Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Wha? Ploy??

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by bzrd on November 23, 1999 18:10:22 UTC

: "It is a common ploy of the evolutionists to attempt to evade the obvious implications of the 2nd Law with respect to evolutionary theory. Invariably, they will narrow the definition to include only thermal entropy in a closed system; however, the great Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzman, succeded in broadening the definition to include logic in informatin systems. He coined the term "logical entropy", and is used in the fields of information science, computer science and communications. Boltzman's Law, states unequivically, that logical entropy will increase, in a closed system, over time. This would seem to preclude any possibility of an information system arising by chance from inert matter. Empirically, evidence of this is found in the utter failure of abiogenic science to provide a viable mechanism for the origin of life. State of the art abiogenesis theory is based on self-replicating RNA; the 2nd Law stipulates that the inforamtion content of the RNA would remain at absolute zero. To arrive at any other value would require informational input; virtually ALL known information is derived from an intelligent source. If you can provide an exception to this you can go pick up your Nobel Prize. Further, deductive reasoning can lead us to some general conclusions about the creator of a given information system; my PC was created by an intelligence, though, [despite it's speed at cetain tasks] it pails, in terms of over-all complexity, in comparison to it's creator. What does the Creation say about the Creator?"

: Okay. I had trouble trying to find this Boltzman fellow you mentioned. Could you direct me to a website? Or perhaps you spelled the name incorrectly in the previous post. I'll try again later.

: I'm skeptical because information is rather arbitrary. I don't think the 2nd law applies here because information may exist in areas that we don't adequately understand. It's pretty arbitrary. : If you are in fact saying that artificially created inventions, cannot increase without artificial input, then that approach is entirely wrong. So human knowlegde can't increase unless humans input more knowledge?

: That again would be a metaphor. That compares the universe to an artifical invention, and if you assume to be true, would be to assume your very thesis (a circular argument). : Is information synonymous with knowledge? If so, understand that knowledge is merely subjective. It concerns how much somebody knows at any particular time. What really exists in nature never changes. The rate at which we discover things about the universe has no bearing on what actually exists. You confuse knowledge as being something objective.

: Again, the 2nd law can indeed be broadened to say that "overall disorder in a system cannot increase." Again, disorder increases OVERALL, but locally can increase (otherwise, merely stacking blocks one on top of the other would violate the 2nd law, which of course is false).

: So... help me out here. I'd really like to see before I judge, so I'd much appreciate your source of "logical entropy". Thanx :o)

bzrd here: I would say that knowledge is a prerequisite of information; knowledge [intelligence?] is required to design an information system. This, I think, is the crux of the argument. If I may use your block analogy, the act of stacking the blocks requires an intellectual input; the alternative [the chance the blocks would stack themselves] is rather improbable, though not [theoretically] impossible. A better analogy would be to assign a letter to each block; and let each block be analogous to a neucleotide pair in an RNA molecule. So, the question becomes, what is the probability that a chance sequence of blocks would produce a legible word or sentence? The improbability is further exacerbated by the fact that complex molecules such as RNA are notoriously unstable and tend to dissociate [maybe several milli-seconds] according to the Law of Chemical Equilibrium. Many otherwise knowledgeable people are under the impression that these molecules could just "hang around" and wait for some other bio-molecular miracle to take place on the road to life. In nature, these molecules are constructed through the complex inter-actions between enzymes and raw materials [the sugar ribose] that function as an integrated system. It is important to know exactly what it is you have faith in, before you put your faith in it, my friend.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins