Civil. Respectful. Intelligent. Thoughtful. Challenging.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Reply to topic
EarthScienceguy
First Post
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:56 pm  Does man have a soul? Reply with quote

What is the true physical and spiritual nature of man? Does man have a soul?

Over the centuries there has been three categories that these theories fall into.

1. the naturalistic theories which makes man an animal like any other creature. Naturalistic evolution would fall into this category. Although this theory will struggle in this discussion to overcome current theories in cosmology that makes man some sort of virtual creature instead of a specific entity. Man is void of free will because the future already has to be determined.

In this view man is only material.

2. Pantheistic theories which claim that man is god and god is man. There are many of variations of this type of theory. But they all have the idea of a god or force directing the creation of the cosmos. All of life exist as the same energy force. All of man is the same because we all come from the same force.

In this view man consists of a material body and god.

3. Creator God. Each man is an individual entity. Man is not God and God is not man. God created man as an living being distinct from rest of creation. The only thing that man has in common with the animals is the life processes that make them up.

In this view man consist of a material body and an eternal soul.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 61: Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:00 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 60 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
Well then fine think of it as decreasing. Your article again does nothing to my argument. As long as the microstates are decreasing then the Gibbs free energy still increases. Unless you are saying that life has no order to it.


You are certainly an expert at moving the goal posts and talking around the issue. So we've gone from just one microstate as you claimed in post 56, to now some nonzero number that is decreasing. If W is the number of available microstates and S = Kb*ln(W), then W = exp(S/Kb). Since Kb is a constant, saying that the number of microstates is decreasing is exactly the same as saying that S (entropy) is decreasing, so bringing up microstates adds nothing new to support your argument as you are just saying in another way that entropy can decrease, which is obvious.

The only situation where entropy can theoretically be zero (ie. 1 microstate only) is a system at exactly 0 Kelvin. Evolution did not occur in the non-realizable environment of 0.00K, and as stated many times already the earth is an OPEN system so entropy can decrease in any specific earth-based process without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. From Wikipedia (or my physical chemistry college textbook) Gibbs free energy is the maximum amount of non-expansion work that can be extracted from a thermodynamically closed system (one that can exchange heat and work with its surroundings, but not matter). Since the earth is NOT a thermodynamically closed system, your Gibbs free energy comment does not apply.

Face it ... evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. No amount of rambling about Gibbs free energy or microstates can change that fact unless these are mangled and misused as you keep doing. You're making the same mistake all anti-evolutionists make when they try to claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... which is an assumption that the earth is a thermodynamically closed system when it is not. No amount of discussion of microstates or alternative forms of saying the same thing will correct this error. It is a fundamental flaw in the claim.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 62: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:43 am
Reply

Like this post
EarthScienceguy wrote:

What is the true physical and spiritual nature of man? Does man have a soul?

Over the centuries there has been three categories that these theories fall into.

1. the naturalistic theories which makes man an animal like any other creature. Naturalistic evolution would fall into this category. Although this theory will struggle in this discussion to overcome current theories in cosmology that makes man some sort of virtual creature instead of a specific entity. Man is void of free will because the future already has to be determined.

In this view man is only material.

2. Pantheistic theories which claim that man is god and god is man. There are many of variations of this type of theory. But they all have the idea of a god or force directing the creation of the cosmos. All of life exist as the same energy force. All of man is the same because we all come from the same force.

In this view man consists of a material body and god.

3. Creator God. Each man is an individual entity. Man is not God and God is not man. God created man as an living being distinct from rest of creation. The only thing that man has in common with the animals is the life processes that make them up.

In this view man consist of a material body and an eternal soul.

If #2 refers to the common Eastern religions then I would say that the material body is an illusion. There is only god and everything is a manifestation of it instead of being a separate entity. This is a reality that can be proven, experimented with, and it effects our world. I've discussed this point in another discussion called, Using field research (Meditation) to discover Consciousness.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 63: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:42 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to DrNoGods]

Oh, my goodness. I said that one made the math easier. But let's take your water as an example. If it will help your head I will use 1 set of micro states in stead of 1. 1 will still make the math easier but regardless.

As an example of how the equation works, I will use the entropy equation to explain why water forms ice when T<273 and water forms when T<273 K and gas forms when T<373 K

dG = dH - TdSth - TdSc

T = temperature. When T is 0<273 the set of energy microstates that that form ice is equal to the possible set of energy microstates that can possible form ice. Because chemically speaking oxygen and hydrogen can only form one type of crystal lattice. So the number of possible translational and rotational energies would have to have the same set of microstates.

When T is 0<273 the set of microstates that form ice is equal to the possible set of microstates. In other words there is only one possible way that the crystal lattice can form.

So when T<273 TdSth and TdSc both are 0. So the gibbs free energy is low enough to form the crystal lattice.

Now when T>273 then the number of possible microstates increases. This makes TdSth > 0 and TdSc>0 causing an increase in the gibbs free energy breaking apart the crystal lattice.

When T>373 K that pushes TdSth even higher and TdSc even higher causing a break up in the water and then the water turns to a gas.

Now evolution states that the exact opposite will happen.

There are structural changes that evolution say will happen but lets just look at DNA. DNA has a very large number of possible ways that it can go together. It is this large number of possible ways that gives us the information we need to form all of the different forms of life that we see on the Earth.

The problem there is only one set of microstates of energy TdSth and atom arrangement TdSc that give lets say man. Thermodynamics says that it takes energy to go from many possible sets of microstates to one set of microstates.


From post 31
I have been saying the very same thing from the first time I mentioned this equations in post 31. Just substitute one set of microstates for one.

Quote:
Scm is the number of arrangements that will produce the desired effect. Which in this case is 1 so Scm is 0. Scr can be thought of as the number of ways that mass can be arranged. In this case Scr is very high.

So evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics because it is not enough to have energy because it takes energy to organize that energy. And then it also takes energy to organize the amino acids in the DNA molecule.

Both of these together of even just pushes Gibbs free energy high enough that this cannot not happen according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


You are obviously either trying not to understand or you really do not understand mathematics. Because the change entropy can be 0 this would be called subtraction.

Quote:
If W is the number of available microstates and S = Kb*ln(W), then W = exp(S/Kb). Since Kb is a constant, saying that the number of microstates is decreasing is exactly the same as saying that S (entropy) is decreasing, so bringing up microstates adds nothing new to support your argument as you are just saying in another way that entropy can decrease, which is obvious.


Great you have been studying!!! I am saying that for evolution the number of microstates start out very high and then the number of microstates decreases. and it is this decrease that breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

THEN WE AGREE GREAT!!!!


Thanks of the conversation it has help me clarify my argument for layman.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 64: Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:01 pm
Reply

Like this post (1): benchwarmer
[Replying to post 63 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
You are obviously either trying not to understand or you really do not understand mathematics. Because the change entropy can be 0 this would be called subtraction.


I certainly don't understand this comment: "Because the change entropy can be 0 this would be subtraction." Can you translate that into English? It makes no sense.

Quote:
Great you have been studying!!! I am saying that for evolution the number of microstates start out very high and then the number of microstates decreases. and it is this decrease that breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

THEN WE AGREE GREAT!!!!


Thanks of the conversation it has help me clarify my argument for layman.


I'm not going to respond to the other details in the post because it is just a rehash of earlier stuff that isn't relevant to the issue because the earth is an OPEN system. But please don't use your line of reasoning with "laymen" because it is wrong.

Let's simplify this and take your comment above that in some process the number of microstates (ie. entropy level) is high, and then the number of microstates decreases (ie. entropy is lower but still a positive number, it is only the CHANGE in entropy that is negative). You then claim that this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That is simply dead wrong for an open thermodynamic system. End of story.

But to repeat yet again ... in an OPEN thermodynamic system (like the earth) it is NOT a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics if a process (like evolution) goes from a state of higher entropy (higher number of microstates) to a state of lower entropy (fewer number of microstates). You keep ignoring this simple fact and repeating the same little set of equations about Gibbs free energy, etc., which don't apply to the problem at hand. This is the fatal flaw in your argument which you either can't see because you don't understand thermodynamics and are just pasting stuff your read in Answers in Genesis or some such place, or you don't want to see it because it totally destroys your argument.

It appears that you are the layman in this case, holding onto a false narrative and ignoring the simple reason why it is false. If you don't get it by now you probably never will. I shouldn't have jumped back into this, but have had enough of repeating the same thing over and over and over so will finally give up on this hopeless case. But you really should learn what an open thermodynamic system is if you truly want to see why your line of argument fails.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 65: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:33 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 64 by DrNoGods]

Quote:
But to repeat yet again ... in an OPEN thermodynamic system (like the earth) it is NOT a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics if a process (like evolution) goes from a state of higher entropy (higher number of microstates) to a state of lower entropy (fewer number of microstates).


Can you give me an example of where this happens outside of evolution?

Now the problem with evolution is that there are many possible sets of microstates but only one that will give the results of an upward movement. A change of states does not qualify because there are not many possible sets there is only one possible set to form the crystal lattice.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 66: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:55 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 65 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
Can you give me an example of where this happens outside of evolution?


There are countless examples of systems where entropy decreases in one part of the overall system and increases in another, several examples already having been given in this thread. This is a very common occurence.

Quote:
Now the problem with evolution is that there are many possible sets of microstates but only one that will give the results of an upward movement. A change of states does not qualify because there are not many possible sets there is only one possible set to form the crystal lattice.


This appears to be more proof that you are pasting information from some website or other source. The entropy of a crystal and its lattice structure has absolutely nothing to do with the process of evolution and the entropy argument you are trying to advance. Here is yet another description why the argument that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.4603.pdf

It makes the same point that the earth is not an isolated or closed system so the argument fails for that reason alone, but it runs through some simple calculations to show why it fails. There is no way to spin this old anti-evolution argument to make it valid.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 67: Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:45 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to DrNoGods]

Hey thanks for the article it gave me a new argument. It really had nothing to do with my argument but like I said it did give me a new argument to use and a second way that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

How this differs from my argument

In Mr. Bunn's paper he puts forward the following equation

dS(life) = S(earth) - S(dead-Earth) = (Nb)u/T

Nb = the number of molecules to required to make up the biomass
u = chemical potential for a molecule in the atmosphere of Dead earth.
T = Temperature

In this equation with the use of the (u) he is assuming that evolutionary chemical reaction will take place. I am saying they will not take place because it produces a dG that is to large. So far from saying that that there is not enough energy I am saying that the chemical reactions themselves will not happen because of there is TOO MUCH ENERGY.


Mr. Bunn's argument.

In his paper Mr. Bunn says the following

Quote:
"We can obtain a value by Nb from the estimate that the total carbon biomass of Earth is 1 x 10exp15 kg. Even If we increase this value by a generous factor of 100 to account for other elements, we still have fewer than 1 x 10exp43 molecules. We conclude that the entropy reduction required for life on Earth is far less than 1 x 10exp44."


Really evolution is amazing it took all of the 1 x 10exp43 molecules and put all the life on this planet together on the first try. Wow, So did God and He did it in a much shorter time frame. But wow we sure are lucky!!

Now let's take a look at what it would take to make One polypeptide of 100 amino acids. I am considering one polypeptide because the calculations for 1 x 10exp44 come out to infinity.

Brillion has shown that the number of distinct sequences one came make using N different symbols and Fermi-Dirac statistics is given by N! If some these symbols are redundant (or identical), then the number of unique or distinguishable sequences that can be made is reduced to

N!/ (n1!, n2!, n3!, ni!...)

N = 100 since there are 100 amino acids in a poly peptide.
n = 5 assumes that an equal number of each type of amino acid are
contained in the polypeptide.
i = 20 since there are 20 different amino acids

putting these figures in the equation above gives the possible number of arrangements that these "molecules can have as 1.28 x 10exp115

This means that the dS(life polypeptide) = 1.28 x 10exp115.

Now putting the corrected figure in Mr. Bunn's equation

1.28 x 10exp115 / (3 x 10exp37) = 4.27 x 10exp77 seconds

let's see there are 3.2 x 10exp7 seconds in a year.

So that means in about 1.33 x 10exp70 years the Earth should produce it's first polypeptide.

Great article Thanks.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 68: Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:51 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 66 by DrNoGods]

Oh yea I forgot to put this in.

I think 1.22 x 10exp70 years for one polypeptide would mean that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics again.

Have any more articles? These are awesome.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 69: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:58 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 67 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
So that means in about 1.33 x 10exp70 years the Earth should produce it's first polypeptide.


I'm not going to respond to just more botching of statistics and wrong assumptions. The stuff you are throwing out has been tried by theists and anti-evolutionists for many years and is nothing new. Just a misunderstanding of statistics and biochemistry, and intentional twisting of things to try and make a (hopeless) point. So I'll just point you to two common rebuttals and clarifications:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

And yes ... this is Talkorigins and much of the stuff you are throwing out is present on Answers in Genesis and similar sites. Nothing new is being offered from your side or mine, but anti-evolutionists can never win this argument and show that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics because it doesn't, and proper application of statistics, chemistry and thermodynamics shows this very unambiguously.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 70: Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:26 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 69 by DrNoGods]

So you think that 1 x 10exp43 molecules can arrange themselves on the first try to create all the life we see here on our planet. Really.

You read the paper. That is what Mr. Bunn is saying with his equation.

And why should I believe your propaganda websites. When I have numerical proof by using equations derived by evolutionist that Evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

And you cannot even express how my calculations are off. That is really convincing let me tell you.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version