h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just a quick entry to catalyse a little more debate on what is obviously a biased and closed discussion. It also appears to have stalled quite fatally....

Where does the scientific issue of "entropy" fit into your cosy little evolutionary theory? I may not have a degree in a science related subject, but I have studied to a high enough level to know that the concept of entropy is enough to damn evolution theory from the start. (Please note that I stress evolution THEORY as even Darwin was not foolish to recognise it as anything but.)

For those of you not familiar with entropy, it is the process of order descending to chaos. What's more is that entropy can be observed taking place in a laboratory at any time. Unfortunately for Darwin entropy is a one-way process; what is ordered becomes disordered. Oops. Bye "Big Bang",. Bye fossil record. Bye Evolution theory. Next anti-Creation idea please ...

I love it when people admit their limitations right up front so you don't waste too much time.

"I may not have a degree in a science related subject, but I have studied to a high enough level to know that the concept of entropy is enough to damn evolution theory from the start."

I have a degree in chemical engineering, so I can tell you that your understanding of the concept of entropy is so flawed I'm actually laughing out loud. You might like to check out A685055 for an idea of why you should think things through very carefully before commenting. Check whether your last science teacher was lying to you to keep things simple in future.

"For those of you not familiar with entropy"

This should read "those of US not familiar with entropy", since you demonstrably aren't either.

"it is the process of order descending to chaos."

No, it isn't. Entropy is a thermodynamic quantity defined as ds=dQ/T for all working substances. If you didn't understand that, I can recommend "Applied Thermodynamics for Engineering Technologists" by T.D. Eastop and A. McConkey. Go and take an undergraduate thermodynamics course before you start using words you don't even understand to try to poke holes in a theory you don't understand either.

"Unfortunately for Darwin entropy is a one-way process; what is ordered becomes disordered."

This argument disproves the existence of the computer you're using to read this message, you utter dolt.

For the hard of thinking: entropy is NOT a process, it is a thermodynamic property measured in units of kJ/kgK.

For a closed system, the TOTAL entropy can remain the same, or it can increase. Which is to say, that overall, a system can either remain unaltered, or it can become more disordered. This is the second law of thermodynamics, and it applies to the WHOLE system, on AVERAGE. So the entropy of a small isolated part of the closed system can DECREASE (i.e. it can become more ordered), as long as the TOTAL entropy of the system increases. This is perfectly acceptable to the second law of thermodynamics, and happens ALL THE TIME. You can make a part of the universe more ordered by doing a jigsaw puzzle, for instance. But you'll increase the overall entropy of the universe because of all the chemical energy you turned into heat moving your muscles around to pick the pieces up.

The only closed system we know of is the entire universe (and we're not even sure about that...) so there's absolutely no problem with small localised areas of entropy decrease. It's perfectly acceptable, and indeed to be expected, statistically.

Bye bye Monkey boy, bye bye tedious fallacious Creationist nonsense. Next moronic misunderstanding of a simple physical concept please...

H.

Many thanks for the reference to your other article, but it begs the question - which level of lie are you up to with your much-vaunted degree? Your entire article makes the point that no-one can know the truth, only a small portion thereof. It therefore follows that you to are subjected to lies according to your level of education....

Or is the entire article yet another example of "a lie-to-children" as regurgitated from a book, which could in turn be "a lie-to-children"? It would follow that in reading "The Collapse of Chaos" or "Figments of Reality" you are demonstrating your own lack of knowledge and thereby opening yourself to a new "level" of lies....

I would say that by using your own reference you have merely widened the debate to include our lack of understanding with regards to Evolution THEORY or creationism. The question should surely now be, who is being told the most "true" lie....

PS. Thanks for the flippancy. It shows that this was never a serious debate in the first place.

PPS. If the TOTAL entropy MUST stay the SAME, where did it all come from in the first place? It is still a case of entropy decreasing in total... It's still a question of something from nothing; something physics states impossible....

Oh dear.

" which level of lie are you up to with your much-vaunted degree?"

Several levels beyond you, it would appear. Which is to say, far closer to agreement with observed reality, and further away from childish fictions design to keep things simple for minds which are simple.

For instance - the level I'm at is actually useful for making predictions about the world, which I do most days in my job. Apply this much pressure, at this temperature, and this material will behave in such a way, and then I can sell it for a million dollars and retire.

The level you're at is useful for making childish observations about the world like "ow, that hurt".

"Your entire article makes the point that no-one can know the truth, only a small portion thereof."

Try reading it again. The point is in fact NOT that you can only know a portion of the truth, but that you CAN approach the truth asymptotically (look it up). You still seem to be on the very, very early stages of that curve.

"Or is the entire article yet another example of "a lie-to-children" as regurgitated from a book" - if it was, it would never have made the Edited Guide. There are strict rules about that sort of thing, as you'd know if you (a) could be bothered to know anything about this place and (b) had a basic level of reading comprehension. You obviously have neither. I forgive your ignorance.

"It would follow that in reading "The Collapse of Chaos" or "Figments of Reality" you are demonstrating..."

Here's the news: I've never read either of those books. So where does that leave your argument? (note: this question is rhetorical. For those of low reading ability, this means in this case that I've posed it for comic effect, and it doesn't require an answer).

"I would say that by using your own reference you have merely widened the debate to include our lack of understanding with regards to Evolution THEORY or creationism."

Hmm. Why the capitals? You seem to have a particular problem with that word. Probably because you don't understand what it means. Here's a hint: get a basic level of science education from an institution not controlled by religious fundamentalists with a political agenda, then come back and debate the science. There are debates to be had about the theory of evolution (see the entry on the Aquatic Ape hypothesis, for example) but they should be had between equally educated people, not a sarcastic engineer and an illiterate cretin.

"Thanks for the flippancy. It shows that this was never a serious debate in the first place."

What actually shows that it was never a serious debate in the first place is that complete lack, so far, of any evidence for creation whatever. People keep banging on about "creation science", while seeming to think that shooting holes in one theory proves another. High school level logic is all that is needed to understand that this is not the case. I guess most Creationists skipped high school...

"If the TOTAL entropy MUST stay the SAME, where did it all come from in the first place? "

Right. You are now either
(a) being deliberately obtuse for comic effect, in which case it's working because I AM laughing at you, or
(b) you really are so stupid as to be incapable of accurately copying, let alone understanding, a sentence of written English.

If it's (a), I don't think we're having a serious debate, in which case there are other places we can carry this on. Tell me a joke.

If it's (b)... READ WHAT I WROTE, IDIOT. Just to save your two braincells the trouble of scrolling upwards (I don't want to tax you too much...) here it is again...

"For a closed system, the TOTAL entropy can remain the same, or it can increase."

Now look at your question:

"If the TOTAL entropy MUST stay the SAME, where did it all come from in the first place?"

Now, which bit of "or it can increase" did you not understand? Or did God just strike you blind when your eyes got to that bit?

Since you have utterly failed to take this on board, I'm going to put it to you ONE more time. Entropy is a thermodynamic property, like temperature, pressure or enthalpy. Locally, it can go up, or down, or stay the same. Overall, in a closed system doing work, it can stay the same, or it can go up, but not down, according to the second law of thermodynamics. None of this means anything useful to you, because you lack the education to understand what I've just written. I can't help that.

But asking where all the entropy came from is as meaningless as asking where all the temperature came from.

If you take nothing else away from this discussion, understand this: asking questions like that is like tattooing the words "I AM A MORON" on your forehead. It shows you instantly and very efficiently to have NO IDEA what you are talking about, and worse than that, to be very smug and satisfied with yourself for having asked what you think is a very clever question which to someone with quite a basic education makes as much sense as "what is the difference between a duck?".

If you truly want to restart a debate, here is some advice:
(a) READ the things you're criticising or replying to. Don't just point your eyes at them for a while, actually engage your brain.
(b) get a basic level of education in a subject before you begin to presume to criticise it. I don't go round telling rabbis how to interpret the Torah, because I (a) don't care and (b) know that they know better than me because all I know about the Torah is how to spell it. *All* you know about entropy is how to spell it, and on current form I'm surprised you can even do that.
(c) THINK. You might have a bit of trouble with this one, going on the available evidence.
(d) come back and make an intelligent sounding comment. Just one would do. Apologising for making an utter dolt of yourself would be a good start, but it's not intelligent per se. You've had one chance, and you failed royally. You get one more, from me. Others may give you more leeway, and more fool them, I say.

So, you say you want a serious debate - make a serious point. One. Go on. And try to make it something to do with reality. If you know what that is.

H.

I think it's important to state here and now that in the vast majority of cases, Creationists and their beliefs are simply irrelevant. This applies to "Monkeyboy". If a certain cross section of the population want to cling to a primitive superstition which is in direct conflict with observed reality, that's fine, let them. Certain people (myself included) may from time to time point out to them that they are wrong, and why, in the vain hope that perhaps, just one of them will think for themselves and question their own beliefs and how they correspond to reality. But on the whole, it's OK to let Creationists go on believing in Creation, in exactly the same way that it's OK to let people go on believing ghosts, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. It simply doesn't matter.

If Creationists want to reject education for themselves, also fine. If they want (and they ALWAYS want) to continue to live in a society which is only as comfortable for them as it is because of people who choose NOT to reject education, that's fine. The world has always had this herd of parasites, and will continue to do so. There's nothing ethical you can do about it - you just have to put up with them.

Belief in Creation continues to flourish because in the modern world holding these views doesn't affect your life. If people believe that AIDS is caused by evil spirits, and the way to cure it is to have sex with a virgin (and a lot of people DO believe this), then they will die and so will many others, because that kind of ignorance is fatal. That belief WILL die out, because everyone who believes it will die.

Creationism is different. This particular rejection of reality is not fatal. It makes you look stupid, but you live to bray another day. I have no problem with people believing in the story of Creation, any more than I have a problem with people believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. Most people grow up and understand that these are stories for children. Some do not. It is the duty of society to protect these individuals, as it is to protect the old, the weak and the otherwise mentally disadvantaged.

The only problem arises when these people try to affect the education of other people's children by presenting their primitive superstitions as proven fact, and by denigrating conventional science. Every single child exposed to this nonsense is another potential Alexander Fleming, another potential Watson or Crick, and teaching them Creationist dogma at an impressionable age is an act of criminal negligence.

Creationist belief is fine. Wrong, obviously, but people believe all sorts of wrong things without harm to themselves or others, and they are of course entitled to their beliefs.

Creationist influence on education is potentially criminal negligence of the future of our species, and should be resisted at every opportunity.

On that note, I'm going to stop discussing Creationism, unless and until someone comes up with ONE, just one, verifiable scientific FACT which *supports* Creationism. Note: NOT one that undermines evolution - one that supports Creationism. If you don't understand the difference, don't bother replying until you do.

If anyone wants to debate Creationist influence on education - bring it on. If anyone can supply one fact in support of Creation - bring it on, I'm truly interested and have been since I first asked for such a fact here about six months ago. I'm still waiting.

But if anyone else wants to try to argue with a scientific theory they don't understand using words they don't understand for concepts they admit they don't have the education to understand, please take it elsewhere because it's not worth the energy trying to prise open a mind so small.

H.

Well, I don't think you need to read a book on thermodynamics to see why entropy isn't a problem, even in lies-to-children form.



Entropy is a measure of chaos. Total entropy always increases. But it is possible to have *local* decreases in chaos in exchange for increases in chaos elsewhere. So if I sort a pack of cards, that increases order, but I have to pay for that by increased chaos in the form of heat generated and food stores used up.

If evolution happens to decrease entropy (and it need not), that will be paid for by increased entropy elsewhere. In this case, the increased entropy as the Sun turns from uniform hydrogen to a mixture of heavier elements will more than make up for it. Just as the sun is the source of all our energy, so it is the sink for all our entropy.

Just to add to this one, could monkeyboy tell us how his form of entropy allows an egg to turn into a chicken?

I can't resist getting aword in on this one, Creationism being a personal bete-noir of mine.
The prime confusion is between entropy and complexity. At maximum order (minimum entropy) the universe is featureless. Complexity is in itself the result of increasing entropy. The initial condition of the universe is one of minimum entropy, and its origin can't be explained because minimum entropy has no history. But then, where God came from is hardly up for explanation either is it? And William of Occam told us what shold be done with non-explanatory entities.
And I'm not a scientist either, but I can still tell when someone doesn't actually know how an explanation differs from a non sequitur.
Sage

This doesnt say s**t. thats like saying that the bible is slowly becoming caotic and makes no sense

The retort to that more or less writes itself doesn't it? So I won't bother.

In any case your remark seems like a complete non sequitur. What point were you trying to make, and how does it follow from the previous post?

Noggin

hello fellow researchers.
the creationist view being that life cant evolve because this would break thermodynamic law (law 2 i think)does not work.

the oft stated laws of thermodynamics are describing a CLOSED system. the earth, bathed in sunlight, meteor dust, etc is not a closed system. with input of energy/resources into a system it is possible to reverse entropy decay and increase order. it may be very difficult and/or horrendously energy costing to do so but reverse entropy you can.

given earths non-closed status, the entropy reversing seen is perfectly acceptable.

as a side note, the order gained is at the expense of order elswhere (ie entropy increase) as was noted earlier in the stream. and what is death and decay but entropy winning over the order that had been built at great expense. I hope this helps.

ttfn

I think you should all read the Quran

Adib

Here's a guestion to H and only H. On one of the discussion boards he critised me for saying that at the time of the big bang there was a matter all located in a tight space which I labelled as a primary nebula. His critism was that before the big bang there was nothing. So based on what you said H, where did all the matter come from?
The reason its for H is he said it not you lot fact is there are three views on the big bang and H is only looking at one of them.
They are :
1) There was a universe before this one that collapsed in on its self and this created our universe, (most unlikely, just because it collapse's on its self does not mean it has to explode and expand again, plus over time it would run out of energy as it is a closed system. Where does it get is energy from the entire universe?)

2) A lot of the matter around us was present at the start of the big bang in a small group or what ever you want to call it. When the big bang took place it scattered all this matter over the universe.

3) There was nothing before the big bang and suddenly after it there was all the matter in the universe.

The last two has the most scientific weight as back ground radiation proves the big bang theroy could be right but the first one can not be proven.
One thing to remember is that when people say about the big bang as a explosion it was a little different from that. The big bang its self also created a lot of matter when it happened unlike a proper explosion which is the energy from the distruction of matter. If you exploded a atomic bomb you would not expect to find a bigger lump of weappons grade pleutonium would you?
Ok bad example I know.
The problem in these theroys is what caused the big bang to take place? How did it create more matter?
Any one can answer those guestions, but for H you said there was nothing before the big bang so tell me how is it that there was nothing and then there was matter, Does this not say it was created?

Adib

Good question. Unfortunately I'm at work right now, so I don't really have the time to answer. I do HAVE an answer, I'm just short of time, so, please bear with me.

Thanks.

H.

Ok.

Adib

Right, home from work, so let's crack on...

"Here's a guestion to H and only H. On one of the discussion boards he critised me for saying that at the time of the big bang there was a matter all located in a tight space which I labelled as a primary nebula."

Yes. This is an example of you needing to express yourself clearly, and choose your words with care. The word "nebula" has a very specific definition, and it has nothing to do with the big bang. Nothing that was around any time within probably millions of years of the big bang even vaguely resembled a nebula.

"His critism was that before the big bang there was nothing."

You misunderstand. My criticism was in fact that the phrase "before the big bang" is meaningless.

I'll give the example I gave before again.

Travel across the surface of the earth, northwards. Keep travelling north. Keep on, and on, and on travelling north. Eventually you'll reach the north pole. If you then log into h2g2, and I post a message on your userspace and say "hey, Adib, what's on the ground in front of you if you face north?" - what's your answer?

The answer is "nothing - I can't face north." You could look UP - but that's not what I said. I said NORTH. The problem you have is that at the point in space where you are, "North" ceases to have any meaning.

This is analagous to the situation with the big bang. You can talk about what happened "before" today. You can talk about what happened "before" the dinosaurs were wiped out. But just as you can't go north of the north pole, you can't go "before" the big bang. The concept of "before" just breaks down and stops meaning anything.

That's what I was criticising you for.

"So based on what you said H, where did all the matter come from?"

Excellent question. I have no idea.

Sorry that's not a great answer, but I'm not a physicist.

"The reason its for H is he said it not you lot fact is there are three views on the big bang"

For whom? ... but wait.

"1) There was a universe before this one that collapsed in on its self and this created our universe, (most unlikely, just because it collapse's on its self does not mean it has to explode and expand again, plus over time it would run out of energy as it is a closed system. Where does it get is energy from the entire universe?)"

I don't see how you can even begin to estimate how likely this is. As for where the energy comes from - the law of conservation of energy states that in a closed system energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely changed from one form to another. So the universe, being a closed system (or is it?) doesn't need to get any energy from anywhere. It just gets on with working with what it's got.

"2) A lot of the matter around us was present at the start of the big bang in a small group or what ever you want to call it. When the big bang took place it scattered all this matter over the universe."

Tricky. I don't think matter as we understand it could have been present just after the BB.

"3) There was nothing before the big bang and suddenly after it there was all the matter in the universe."

Again, not quite right I think. I think there was *something* just after, but how that manifested as matter is another thing entirely. I have to say - thanks for making me think about this. I'm going to have to go and buy a book or two...

"One thing to remember is that when people say about the big bang as a explosion it was a little different from that."

Of course. What most people think of as "an explosion" is a mere chemical reaction, or possibly nuclear reaction. The big bang happened before there were any nuclei, even, so it's obviously in a different category altogether.

"The big bang its self also created a lot of matter when it happened unlike a proper explosion which is the energy from the distruction of matter. If you exploded a atomic bomb you would not expect to find a bigger lump of weappons grade pleutonium would you?
Ok bad example I know."

Actually quite a good one.

"The problem in these theroys is what caused the big bang to take place?"

And there you pass out of the realm of science. You leave the question of "what happened?", and even "how exactly did it happen" behind, and start to think about "why did it happen?". And science isn't your man for that. My own answer, the one I'm happy with, is "There doesn't NEED to be a reason. And since there doesn't need to be one, I don't think there is one." If that answer isn't enough for you, you're in the majority, and you seem to have found, for now, the answer you seek in Islam. Good luck to you.

"Any one can answer those guestions, but for H you said there was nothing before the big bang so tell me how is it that there was nothing and then there was matter, Does this not say it was created?"

No. The big bang is a cutoff point beyond which we cannot know what happened. No information survived it. It is therefore meaningless to talk about "before" in relation to it. This is a difficult concept.

But no, I don't believe it necessarily proves matter was created. The universe is not a thing, it is a process. We humans have trouble with processes - we like to draw lines and categorise. But I don't believe in creation, I'm afraid. It's an example of, in the first place, misunderstanding a lot of how the universe appears to work, in the second place, wishful thinking, and in the third place, simplification. And if there's one thing I've learned about the universe, it's that it's ALWAYS more complicated than you think.

Thanks for asking.

H.

Oops. I criticised your use of the words "primary nebula" without suggesting an alternative.

You might, in future, like to use the word "monobloc". If nothing else, it might give the impression you know a little more of what you're talking about - although it migh just suggest you've read some good science fiction

H.

Ok cool thanks for the info. Ohh I watch a lot of sci fi actually laugh. Any way after looking at sites you have posted on I can see why you was so annoyed at me for mentioning the thermodynamic stuff. I saw it in so many articles that I just presumed it was correct sorry. Thanks for correcting us on it. I now know that even though thermodynamics does has a role with every thing including evolution but its effects are not nesseceraly negative and its a guestion of how and in what form effects it have rather than anything else if that makes sense. The plutonieum thing i called a bad example as some people do not like talking about things like that.
Adib

There is no proof for Creationism. It's faith based. My dictionary defines faith as a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Maybe that's why no creationist tries to prove creationism. They don't need to. As long as the belief in Creationism is not disproved, the faith can hold onto the belief.

There's no reason for those with faith to try to disprove evolution, either. Evolution doesn't disprove Creation. It might have to push back some theories about when the Creation happened. That's all.

"Creation science" is an oxymoron. Faith and science don't belong in the same phrase. They're not mutually exclusive, they just operate on different sets of principles. Talking about creation science is like talking about electromagnetic wood. Electromagnetism and wood both exist, but they're unrelated.

Science can provide theories about what happened since the Big Bang, assuming that the Big Bang theory is correct (no reason not to). Creationism can provide theories about the how and why of the Big Bang, or any other theory on "how it all began."

What's wrong with looking at a sunset and seeing the hand of God in its beauty, while knowing the scientific reasons for that particular set of patterns and colors? What's wrong with accepting God as the "why" and science as the "how?"

Oh deary me. You have no idea do you, I am a muslim creationist not a christian one there is a massive difference. That being cristians believe science to be wrong, where as Islam says science is right and science is gods will. In the Quran it has numerous scientific information which we have only discovered today. Have you read this thread of conversation or my entry on islam and creation. I do not wish to repeat my self again. The Quran confirms what science says in Islam you are required to improve your knowledge more and science is a better way of understanding Allad (god. So as for your example, Islam see's rainbows as being enginered by god and he does this through the science we know of ie: light refraction as light hits a rain drop or glass of water placed on a window sill or a prism. In Islam science and religion are a harmony not a enemy. Remember not all people are christians and athiests.

Allah hafiz

Adib