JLT
Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008
|
| Quote (Dr.GH @ May 01 2012,03:47) | | Am I to understand you have all fallen off the anti-creatotard wagon and are hitting the strong UD stuff again? |
But..... but... I didn't inhale and I will never try it again.
ETA: Although it is sooo delicious!
| Quote | 1
chris haynes
Dr Sewell wrote a paper on “the Second Law of Thermodynamics”
As a Creationist, I deplore those who censure him.
However, it might be a blessing to Creationism, as his paper is unintelligble gobbledegook.
For openers, he didnt bother to state the Second Law, or define entropy, although he applies them, somehow, to information and to evolution. I suspect he is a charlatan, and that he has neither a coherent statement nor a defintion.
Take entropy. It has units of Joules per degree Kelvin. How does temperature apply to information? How is it that the “entropy of information” is less, or greater at higher temperatures?
Perhaps one of Dr Sewell’s defenders could let us know. |
| Quote | 2
PaV
Chris haynes:
You say you’re a “Creationist”, and think and write like an evolutionist. So which is it?
The “Second Law” and “entropy” have already been defined. Consult standard thermodynamic texts. He invented neither term; he’s simply pointing out the more precise understanding of entropy that is lost sight of when people claim that an “decrease of entropy is allowed” as long as it’s an “open system.” But maybe you can’t follow his argument. |
| Quote | 3
chris haynes
Respectfully, you didnt answer the question.
As you said, “the second law and entropy have been defined”. True. But not by Dr Sewell.
Take entropy. It has been defined as: “Entropy is a property of system equal to the lost work, divided by the temperture of the reservoir used to determine the lost work.”
Its units are joules per degree Kelvin
Dr Sewell uses entropy to describe information.
1) Take DNA. What temperaure applies to its information?
2) When information is lost, why does the entropy increase less when the “information is high temperaure?
I hold that such questions reveal the nonsense of Dr Sewell’s work. As a Creationist, I resent that his nonsense damages our outstanding reputation for clear thought.
You disagree.
Okay, but instead of ad-hominems and sweeping generalities, please just answer the questions. |
| Quote | 4
kairosfocus
CH: If you are serious — and right now you unfortunately reek of sock puppet (of which we have had waves here at UD) — start here and onward links. Notice the use of the Clausius expression and the bridge to the micro-statistical view. Here on the bridge to info, noting Gilbert Newton Lewis especially, will also help. And BTW, PAV, one of UD’s most serious commenters and an occasional contributor, is dead right. KF |
| Quote | 5
material.infantacy
Yeah I think it’s entirely possible he’s a sock puppet. Note the ridiculousness of his #1:
“As a creationist, I deplore those who censure* him.”
Just to note, as a space cowboy, I deplore censorship* myself; and as a stamp collector, I find it simply unbearable. ;-)
“…his paper is unintelligible gobbledegook.” … “I suspect he is a charlatan, and that he has neither a coherent statement nor a definition.”
Ironically, chris haynes states that he deplores “those who censure*” and then proceeds to censure Sewell in a manner quite lacking any hint of class or grace. Not failing to miss the opportunity, he responds to an article discussing the unfair treatment of Granville Sewell by dishing out more unfair treatment. Double irony bonus points have been awarded here.
He then goes on to fault PaV for ad hominem and sweeping generalities. *snicker* Yeah, sock puppet or oblivious bumbler, or both. Either way it would be amusing in another context — as a creationist, that is. |
| Quote | 6
chris haynes
No answers?
I say youre bluffing.
That’s why you cant defend Dr Sewell properly. And I say nobody can.
Instead you revert to the tactics of science establishment groupies. You insult those who dare question Sewell’s competence. You distract with a link to a long string of generalities. An you invoke the name of big shots like Lewis, to prove God knows what point.
Lets’ deal with Sewell and his claims.
Dr Sewell uses entropy to describe information
Entropy has units of joules per DEGREE KELVIN. That’s temperature!
Temperature and information? I say Dr Sewell is either loony, or a charlatan.
You disagree. Fine, but defend him properly.
Tell us how information entropy is related to temperature.
1) Take DNA. What temperaure applies to its information?
2) When information is lost, what temperature is used to find the entropy increase? |
| Quote | 7
Granville Sewell
Here is my reply to the Lloyd piece in the Mathematical Intelligencer. |
| Quote | 8
butifnot
‘chris haynes’ yes the relation of TSL to information is fascinating. Sewell did not make it up, and you look ignorant for not knowing anything about it. |
LOL
| Quote | 9
Arthur Hunt
Umm, I don’t suppose it would help to point out that increases in entropy actually promote the assembly of macromolecular structures in a cell. Biochemically speaking, the statement (that I believe is implied in Sewell’s piece here, as well as in his many other essays on the subject) that macroscopic ordering in the cell is disallowed by the second law of thermodynamics is uninformed gibberish.
Look at things this way – shake up a mixture of salad oil and water (run a tornado through the cruet) and then let it set a spell. The mixture – bajillions of molecules – will always spontaneously assemble into a highly-orderd state. This is akin to a tornado-stricken town spontaneously rebuilding, with the important difference that the liquids actually do spontaneously order.
Better still, this macroscopic ordering is entropy-driven. It happens because of the second law, not in spite of it. This is what happens in cells. And this is why Sewell’s illustrations are irrelevant when it comes to life and evolution. |
| Quote | 10
Barry Arrington
@Arthur Hunt re [9],
And then put a bunch of scrabble letters in that same blender, hit the puree button, dump it out, and voila! you get the sonnets of Shakespeare. It’s magic. |
| Quote | 11
Eric Anderson
Arthur Hunt:
You are confusing order with specified complexity. Those are two very different things.
|
High quality tard.
--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner
|
