second law of thermodynamics (its an easy one)

[gf]

Hello.

I spoke to a Creationist, whom stated that the second law of thermodynamics, goes against Evolution. As the Universe decays.


Now, it dawned on me, that this is not a rare event, as most Creationist proclaim this, not at least, a certain Mr Kent Hovind. So i thought we could have a discussion about this.


The second law of thermodynamics does not claim that everything is "winding down" / decays / crumbles / or similar. What it does state is that you get entropy, and it seems that this is where we get a problem. Either most people do not know what this means, or they dont want to know what it means.

To claim that entropy equals decay, is to go from Physics to Opinion.


And this is the important part of it.
The second law of thermodynamics only states, that entropy occurs in different stages.


And this is it. If you claim, state or otherwise say in any way that it "decays", or "improves", you go from Physics, to your own opinion.



So it does not go against Evolution, it rather enhances evolution, as Evolution also, does not mean improve, but means change.



Opinion anyone ?

Perhaps you need some background information about this, but this is more or less the main thing that most Creationist seems to be confused about.

[G-dspeed]

Thanks shadow for explaining some of that stuff you said, I get it now and agree. =D

But the problem comes still, not from thermodynamics applying to heat and not for example light, but from the "all roads lead to rome" syndrome in which energy in motion inevitably does turn into heat OR does lose its power in some way.

Sort of; keep in mind, the Earth is a special case because it constantly has energy going into it. All roads lead to Rome, but this road took a detour because the sun is giving is tons of energy for well over the period in which evolution has occurred.

Shadow you said;

Premise B is false, however. All chemicals have the ability to store energy through bonds; if you recall your chemistry, if you heat up chemicals you can create special bonds (Carbon + Oxygen -> Methane). Then you can react those new materials with other materials (Methane + O2 -> H20 + CO2). Energy remains constant, if you have a bond that absorbs energy, it will react and lose energy.

Yes if you apply heat energy to certain checmicals you can get bonding because they have a pre built in mechanism or blueprint or program to do such a thing.
You said through the reacting of chemicals one to another the amount of energy in them remains constant. But isnt it true that in bonding some checmicals together you end up with a varitaion in molecular structure of the preexsisting energy and matter that make up the chemical in the first place? Because
You also said that a bond which absorbs energy will react and lose energy. isnt that kind of my point?
Can you expound on how a chemical bound can store energy?

It's do to electron orbitals and quantum mechanics that's well beyond us both. However, from basic chemistry, we do know that such bonds hold a specific amount of energy.

And still where is the chemical bonding that yields life from heat? I do understand that photosynthesis is a mechanism by which a plant converts solar energy into useable energy via prebuilt in chemical reactions. But that doesnt tell me the origin of the plant.

Photosynthesis is nothing more than a chemical reaction involving help from the Sun.

You must keep in mind, the earliest organisms were completely uncomplicated relative to today's standards. Today, the organisms have evolved quite a bit, and they have complex standards.


Complex energy generators like photosynthesis were not the first ways for organisms to get energy. The earliest form was something known as chemosynthesis --which is simple reacting chemicals to generate energy.

Oh I dont know about that, since it takes a certain energy to be alive i.e stave off those nasty buggies which seek to eat us. And when you die you cant fight off the buggies because you dont have any more usable energy =) Therefore in a roundabout way we turn to dust because the level of entropy has exceeded our level for maintaining life.

I do know that it isn't. Once your brain waves quite working, your system can no longer work and function, so it's internal defenses die out, and the bacteria come in and eat you. The issue here is not energy, but what systems needed for an organism to be working with.

Once those systems no longer function, the whole organism fails to work.

It's not that your body no longer has the ability to convert heat to energy (Which isn't even a process of your body) anymore.

Thats the same thing as having two glases half way full of water, and you pour one glass into the other over and over again making one at a time full of water. But in the process "entropy" occurs and you spill some water every time you pour it into the other glass till eventually you have no water to pour. i have done the equivilant in an experiment with a leyden jar, it was awsome! But any way the point is you can indeed convert heat energy into electrical energy but you lose some potential for work through entropy yes i agree with you. But if the system if looped like pouring water back and forth into the cups, will lose all potential for work. Unless filled back up by the sun because the earth is an open system? well yes but even the sun is limited in what it can give. and Entropy is not at a set level for the whole universe its more in some areas and less in others, and it is sped up in some areas and slowed down in others. But you might argue that regardless of the sun winding down, it still has the capability of outputting enough energy for the system to maintain a balance long enough for life to develop. But im afraid that falls into the realm of probability per alleged chemical bond capable of producing life(never observed in nature)

Agreed, the Sun will run out of energy eventually.

However, that's irrelevant. For the entire duration of evolution, the Sun was pouring energy into the Earth, which is the only time interval we're concerned with.

You have a certain amount of energy to start with, and with time you lose it period.

You never lose energy, it all just gets converted to other forms.

But I would like to see an example of that in nature. The only way I have seen such a thing is through a purposeful design on my own part in creating more complex devices with which to beat back entropy a bit and maximize energy outputs in experiments.
In truth what fisher stated says that the precursor chemicals were struggling with thier own entropy issues on a level far below that of a living system, and did not have what it takes to overcome its entropy to the extent of becomming more complex and organized. Like fighting a losing battle to become more complex.

Again, Fisher is no scientist, and he's just quoting people who're talking about things much more complex than you or I can comprehend at the moment.


We know of chemosynthesis-using bacteria. Very basic bacteria have existed, and we've seen them. They were very uncomplicated.

We cannot actually look at any bacteria like that, and the chances of recreating them are slim to none, however, it's not impossible.

It's do to electron orbitals and quantum mechanics that's well beyond us both. However, from basic chemistry, we do know that such bonds hold a specific amount of energy.

Its like the cup and water again only I see it as the cup holds water rather than use water to become somthing more complicated than a cup like a sports car or somthing. Or maybe I am wrong? maybe cups do become sports cars because they hold water for billions of years?

Photosynthesis is nothing more than a chemical reaction involving help from the Sun.

You must keep in mind, the earliest organisms were completely uncomplicated relative to today's standards. Today, the organisms have evolved quite a bit, and they have complex standards.


Complex energy generators like photosynthesis were not the first ways for organisms to get energy. The earliest form was something known as chemosynthesis --which is simple reacting chemicals to generate energy.

But keep in mind entropy for even early forms of energy generation, was increasing as well as they are today. How did the chemical rise above the demand of increasing entropy to develope more complicated ones?

I do know that it isn't. Once your brain waves quite working, your system can no longer work and function, so it's internal defenses die out, and the bacteria come in and eat you. The issue here is not energy, but what systems needed for an organism to be working with.

work as in the energy conversion.

You never lose energy, it all just gets converted to other forms.

maybe i should restate it the proper way as not not energy loss but loss of USEABLE energy.

Again, Fisher is no scientist, and he's just quoting people who're talking about things much more complex than you or I can comprehend at the moment.

he may be quoting a scientist but i do that all the time as well. It may not be his own observation but i can assume he agrees with it non the less to which point i agree with him. more roundabout stuff lol

We know of chemosynthesis-using bacteria. Very basic bacteria have existed, and we've seen them. They were very uncomplicated.

We cannot actually look at any bacteria like that, and the chances of recreating them are slim to none, however, it's not impossible.

I had to read this a few times because it looks like the statement on the first line is in direct opposition to the statement on the bottom "we've seen them" and then "We cannot actually look at any bacteria like that"
If we have seen "basic" and "uncomplicated" bacteria using chemosynthesis then how is it they have remained simple and uncomplicated after billions of years with the basic form of energy gathering and conversion as you say? Should they not by now have a better system like everything else?

You know im not saying that bateria dont use a form of chemobonding and stuff, because we know plants do and many other organisms on earth. thats not an issue.

[Fisherking]

Again, Fisher is no scientist, and he's just quoting people who're talking about things much more complex than you or I can comprehend at the moment.

Actually, I do understand what the scientists I am quoting are saying(If I didn't understand it how would I know it was supporting my argument )

It is possible I am a 2nd grader and understand the material I quote because I am a genius......or I'm not a genius, but have the education and experience to support the arguments I take part in. I choose not to parade around with my education or credentials because frankly, it is irrelevant. An argument stands or falls on its own, regardless of the person presenting it.
I appreciate the concern though

[ShadowRishi]

Its like the cup and water again only I see it as the cup holds water rather than use water to become somthing more complicated than a cup like a sports car or somthing. Or maybe I am wrong? maybe cups do become sports cars because they hold water for billions of years?

It's not like a cup of water.


It's like an ocean of water, high voltage, huge amounts of rays of sun, septillions of elements, lots of organic compounds, and decently high temperatures coming together to make for huge amounts of chemical bonding.

But keep in mind entropy for even early forms of energy generation, was increasing as well as they are today. How did the chemical rise above the demand of increasing entropy to develope more complicated ones?

No, no. Entropy does not work that way at all. They got fresh energy constantly from their chemical reactions, so entropy never mattered. If they never got energy, then they would have problems with entropy weakening their ability to re-use that energy. But they are no re-using that energy, they are getting fresh energy from new compounds that they react.

work as in the energy conversion.

Yes, but you seem to be completely missing what the Second Law says in it's entirety.


"Thermal energy cannot be completely converted to work"

I don't die because my body is no longer able to re-use my body's heat and convert it into work. It doesn't even come close to working like that; my body uses reactions to power itself, not heat. And it doesn't re-use the reactions either; you might notice that you have to urinate and defecate to get rid of the useless products from your body's reactions.

maybe i should restate it the proper way as not not energy loss but loss of USEABLE energy.

Sun == the usable energy
Old reactions == not the energy being used for reactions on earth

he may be quoting a scientist but i do that all the time as well. It may not be his own observation but i can assume he agrees with it non the less to which point i agree with him. more roundabout stuff lol

The observation is incomplete; he takes a few statements made by scientists stating: "This is unknown" or "This doesn't jive with our original model" but that is not equitable, in science, to "The entire theory must go away."

We know of chemosynthesis-using bacteria. Very basic bacteria have existed, and we've seen them. They were very uncomplicated.

We cannot actually look at any bacteria like that, and the chances of recreating them are slim to none, however, it's not impossible.

I had to read this a few times because it looks like the statement on the first line is in direct opposition to the statement on the bottom "we've seen them" and then "We cannot actually look at any bacteria like that"
If we have seen "basic" and "uncomplicated" bacteria using chemosynthesis then how is it they have remained simple and uncomplicated after billions of years with the basic form of energy gathering and conversion as you say? Should they not by now have a better system like everything else?

Sorry, by bacteria in the second part I meant the first generation of bacteria/cells that were incredibly basic in structure and function. We cannot look at them because they evolved.

[G-dspeed]

Its like the cup and water again only I see it as the cup holds water rather than use water to become somthing more complicated than a cup like a sports car or somthing. Or maybe I am wrong? maybe cups do become sports cars because they hold water for billions of years?

It's not like a cup of water.


It's like an ocean of water, high voltage, huge amounts of rays of sun, septillions of elements, lots of organic compounds, and decently high temperatures coming together to make for huge amounts of chemical bonding.

But keep in mind entropy for even early forms of energy generation, was increasing as well as they are today. How did the chemical rise above the demand of increasing entropy to develope more complicated ones?

No, no. Entropy does not work that way at all. They got fresh energy constantly from their chemical reactions, so entropy never mattered. If they never got energy, then they would have problems with entropy weakening their ability to re-use that energy. But they are no re-using that energy, they are getting fresh energy from new compounds that they react.

work as in the energy conversion.

Yes, but you seem to be completely missing what the Second Law says in it's entirety.


"Thermal energy cannot be completely converted to work"

I don't die because my body is no longer able to re-use my body's heat and convert it into work. It doesn't even come close to working like that; my body uses reactions to power itself, not heat. And it doesn't re-use the reactions either; you might notice that you have to urinate and defecate to get rid of the useless products from your body's reactions.

maybe i should restate it the proper way as not not energy loss but loss of USEABLE energy.

Sun == the usable energy
Old reactions == not the energy being used for reactions on earth

he may be quoting a scientist but i do that all the time as well. It may not be his own observation but i can assume he agrees with it non the less to which point i agree with him. more roundabout stuff lol

The observation is incomplete; he takes a few statements made by scientists stating: "This is unknown" or "This doesn't jive with our original model" but that is not equitable, in science, to "The entire theory must go away."

We know of chemosynthesis-using bacteria. Very basic bacteria have existed, and we've seen them. They were very uncomplicated.

We cannot actually look at any bacteria like that, and the chances of recreating them are slim to none, however, it's not impossible.

I had to read this a few times because it looks like the statement on the first line is in direct opposition to the statement on the bottom "we've seen them" and then "We cannot actually look at any bacteria like that"
If we have seen "basic" and "uncomplicated" bacteria using chemosynthesis then how is it they have remained simple and uncomplicated after billions of years with the basic form of energy gathering and conversion as you say? Should they not by now have a better system like everything else?

Sorry, by bacteria in the second part I meant the first generation of bacteria/cells that were incredibly basic in structure and function. We cannot look at them because they evolved.

If we cant look at them how do "We know of chemosynthesis-using bacteria. Very basic bacteria have existed, and we've seen them. They were very uncomplicated."

It's like an ocean of water, high voltage, huge amounts of rays of sun, septillions of elements, lots of organic compounds, and decently high temperatures coming together to make for huge amounts of chemical bonding.

Well maybe maybe indeed but that presumes all those elements and circumstances, and still does not answer for where they came from. You are saying that oceans of water and volatges and suns and heats and chemicals arose to form oceans of water and voltages and suns and heats and chemicals... How can they make themself? I would like to see the mechanism for that. Is there such a thing as a code that intrusts itself to create itself into exsistence?

I understand what you say about fisher. But me personally I do take the stance that just because one runs into a road block concerning some theory that one should not scrap the whole project. thats not even the nature of a scientific heart.
I encourage seeking out the answers and finding the truth of it. certainly we dont know everything. But in the same time we cant forget what it is that we DO know in pursuit of some theory. All things of a scientific nature in my opnion must be viewed in the light of not only revelation but exsisting knowledge. and for me I KNOW God. and knowing God is a great light indeed in concerns of science as i have found. and I wouldnt want to delibertly set my heart on finding some thing which seeks to damn the Truth of my God my Lover.

but any way.

I don't die because my body is no longer able to re-use my body's heat and convert it into work. It doesn't even come close to working like that; my body uses reactions to power itself, not heat. And it doesn't re-use the reactions either; you might notice that you have to urinate and defecate to get rid of the useless products from your body's reactions.

as far as increasing entropy is concerned its really a matter of looking at individual systems and finding what thier entropy rates are and how exponetial thier rates happen to be. Because what we can observe is that there is useable energy for work. This is evident in a sprout growing into a tree. But through entropic process we have death of a system. the break down of information nessicary for sustaining life is brought about by "wear and tear" or bombairdment of raw energy which works to dismantle the code. for example. you stay too long in the sun you get cancer. you eat certain foods, the checmicals kill you. As a matter of fact not everything you eat is 100% compatible with your body and so little by little these damages take thier toll on your information system hence age and old age marks. eventually leading to death because the body is no longer capable of housing life. So where does entropy come into play on this one? Well its the whole concept of useable energy loss. in reality thats why we die because over time we do not have the energy required for the work of keeping ourselves youthful and alive. I.E when we are young our bodies have defenses against harmful sun light. Those defenses use energy to work in the defense. But entropy at the "live action" level or instant point of time while the energy conversion is taking place for defense against sun light, wears enough of the system down so that over time if you keep going outside eventually the body does not have the energy convertors to adequatly protect the skin. in other words during all the previous "fights" against the sun, entropy has caused a deficiancey in adequate energy conversion. a robbing of sorts for the defense wall and so those cells die off and are not replaced(for this example) Our bodies armour wears down because it takes a required level of energy to wield that armour in every instance but we always have a lack. fighting a losing battle up hill. entropy robs our systems from ever having 100% energy needs met.

No, no. Entropy does not work that way at all. They got fresh energy constantly from their chemical reactions, so entropy never mattered. If they never got energy, then they would have problems with entropy weakening their ability to re-use that energy. But they are no re-using that energy, they are getting fresh energy from new compounds that they react.

but what bond is there that can create life? and through creating of life, manage to some how beat down or change the entropic process for whatever life form that chemical would become? Even in open system entropy is at an effective level.

I just got interupted and lost my train of thought =/ plus i have to go clean a toilet well wish me luck V.V

[Logan]

Hello.

I spoke to a Creationist, whom stated that the second law of thermodynamics, goes against Evolution. As the Universe decays.


Now, it dawned on me, that this is not a rare event, as most Creationist proclaim this, not at least, a certain Mr Kent Hovind. So i thought we could have a discussion about this.


The second law of thermodynamics does not claim that everything is "winding down" / decays / crumbles / or similar. What it does state is that you get entropy, and it seems that this is where we get a problem. Either most people do not know what this means, or they dont want to know what it means.

To claim that entropy equals decay, is to go from Physics to Opinion.


And this is the important part of it.
The second law of thermodynamics only states, that entropy occurs in different stages.


And this is it. If you claim, state or otherwise say in any way that it "decays", or "improves", you go from Physics, to your own opinion.



So it does not go against Evolution, it rather enhances evolution, as Evolution also, does not mean improve, but means change.



Opinion anyone ?

Perhaps you need some background information about this, but this is more or less the main thing that most Creationist seems to be confused about.

But for the 2nd law of Thermodynamics to be considered by scientific methodology and concluded as an inhibitor of evolution one must also take into consideration the accepted scientific law of mass/matter convservation which states that mass remains constant within a closed area and energy cannot be created nor destroyed only rearranged. For the evolutionist theory to be a valid conclusion they would have to explain how the law of "special relativity"......the only exception to mass/matter conservation......would produce the exponential energy required to produce the apparent spontaneous morphing of Hydrogen and Helium into the many and various mineral elements now found in nature, at the same time that it is expanding and losing energy not creating new energy......just something to ponder, as the evolutionist claim that the "Big Bang" is consistent with "general relativity" not "special relativity". Logan

[QED]

Hello Logan -- welcome to the DC&R forums!

But for the 2nd law of Thermodynamics to be considered by scientific methodology and concluded as an inhibitor of evolution one must also take into consideration the accepted scientific law of mass/matter convservation which states that mass remains constant within a closed area and energy cannot be created nor destroyed only rearranged. For the evolutionist theory to be a valid conclusion they would have to explain how the law of "special relativity"......the only exception to mass/matter conservation......would produce the exponential energy required to produce the apparent spontaneous morphing of Hydrogen and Helium into the many and various mineral elements now found in nature, at the same time that it is expanding and losing energy not creating new energy......just something to ponder, as the evolutionist claim that the "Big Bang" is consistent with "general relativity" not "special relativity". Logan

I'm very puzzled by your references here to special and general relativity in this context. Light elements are fused, not morphed, into heavier ones -- through the pressures inside stars. General Relativity accounts for the gravitational source of this pressure so it's the localised concentration of lighter elements that supplies the energy and materials for our minerals. I would like to understand where you get the idea that evolutionists claim that the "Big Bang" is consistent with "general relativity" and not "special relativity". GR only really supplies a transform that extends SR to accelerating frames of reference.

[Logan]

Hello Logan -- welcome to the DC&R forums!

But for the 2nd law of Thermodynamics to be considered by scientific methodology and concluded as an inhibitor of evolution one must also take into consideration the accepted scientific law of mass/matter convservation which states that mass remains constant within a closed area and energy cannot be created nor destroyed only rearranged. For the evolutionist theory to be a valid conclusion they would have to explain how the law of "special relativity"......the only exception to mass/matter conservation......would produce the exponential energy required to produce the apparent spontaneous morphing of Hydrogen and Helium into the many and various mineral elements now found in nature, at the same time that it is expanding and losing energy not creating new energy......just something to ponder, as the evolutionist claim that the "Big Bang" is consistent with "general relativity" not "special relativity". Logan

I'm very puzzled by your references here to special and general relativity in this context. Light elements are fused, not morphed, into heavier ones -- through the pressures inside stars. General Relativity accounts for the gravitational source of this pressure so it's the localised concentration of lighter elements that supplies the energy and materials for our minerals. I would like to understand where you get the idea that evolutionists claim that the "Big Bang" is consistent with "general relativity" and not "special relativity". GR only really supplies a transform that extends SR to accelerating frames of reference.

It is true that the energy may exist in the form of nuclear fusion in the stars and other natural bodies of the universe, but on the other hand no one as yet can explain how the law of mass/matter conservation can be breached once the cooling of the inert matters of the universe has taken place. Simply put via what scientific method was inert organic material transformed into biological life with its own energy contained within its own closed system...i.e. the body of any bio species of life. How was this energy created when the scientific law of mass/matter conversion can only be breached by "special relativity" and the possibility of this happening, the chance of the nuclear energy required to be released from inert matter could only happen in a condition that is only found in nature in a solar event, and would this type of energy be a determent to life, and a source of creation? Logan

[QED]

It is true that the energy may exist in the form of nuclear fusion in the stars and other natural bodies of the universe,

There's no "maybe" about this fact. Let's be clear about the correct terminology we should be using here: Energy comes in different forms kinetic, potential etc. Energy is required to get work done. That's where power comes in, in terms of energy and time. Fusion in the Sun is an energy source for the Earth that can get work done, courtesy of hydrogen and gravity.

but on the other hand no one as yet can explain how the law of mass/matter conservation can be breached once the cooling of the inert matters of the universe has taken place.

Well you're using some very loose terminology here. But I think I see your message: by inert and cooled I presume you mean to draw attention to the inanimate, dissipated, states of matter that we would expect to see if we trained our telescopes out into the void. It doesn't paint a realistic picture of the situation here on Earth though. The planet is far from any kind of energy equilibrium thanks to its active interior and an external star.

Simply put via what scientific method was inert organic material transformed into biological life with its own energy contained within its own closed system...i.e. the body of any bio species of life.

Well, as Woody Allen put it "No man is an island, but some of us are peninsulas". You could see for yourself what an open system you are by trying to lock yourself in a room for a year without supplies. I bet you'd be out by tea-time.

How was this energy created when the scientific law of mass/matter conversion can only be breached by "special relativity" and the possibility of this happening, the chance of the nuclear energy required to be released from inert matter could only happen in a condition that is only found in nature in a solar event, and would this type of energy be a determent to life, and a source of creation? Logan

OK, so that's why you were talking about relativity. I have to tell you that you've got a couple of concepts mixed-up here. The energy that does work in biological systems is chemical potential energy, not nuclear potential energy. This wiki article will give you some more information about the different kinds of potential energies.

But I don't think that's what you're really after. It's the transition from inert to animate that has sparked your incredulity. Self-organisation may seem to be enigmatic yet it follows from the structure of systems. Most of the population are only familiar with intentional agents like ourselves doing the organising. Scientists, mathematicians and technologists are more familiar with self-organisation because it's there to be found in convection cells, crystallography and other kinds of cellular automata that most people don't have the time or inclination to notice.

Sometimes its just simple geometry that generates the rule for an emergent self-organised pattern: Imagine you have a large box full of "S" shaped hooks. If you grab one and pull it through the others you'll probably make a chain. You're not using your intelligence to create the chain - "chainness" is contained within the geometry of each open link. Following this principle through all possible self-organising systems from trivial to complex, scientists can see that "Lifeness" is contained within the geometry of particular elements (notably carbon) and the same kind of natural rules (sometimes called logic) effect the changes that have applied to generate the variety of organised complexity that seems so enigmatic in life.

Of course it doesn't help us to understand any of this if we have a preconceived notion about creation being the intentional act of another intelligent agent. If intelligent agents were, as assumed by philosophers of long ago, the only selective forces that could effect what look like "design decisions" then we would be forced into concluding that some kind of intelligent designer was involved -- but the irony is that this is precisely what we do have, it's just that we've got an artificial intelligence doing the selection. If this sounds preposterous it's only because we've not seen AI making design selections before. Did you know, for example, that there are "invention generators" that create functional, patentable, designs for all kinds of artefacts now?

[G-dspeed]

But I don't think that's what you're really after. It's the transition from inert to animate that has sparked your incredulity. Self-organisation may seem to be enigmatic yet it follows from the structure of systems. Most of the population are only familiar with intentional agents like ourselves doing the organising. Scientists, mathematicians and technologists are more familiar with self-organisation because it's there to be found in convection cells, crystallography and other kinds of cellular automata that most people don't have the time or inclination to notice.

Sometimes its just simple geometry that generates the rule for an emergent self-organised pattern: Imagine you have a large box full of "S" shaped hooks. If you grab one and pull it through the others you'll probably make a chain. You're not using your intelligence to create the chain - "chainness" is contained within the geometry of each open link. Following this principle through all possible self-organising systems from trivial to complex, scientists can see that "Lifeness" is contained within the geometry of particular elements (notably carbon) and the same kind of natural rules (sometimes called logic) effect the changes that have applied to generate the variety of organised complexity that seems so enigmatic in life.

Of course it doesn't help us to understand any of this if we have a preconceived notion about creation being the intentional act of another intelligent agent. If intelligent agents were, as assumed by philosophers of long ago, the only selective forces that could effect what look like "design decisions" then we would be forced into concluding that some kind of intelligent designer was involved -- but the irony is that this is precisely what we do have, it's just that we've got an artificial intelligence doing the selection. If this sounds preposterous it's only because we've not seen AI making design selections before. Did you know, for example, that there are "invention generators" that create functional, patentable, designs for all kinds of artefacts now?

You say that " Self-organisation may seem to be enigmatic yet it follows from the structure of systems." And yet you didnt mention that the "structure of systems" is somthing that has already been organized. It shows that organization comes from pre organization. A pre built in pattern that the Creator endowed from the begining. God gave us math and laws and principles by which all of creation is to operate and within those rules, there is room for reorganizing and changing. The way the universe is, is to show a part of who God is. Like an extention of His character. But the claim of evolution is that all organization not only came, but comes (is continuing) under scientific law, spontaeneously from no organization. And in terms of life this concept violates the law of biogenesis which is an observed law studied today. In order for evolution to be true, some where in the past the known laws of science that we have today would have to have been broken OR evolving and are different from what we know today.
In terms of crystalography and stuff, the crystal is not determining its future or shape. It is not "self organizing" in the fullest sense of the term. It is simpley following a set predetermined path of mathmatics that has exissted since God ordained it. In others Words, God said "a crystal should behave according to these rules under these conditions." and it was so. Now you may argue the God part being conjecture and opinion, but it the fact that the math has been there since forever (or in as far as we can observe and infer), is true.

"Sometimes its just simple geometry that generates the rule for an emergent self-organised pattern"

simple geometry? geometry is a code, a word, a program, a system, a blueprint yes blueprint is a nice word. It is a blue print with varibles that can be placed in the right slots to acheive various results. in the case of a crystal, the varibles for geometry are time, gravity, water, light, you name it so on and so forth. varibles represent conditions and you plug these conditions into the geometric algorithm and out pops a crystal. God made the program, and the naturaly found varibles use the program. But what evolution can not answer is where the program came from. It takes a programer to program. programs dont make themselves beleive me i know lol i wish they would Of course you can make other programs to program for you lol which is one of my pet projects. but thats just another example of how organization comes from organization. i have a specific purpose and reason for my program to create other programs and to code, not a random reason, that would be dumb and a waste of my time.
You also give the anology of a chain. Well a chain has a predetermined shape and blue print. the math of a chain doesnt change else it would not be a chain. Your not using your inteligence to canjure the chain from nothing, of course not that ridiculous. we cant create, only the Creator can. but what we can do is put in specific varibles in the geometric blueprint of the chain and come up with other stuff. We can only work with what we have likewise nature can only work with what it has. Nothing can be created. If its done by or with math, then its not being created its being reorganized because obviously the math principle of it existed long before we discovered it.

Now some of our greatest invetions or ideas or what have you have come about through the observation of nature. for example... hum.. lol well airplanes have wings because birds have wings. if we did not have birds or flying creatures we would not have seen to use wings as a method for flight. (kind of basic anaology but it will have to do
So yes we do see the things in nature for ideas on how to do things for us. But you know an airplane doesnt have nearly the aerodynamic abilities that a bird does even the tiniest so called less complex bird or even insect we know of(that flies) can out do our grandest most sophisticated airplane. So how is it that us with our inteligence cant outdo somthing that random chance created? Random chance. Let me ask you this, is it better to go into a football game with a deisigned purposeful plan and strategy or is it better to go in with a random plan and hope for the best? How about is it better in the next game? or the next? or 15 billion games after that? Is there a point where the random game "plan" beats the one of inteligence and planning? and before you asnwre that you should know that the football team has a memory for playing and remembers how they have played before. even with out a plan it may be possible to get lucky as it were. But random chance has no memory. it would be like putting a team of pro ball players with a dynamite strategy and plan against a team of people with alztheimers that have by virtue of thier memory loss, never played before.
And with that example, if evolution were true, then it would say the football team with a memory problem and no stratgey wins the game 99% of the time over the team who has played for a long time and has a strategy. Only in the case of real life random chance in the design of nature is the team with no memory and no plan, and we humans are the team with design capabilities a plan, and a history of experimentation and observation. thats another thing. we can observe and therefore realize design. but random chance has no eyes!

We cant beat the design in nature, its far better than what we can come up with and WE HAVE INTELIGENCE. logically it must have taken an inteligence far greater than ours to do the job. Still accept that notion? Well how about this.
we know for us it takes a mathematician to solve and work out and see the high reaching concepts in mathmetics. And yet he cant see everything. The math in the universe is far too complex for him to take in even in many lifetimes. So how it is that a concept that has no eyes, no mind, no memory, and no "concept" of math, could create from nothing the entire mathematical blueprint for the universe, BEFORE it even had 1's and 0' to work with? in other words for all physical ascpets of the universe to come into play(including the sicneitfic laws) BEFORE they were, there had to be a blueprint or schematic of some kind. because even witht he big bang, everything that happend during that so called event, was governed by math.
What pokcet or memory space did random chance have stored the vast program of mathmetics before physicality began? by the way random chance doesnt have a pokect either. the best hope for random chance is being able to work with whats already done. NOT creating from nothing. And the level of design and code and inteligence behind the basic mathematical construsts that govern the universe are way far above us. hence the conclusions we creationists come to.

Now as far as the AI is concened. I too am heavily into coding AI and that world. And the deal with it (as even stated in the article you linked to), is that his mnacheinces or inventions are creations by his hand and his purpose and his design. and He told them, created them, purposed them to utilize mathmatical principles and weave concepts that have already exsisted, to come up with various patterns that he may or may not deem as solutions(depending on the situation) those macheinces are all his work all by his hand he is an example of the Creator. and his inventions are an example of us. we can do the same things these programs of his can because God made us that way. The only thing I see this man doing is giving a good example of the Creator God, and us. In the article it talks about darwinian evolution due to natural selection. But im sure i dont need to mention here how that has been tossed out years ago. im sure every one here knows that natural selection alone is not the cure all answer for evolution
natural selection is again operating by a prexisting math principle and does not work to evolve creatures, but rather is used to make them extinct, to take away information from the genetic code, not add them. You would need somthing like mutation or other such excuse coupled with natural selection in order to even have a hope. but thats in another thread im sure. No point of fact is that man and his inventions is a poor example of a dead theory long since tossed to the wind.
Albeit i did enjoy that article and appreciate very much what that man has done.

P.S organization comes from organization, the man organized that invention, that invention organizes other things. it did not come from self organization. The man told it to do it and the invention did, it didnt have a choice in the matter i might add

[QED]

Hello G-dspeed, thanks for your very detailed response! Unfortunately, neither of us is really addressing the OP now. I should ask you if you think evolution is in breach of the 2nd law, as per the question for debate, but I think your familiarity with science would be such that you wouldn't wish to waste time on such obvious staw-men. Instead, I've started a new topic "Structure: where does it come from" in which I've copied your reply. I very much hope that you'll pick up the debate there.

You say that " Self-organisation may seem to be enigmatic yet it follows from the structure of systems." And yet you didnt mention that the "structure of systems" is somthing that has already been organized. It shows that organization comes from pre organization. A pre built in pattern that the Creator endowed from the begining. God gave us math and laws and principles by which all of creation is to operate and within those rules, there is room for reorganizing and changing. The way the universe is, is to show a part of who God is. Like an extention of His character. But the claim of evolution is that all organization not only came, but comes (is continuing) under scientific law, spontaeneously from no organization. And in terms of life this concept violates the law of biogenesis which is an observed law studied today. In order for evolution to be true, some where in the past the known laws of science that we have today would have to have been broken OR evolving and are different from what we know today.
In terms of crystalography and stuff, the crystal is not determining its future or shape. It is not "self organizing" in the fullest sense of the term. It is simpley following a set predetermined path of mathmatics that has exissted since God ordained it. In others Words, God said "a crystal should behave according to these rules under these conditions." and it was so. Now you may argue the God part being conjecture and opinion, but it the fact that the math has been there since forever (or in as far as we can observe and infer), is true.

"Sometimes its just simple geometry that generates the rule for an emergent self-organised pattern"

simple geometry? geometry is a code, a word, a program, a system, a blueprint yes blueprint is a nice word. It is a blue print with varibles that can be placed in the right slots to acheive various results. in the case of a crystal, the varibles for geometry are time, gravity, water, light, you name it so on and so forth. varibles represent conditions and you plug these conditions into the geometric algorithm and out pops a crystal. God made the program, and the naturaly found varibles use the program. But what evolution can not answer is where the program came from. It takes a programer to program. programs dont make themselves beleive me i know lol i wish they would Of course you can make other programs to program for you lol which is one of my pet projects. but thats just another example of how organization comes from organization. i have a specific purpose and reason for my program to create other programs and to code, not a random reason, that would be dumb and a waste of my time.
You also give the anology of a chain. Well a chain has a predetermined shape and blue print. the math of a chain doesnt change else it would not be a chain. Your not using your inteligence to canjure the chain from nothing, of course not that ridiculous. we cant create, only the Creator can. but what we can do is put in specific varibles in the geometric blueprint of the chain and come up with other stuff. We can only work with what we have likewise nature can only work with what it has. Nothing can be created. If its done by or with math, then its not being created its being reorganized because obviously the math principle of it existed long before we discovered it.

Now some of our greatest invetions or ideas or what have you have come about through the observation of nature. for example... hum.. lol well airplanes have wings because birds have wings. if we did not have birds or flying creatures we would not have seen to use wings as a method for flight. (kind of basic anaology but it will have to do
So yes we do see the things in nature for ideas on how to do things for us. But you know an airplane doesnt have nearly the aerodynamic abilities that a bird does even the tiniest so called less complex bird or even insect we know of(that flies) can out do our grandest most sophisticated airplane. So how is it that us with our inteligence cant outdo somthing that random chance created? Random chance. Let me ask you this, is it better to go into a football game with a deisigned purposeful plan and strategy or is it better to go in with a random plan and hope for the best? How about is it better in the next game? or the next? or 15 billion games after that? Is there a point where the random game "plan" beats the one of inteligence and planning? and before you asnwre that you should know that the football team has a memory for playing and remembers how they have played before. even with out a plan it may be possible to get lucky as it were. But random chance has no memory. it would be like putting a team of pro ball players with a dynamite strategy and plan against a team of people with alztheimers that have by virtue of thier memory loss, never played before.
And with that example, if evolution were true, then it would say the football team with a memory problem and no stratgey wins the game 99% of the time over the team who has played for a long time and has a strategy. Only in the case of real life random chance in the design of nature is the team with no memory and no plan, and we humans are the team with design capabilities a plan, and a history of experimentation and observation. thats another thing. we can observe and therefore realize design. but random chance has no eyes!

We cant beat the design in nature, its far better than what we can come up with and WE HAVE INTELIGENCE. logically it must have taken an inteligence far greater than ours to do the job. Still accept that notion? Well how about this.
we know for us it takes a mathematician to solve and work out and see the high reaching concepts in mathmetics. And yet he cant see everything. The math in the universe is far too complex for him to take in even in many lifetimes. So how it is that a concept that has no eyes, no mind, no memory, and no "concept" of math, could create from nothing the entire mathematical blueprint for the universe, BEFORE it even had 1's and 0' to work with? in other words for all physical ascpets of the universe to come into play(including the sicneitfic laws) BEFORE they were, there had to be a blueprint or schematic of some kind. because even witht he big bang, everything that happend during that so called event, was governed by math.
What pokcet or memory space did random chance have stored the vast program of mathmetics before physicality began? by the way random chance doesnt have a pokect either. the best hope for random chance is being able to work with whats already done. NOT creating from nothing. And the level of design and code and inteligence behind the basic mathematical construsts that govern the universe are way far above us. hence the conclusions we creationists come to.

Now as far as the AI is concened. I too am heavily into coding AI and that world. And the deal with it (as even stated in the article you linked to), is that his mnacheinces or inventions are creations by his hand and his purpose and his design. and He told them, created them, purposed them to utilize mathmatical principles and weave concepts that have already exsisted, to come up with various patterns that he may or may not deem as solutions(depending on the situation) those macheinces are all his work all by his hand he is an example of the Creator. and his inventions are an example of us. we can do the same things these programs of his can because God made us that way. The only thing I see this man doing is giving a good example of the Creator God, and us. In the article it talks about darwinian evolution due to natural selection. But im sure i dont need to mention here how that has been tossed out years ago. im sure every one here knows that natural selection alone is not the cure all answer for evolution
natural selection is again operating by a prexisting math principle and does not work to evolve creatures, but rather is used to make them extinct, to take away information from the genetic code, not add them. You would need somthing like mutation or other such excuse coupled with natural selection in order to even have a hope. but thats in another thread im sure. No point of fact is that man and his inventions is a poor example of a dead theory long since tossed to the wind.
Albeit i did enjoy that article and appreciate very much what that man has done.

P.S organization comes from organization, the man organized that invention, that invention organizes other things. it did not come from self organization. The man told it to do it and the invention did, it didnt have a choice in the matter i might add