Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
>>Mark OK.. so just to clarify are we agreed that in common english (and scientific usage) the words 'complexity' and 'order' have 'different meanings'? Words with different meanings are by definition – not synonymous. Scientific authors use the two words in the same sentance as different adjectives to describe organisation of biological forms - because they can describe different features of how things are arranged.<<
So we can still use the words 'order and complexity' to make the same point "in the same sentence"? Thank you. Separating the words and arguing over "different meanings" is unusual. You didn't seem to realize scientists use both words together, so you criticized me (but it was an evolutionist) for doing that. You said the words are "diametrically opposite", even contradictory. So set out to correct me.
When you discovered a few scientists use both words together they were criticized for speaking nonsense. Even though they were evolutionists. Then, after discovering even more scientists use the words together, you make concessions - Scientists "use the two words in the same sentance.... because they can describe different features of how things are arranged." So why complain to start with?
Note carefully - this 'complexity' is, "specified complexity" and can't be reduced without death of the cell. It is not your "mixed sand, turbulent gas" "disorder" or "very disordered numbers". All the parts are carefully interconnected, highly ordered and not highly disordered. If you understood 'complexity' properly it would help.
>>You realize that the 'argument from the 2nd law' is only logical if you accept the standard scientific/english definitions of the terms involved. We agree that an object or system can be 'ordered' and 'complex' at the same time. This particularly true of living beings who are neither very highly ordered (like graphite) nor very disordered (like a turbulent gas). e.g. "the trees grew in a complex order". Here 'order' is functioning as a noun, with complex as its adjective.
Yes "a system can be 'ordered' and 'complex' at the same time" (synonymous). But you say "The argument from the 2nd law is only logical if...". Not so, there is no "if". The law of decay is a proven law that operates regardless of "definitions". We don't confuse 'order' in "living beings" with order in "graphite".
"Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity" [p.189 The Origins of Life, L. Orgel, John Wiley NY 1973].
>>Now ask yourself this question. If the trees are planted in a "more complex order" - is this the same as saying they are planted in a "more orderly order"? I would suggest they are fairly different - perhaps diametrically opposite, but definately heading in different directions.
So we agree within a cell 'complexity' is too complex, and order too 'orderly' to occur by chance. Both descriptions are "heading in" the same direction (synonymous). Not "in different directions". Remember, this "complexity" is "specified". All parts carefully interconnected and highly ordered, Not like "mixed sand" or "turbulent gas". You reply this very point -
>>Well OK .. but just remember that: (a) the 2nd law was postulated from work on simple inorganic models - like steam engines and gases. You only infer implications for living things.<<
That has nothing to do with the point made. You jump from 'complexity' to the law of decay to avoid the issue. The law of decay is a universal principle which indicates things moves from order to disorder; ie living things grow old and die. It applies to "living beings" with their programmed machinery that increase or maintain complexity and order. "Living beings" have complex chemical processes; the law of decay applies to chemical processes. As this evolutionist writes –
"No matter how careful we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world" (p119 'Times Arrow and Evolution' Princeton N.J [biochemist] Princeton Univ. 1962).
>>(b) given that the wider scientific community (apart from a few renowned creationists) disagrees with your inferences - have you ever wondered why?<<
Then "the wider scientific community" can write and show how the law of decay gives us up-hill evolution. You said "2nd law" heads towards "abiogenesis", but your claim is still only "your inference".
>>(c) the 2nd law in its various textbook incarnations refers specifically to changes in 'order' and 'disorder' over time. Not complexity.<<
Not so, the law of decay includes changes in 'complexity'. Over time, 'complexity' breaks down to disorder.
>>I think the real proof to me that you know physics at just below the high-school level - is your 'argument from the First law'. You confuse evolutionary biology with cosmology. Evolution theory has never claimed to see the creation de novo of matter or energy.<<
At my "high-school" physics teachers claimed "evolution theory" explains the origins of matter and energy. It's applied to everything. A naturalistic explanation how universe, planets, solar systems, laws, matter, energy (everything) formed slowly over millions of years without supernatural invention.
>>Hoyle is a fascinating character - a rather controversial astonomer and science fiction author - didn't he reject earth-based evolution in favour of panspermia (ie. life occured somewhere else just not on earth).<<
Yes professor of Astronomy at Cambridge Univ., Applied Mathematics at Cardiff Univ. Not a creationist, but realized life could not have formed by chance so popularized "panspermia". Eventually rejected that as "woefully inadequate as a materialistic explanation of life’s origin” [p.6 ‘Big Bang Critic Dies’ G.Demme TJ vol.15 (3) 2001].
>>Not wanting to cause a fight but Duane Gish is as you delicately put it "confused, ignorant, incompetent or dishonest." although I would have said 'and dishonest'.<<
I didn't refer to Dr Gish in those words. If you call him "dishonest" can you substantiate that? You called Dr Gitt a "big fake" and didn't substantiate that. Its your criticism that is 'dishonest'.
>>I think you're alright though - its just going to take us a while. "Most evolutionists realize the extremely damaging effect of the 2nd Law on evolution and have tried all kinds of efforts to silence the problem" this is a lie.<<
I suppose you could be right. And argue "most evolutionists" do NOT "realize the extremely damaging effect of the 2nd Law on evolution". Because their books dismiss, ignore, or never mention the problem. But they do try "all kinds of efforts to silence the problem" and that is no "lie" its exactly what you do.
>>right - we need clarification from your next email: 1. What are the dictionary difference between the words 'order' and 'complex'?<<
Collins English Dictionary
(1) 'Order' can mean 'a group of people'.
(2) 'Complex' can mean 'an obsession'.
(Here I can see "differences" "heading in different directions").
(1) 'Order' can mean "1. All components are arranged logically…sequence".
(2) 'Complex' can mean "1. Made up of interconnected parts…intricate".
Here I can see similarities "heading in the same direction".
>>2. Please give a widely accepted - concise statement -defining the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I think it best if we could agree on a web source - so its available easily to everyone.<<
See www.Creation.com. (& my 1st email).
"The Law of decay can be stated in many different ways, (1) the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (entropy is a measure of disorder) (2) usable energy is running out (3) information tends to get scrambled (4) order tends towards disorder (5) a random jumble won’t organize itself".
>>The lecture material of a major university would probably be fair ground. Alternativelly a web dictionary or a major paper text if it's in UK book shops/libraries. bye A.<<
That's not fair, universities, media, text-books and school systems don't tell the truth about evolution. Most are left-wing humanistic and government sponsored. 'Research' is selective. Information contrary to evolution isn't published. Its hidden or re-read to fit the theory. The theory is never regarded as wrong. No papers contrary are accepted. There is an amazing one-sided bias. Besides, you rubbished my quotes from evolutionary professors.
I challenge the evolutionist reading this. If you sincerely believe Andrew is right... write to me. Lets see if anyone supports Andrew. I bet they don't.
Still waiting -