Evolution?

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Jeff R.]

1st law of thermodynamix- evolution counters this by the big bang theory. how did all that stuff get there in the first place any way?


The first law of Thermodynamics, that I'm aware of, is:

As dictated by the principle of conservation of energy, the internal energy of a system changes [from Ui to Uf} when the system absorbs an amount of heat [Q] and performs an amount of work [W]

How do you see the Big Bang theory cancelling this out?

(And as far as all that stuff getting in there in the first place? The Creator.)


2nd law of thermodynamix- sorry, but i forgot (so much for trying to be professional). i think there is some way it dissagrees. (a little help here?)

Heat flows spontaneously from a substance at a higher temperature to a substance at a lower temperature and does not flow spontaneously in the reverse direction.

In terms of Entropy:
The total entropy (loss of ability to perform work) of the universe does not change when a reversible process (the Big Bang theory) occurs and it increases when an irreversible process occurs.


evolution and entropy- evolution says that everything is evolving and getting better (dissorder to order).

But the function of the Universe (of God, The Great Spirit, etc.) is both logic and chaos, yin and yang. So evolution means that things are always adapting, which logically means that relative things are counter-adapting. There will never be rest, but always balance in the changing.

It's not evolving it's natural selection.

Natural selection is the basis of evolution. It can be seen by the impact that a predatory species has on a prey species, and how the prey change accordingly when the predators are removed. But adaptations, especially camouflage, are amazingly blatant in the Survival of the Fittest/Evolutionary process, as are the ensuing predatory responses to those adaptations. It's very fascinating.

It's hard to believe that there is still controversy over the Evolution theory. In most cases where there is so much evidence to support the issue, the majority of society would tend to lean toward it's being close enough to fact that it's accepted as valid. In a court shadow of doubt can mean the difference in the outcome. With so much empirical evidence literally imbedded in the earth, it seems that the missing-link in this case little more than a subtle mist, and the only thing really opposing the issue is that whomever wrote the Creation Account came from a society that didn't yet have knowledge of the Earth's natural history.

Frankly, I think that evolution is fairly obvious, though lacking absolute solidity, I admit, but why can't it be that there is an equal amount of both sides at play here?
Science is merely a language we've developed to understand (and, unfortunately, to ruin) Nature. But Nature is the purest physical manifestation of the Creator. Where's the dilemma in finding agreement?

[Mallory Wikoff]

it would probably be a good idea to cheack out this thread- http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3884 befor you read or reply to this one. i'm not going to reply right now b/c i'm to tired. good night :)

[Jeff R.]

it would probably be a good idea to cheack out this thread- http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3884 befor you read or reply to this one. i'm not going to reply right now b/c i'm to tired. good night :)
That's the other thread that I started--Selfish/Selfless--and, from which, I spun-off this one because of the twist in topic.

Sleep is good.;)

[Jeff Tibbetts]

I feel bad that I had to bring up the religion issue... I guess it was just on my mind, but I think it killed your other thread. I'm sorry.

[ikkainogakusei]

it would probably be a good idea to cheack out this thread- http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3884 befor you read or reply to this one. i'm not going to reply right now b/c i'm to tired. good night :)
Hi Mallory :)

Uh, it looks as if we've started a new thread. Cool.
1st law...evolution counters this by the big bang theory. how did all that stuff get there in the first place any way?
Well, I think we might be lumping two theories into one here. The Big Bang Theory was not asserted by Darwin, but someone else. Darwin discussed evolution through natural selection.

As for how all that stuff got there in the first place, well I've never felt a compulsion to answer that, just as I've never felt a compulsion to answer how God 'got there' in the first place.

We'll skip the second law for the sake of clarity of assertion.
Evolution and entropy - evolution says that everything is evolving and getting better (disorder to order)
So there might be a misappropriation of theory here. You may have seen this in the biblical context as well. Somebody sees a passage and applies it in a way it was not meant.

So Entropy does say order to chaos, but evolution does not say chaos to order. The idea that things are changing in biology does not imply that they are becoming more orderly. Evolution, or more appropriately natural selection assumes that the biological entity that fits an environment best will be more likely to continue. This does not make it orderly.

Some organisms are so effective at surviving and reproducing that they outgrow their environment, and if they do not change, they die. They die because their environment loses its ability to carry the organism. The best example is a plague of some sort. Why do these plagues not persist? In the past, it was more because they killed off their hosts before transfering to a new one. Certainly, we didn't have effective bio-hazard quarantines in the Dark Ages.

Entropy does however apply to biology however. The area I am studying currently is realted to movement coordination patterns, but it's a lot of dry mathematics, so I'll bring up another entropy factor in biology.

One might consider the architecture of the human body as 'orderly'. It has several cooperative systems which sustain this body long enough to replicate itself, possibly several times over. However, this body, after a few years might suffer minor and major injuries, of acute and chronic nature. The spinal column might become misaligned, suffer from degeneration of a disk, or even damage to a vertebrae. It gets out of whack. Such a thing might cause a biological entity to become less active and thus allows aging to occur more rapidly.

With degenerative composition happening first from misuse, then lack of use, this body eventually comes to a place where it ceases to funcition. It dies. Without harsh industrial chemicals and a hermetically sealed box, the material which manifested itself as a biological being begins to decay, mostly with the help of other, smaller bio-entities. The being loses its systems, structures, and form. It loses water, and protein, and carbon, and other things. The biological entity has gone from order to chaos.

I'll break here, and address the other stuff in a new post.

:ai: :) :ai:

[ikkainogakusei]

(fossil records of whales)

the flood excuses that
Uh, so the flood excuses an evolution, so does this not mean that you accept that evolution happened?
it's not evolving it's natural selection
So I'm confused. natural selection is an integral part of evolution and has been a pillar of evidence in it's 'proof', so how do you find them mutually exclusive?

FWIW I think that the agrument that science negates religion or vice nersa is misplaced. I doubt that science will ever prove or misprove God or the origin. What is important about any religion is faith, if one has faith then there is no -=reason=- for reason to prove God and it follows that there is no reason to disprove God. Having an open eye and a good baloney tester in the face of dogma on the other hand is imperative. Blind faith, whether it be toward a religious leader, or a scientific one, disempowers and darkens the soul.

just my 2 cents

:ai: :) :ai:

[Lorien Lowe]

1st law:

the origin is a problem for any theory. The big bang theory (which is NOT evolution) dosen't contradict the 1st law any more nor less than the creation story does.

2nd law/denegration:

Just as a fertilized egg can grow into a human without contradicting this law, so can species go from cells complex animals. This law refers to the entropy of the *system,* which in the case of evolution is at least the surface of the planet if not the whole universe.

-LK

[Lan Powers]

It has never seemed mutually exclusive to me to beleive in the creation of the universe, as well as the evolution of the lifeforms in that same universe.

The evidence for evolution is quite overwhelming.......the "start" of it all is quite handily explained in the tenets of faith. (All religions have their own version, so there is no need to detail them here.)

I beleive (just my own thought) that God created an evolving universe.

Where is the problem with the two components fitting together?

Just my view.

Lan :)