Patrick
Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011
|
| Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 17 2015,05:03) | OMG OMG OMG... He's BACK
| Quote |
4
scordova March 16, 2015 at 8:34 pm
I’m and ID proponent and creationist, but with respect to the 2nd law I’ve had to side with the ID-haters on the question of the 2nd law. I’ve never been quite forgiven by many of my peers for breaking ranks.
A living human has substantially more thermodynamic entropy than a frozen dead rat. Anyone who actually bothers to calculate entropy as taught in Chemistry, Engineering, and Physics textbooks will know this. All things being equal, entropy increases with mass.
I don’t participate here much anymore. My dissent and disagreement with other ID proponents and creationists isn’t exactly welcome.
Here are computations that show entropy INCREASE with complexity of design:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....se-part-1/....-pa....-part-1
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....se-part-2/....-pa....-part-2
Here are derivations that connect Clausius, Boltzman Shannon, Dembski:
http://creationevolutionuniver.....&t=72/......&......&t=72
Taking the above link, one can even make conversion factor from Clausius entropy expressed in Joule/Kelvin to Shannon Entropy expressed in Bits. Two people on opposite sides of the ID issue (Gordon Davisson and Myself) independently arrived at the same conversion factor! See:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ober-2000/....er-....er-2000
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....cs-and-id/....-an....-and-id
I probably wasn’t really ever forgiven for this heresy:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....d-systems/....sys....systems
Bottom line, I wish ID proponents would de-emphasize the 2nd law, it doesn’t add credibility to the ID case, it just adds confusion.
Good work, btw, Eric Anderson.
PS
For the Physics Buffs, I did find these gems:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nt-beings/....-be....-beings
and
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....n-physics/....phy....physics
|
|
This reminded me of an earlier conversation on The Skeptical Zone where Mike Elzinga pointed out that Granville Sewell's "x-entropy" doesn't survive a simple dimensional analysis.
I would love to see the UD regulars explain away the need for consistent units.
|
