine, but don't confuse it with science.
There are many religions on the planet - sorry to break the news - not just
yours. You believe yours is the right one and that you own God. That's nice,
but naive and still has nothing to do with science.
> PC
>
>



Frank Reichenbacher
2003-10-25 15:52:36 EST

"FBC" <fbcnoreply@cta.com> wrote in message
news:S6zmb.4613$hV5.2648@news01.roc.ny...
> > The fact that we cannot, yet, explain in perfect scientific detail HOW
it
> > happened, does NOT mean it didn't happen. There is a VAST amount of
> evidence
> > that it DID happen! How? We're not exactly sure.
>
> hmmm.
>
> In other words you choose to believe it based on evidence but not proof.

You are making a typical error. Science does not prove. Science makes
hypotheses, gathers evidence, makes theories, and gathers more evidence.
Math proves, not science. All scientists know it will never be possible to
prove the theory of gravity. This does not bother them.

The evidence for abiogenesis is extremely sketchy. There are many
hypotheses, none of which have gained preeminence. Here is a proposal
involving clays:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994307


>
> Sounds like faith.

This is nothing at all like faith. Faith requires the deliberate refusal of
evidence, science requires the active gathering of evidence. The evidence
must be compared to the hypothesis. If the evidence says the hypothesis is
invalidated, so be it. If the evidence supports the evidence, then the
hypothesis is supported but not proven. If many many scientists gather lots
of evidence and successfuly compare it to the hypothesis, and these tests
all support the hypothesis, perhaps the hypothesis will be considered a
theory. All theories are provisional. The theory of gravity is provisional.


>
> And not a faith a great deal unlike my faith in Christ.

Nothing at all like your faith in Christ. You have faith that Christ listens
to your prayers. You don't have any evidence at all for this proposition,
and you are not looking for any either because it is a foundation of your
religion that it is only necessary to have faith. If these were scientific
hypotheses, you would be gathering evidence.


>
> I don't have all the answers either. But I choose to believe God.

Neither does science, but scientists choose to base their understanding of
natural phenomena on evidence.


>
> You choose to believe this.

You mean, choose to believe evidence. The validation or refutation of the
hypothesis rests solely on the evidence.


Whatever it is that all this techno-babble adds
> up to. But ultimately it is a choice.

You can choose to believe that science is a huge conspiracy of God-hating
atheists like IKnowHimDoYou does. You would be wrong, but you could choose
to do so.

Frank


>
> PC
>
>



Charos
2003-10-25 16:00:51 EST
"FBC" <fbcnoreply@cta.com> wrote in message
news:S6zmb.4613$hV5.2648@news01.roc.ny...
> > The fact that we cannot, yet, explain in perfect scientific detail HOW
it
> > happened, does NOT mean it didn't happen. There is a VAST amount of
> evidence
> > that it DID happen! How? We're not exactly sure.
>
> hmmm.
>
> In other words you choose to believe it based on evidence but not proof.

In the same fashion that the scientific community "chooses" to believe in
the theory of gravity with evidence. Like he said, it's not a question of
whether or not it DID happen, but HOW it occured rather, that's where the
debate is. Same with gravity...want to observe it? Drop a ball, there you
go...now explain HOW it happened.

--
*+_Charos_+*

http://noun.org/andrew.html

"He is a thinker; that means, he knows how to
make things simpler than they are."
--Nietzsche



Thore Schmechtig
2003-10-25 16:18:56 EST
> Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
> [...]
> Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31

1972. 31 years old - wanna bet if we do some research we find that
these data are outdated now? *snort*

> Comment:
> Neither abiogenesis not heterogenesis(spontaneous generation of inorganic
> chemicals into living orgainc macromolecules) is possible within the pale
> of science.

Lie. Just because the chance for something happening is "vanishingly
small" it is not impossible at all that it can happen. Again you
present lies and at best outdated information to twist the truth to fit
your ignorant fanatic agenda.

Wake up and do something reasonable with the rest of your life.
Parroting your cult's propaganda is _not_ helping anyone... let alone
that you disregard the basic commandments of your proposed faith by
doing so.

TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A (CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALIST

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of
gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when
someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists
say that people evolved from other life forms, but you
have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were
created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem
believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the
"atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even
flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all
the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" --
including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and
Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have
no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated
Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed,
came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little
loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth
(4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with
believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting
in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of
generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet
with the exception of those who share your beliefs --
though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend
Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet
consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and
physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot
rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be
all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it
comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be
evidence that prayer works. And you think that the
remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and
agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church
history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Matt Silberstein
2003-10-25 21:27:46 EST
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
I*m@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):

>Equilibrium Thermodynamics vs Evolution
>
>Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
>
>"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
>molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the
>coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly
>small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is
>therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years
>during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
>
>Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
>
>Comment:
>Neither abiogenesis not heterogenesis(spontaneous generation of inorganic
>chemicals into living orgainc macromolecules) is possible within the pale
>of science. It only remains specultion and opinion of those who claim it
>occured.

Funny, Prigogine got his Prize for *non*-equilibrium
thermodynamics.

BTW, where did you get this quote from? If from _Physics Today_,
why were you reading a 30 year old copy? And what is the sentence
before and after.

Jesus hates liars. What are you going to say on Judgement Day?


Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron