Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

DetlefK

(16,670 posts)
51. Intelligent Design destroyed with math:
Thu Aug 4, 2016, 09:18 AM
Aug 2016

Evolution says that things happen because of random events. The ID-claim is that random events cannot create a state of lower entropy (higher information).

1. The laws of thermodynamics only apply when the system is in equilibrium. They do not apply for non-equilibrium-systems.

2. The laws of thermodynamics are most often about scenarios with infinite particles.

3. It is possible for a random event to destroy entropy:
Let's take a classic example: The streaming-experiment of Gay-Lussac. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Louis_Gay-Lussac
You have two volumes. One volume has n gas-particles, the other volume is empty. You open the valve between the volumes and the particles spread evenly between the two volumes.

Q: What is the probability for one particle to be on one side of the valve but not on the other?
A: 1/2

Q: What is the probability for all n particles to be on one side of the valve and none to be on the other side?
A: (1/2)^n

Q: What happens if random events make all particles go to one volume and then a random event closes the valve?
A: Then a random event has just created information and thus destroyed entropy.

=> Random events can create information.



ID's argument would be valid if there were an infinite amount of particles. But in real life there is no chemical system with infinite particles.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

If part of the "Great Commission" is to convert the heathens, why are they charging me? brooklynite Jul 2016 #1
You of all people can afford the $19.99 download. rug Jul 2016 #2
Intelligent design destroyed in one question Cartoonist Jul 2016 #3
Where did the matter come from that exploded in the first explosion? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #4
It was left over Cartoonist Jul 2016 #5
Which begs the follow up question: guillaumeb Jul 2016 #6
If it was made in China anoNY42 Aug 2016 #29
there are scientific explanations edhopper Jul 2016 #13
You have inadvertently put your finger on the crux of the matter. rug Jul 2016 #7
Matter Cartoonist Jul 2016 #8
Because by its very nature, it requires a cause and in turn makes an effect. rug Jul 2016 #9
With one major difference Cartoonist Jul 2016 #10
I can think. rug Jul 2016 #11
I think therefore edhopper Jul 2016 #12
I think, therefore it may. rug Aug 2016 #15
If all of creation is a reflection of the Creator, then yes, guillaumeb Aug 2016 #19
Reality vs imagination Cartoonist Aug 2016 #14
Do you think thinking is simply imagining? rug Aug 2016 #16
A and B edhopper Aug 2016 #17
Nothing important Cartoonist Aug 2016 #18
Seeing things is no guarantee of knowing things. rug Aug 2016 #20
that is why we don't trust edhopper Aug 2016 #21
What instruments do you use to take measurements of infinity? rug Aug 2016 #22
Is that Ram Das edhopper Aug 2016 #23
That's Baba to you. rug Aug 2016 #24
I don't think a construct like infinity edhopper Aug 2016 #25
Well, then, do you accept or reject such a construct? rug Aug 2016 #26
I accept the concept. edhopper Aug 2016 #27
So, how do you measure it? rug Aug 2016 #28
it's a construct used in math edhopper Aug 2016 #50
Math, usually. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #30
Hardly. rug Aug 2016 #39
Moore's law applies, in this case. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #42
By the same token, one cannot assert there is no evidence of a god if they lack the rug Aug 2016 #44
Infinity is a thing that 'we get'. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #54
By definition, infinity can not be within anything, including another infinity. rug Aug 2016 #55
Then you sir are not a mathematician. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #57
Mathematics is a poor measure of meta-physics. We're not in the Mathematics Group, are we? rug Aug 2016 #58
I am unable to express infinity in any other way. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #59
It's a hard concept to even analogize. rug Aug 2016 #60
Infinity: does it exist? Jim__ Aug 2016 #61
Real interesting. Thanks. rug Aug 2016 #62
Matter is energy. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #32
At the end of the day you're confronted with either eternal matter/energy or rug Aug 2016 #33
No. It need not be eternal. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #34
If it either begins or ends, it is not eternal. rug Aug 2016 #37
Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #40
From where? rug Aug 2016 #46
Presupposes a 'from'. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #47
The nature of the thing demands it. rug Aug 2016 #48
Are you familiar with 'spooky action at a distance'? AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #52
The EPR Paradox. rug Aug 2016 #56
And you've call us "Incurious" AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #31
You really should identify "us" if you're speaking for them. rug Aug 2016 #36
You tell me. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #41
You used "us" so you tell me. rug Aug 2016 #45
That's an incredibly rude proclamation. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #53
I'd like to know how they came about determining their god was eternal Lordquinton Aug 2016 #43
Philosophy now says an uncaused cause is incoherent Brettongarcia Aug 2016 #35
I'll take your authority on incoherence but I need a link to the philosopy you assert. rug Aug 2016 #38
It was Nietzsche, I think, who warned us about spending too much time struggle4progress Aug 2016 #49
Intelligent Design destroyed with math: DetlefK Aug 2016 #51
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»A Review of Ray Comfort’s...»Reply #51