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.

[QED]

G-dspeed - I have quite a bit to say about your post above, but we're quite a way off topic so I've started an new thread in reply. I've titled it Organisation: Where does it come from? I very much hope that you'll pick up this tangent over there.

[G-dspeed]

G-dspeed - I have quite a bit to say about your post above, but we're quite a way off topic so I've started an new thread in reply. I've titled it Organisation: Where does it come from? I very much hope that you'll pick up this tangent over there.

I too acknowledge a bit of the ol off the trackness, so i wil acompany you over to a new thread and input what i can

[micatala]

Fisherking has alluded to this thread in the Evolution a Religion thread. He seems to think his claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics 'has already been covered' and supposedly confirmed in this thread.

On the previous page of this thread, Fisherking asked.

Can you explain how the complex molecular configurations of living systems arose from their chemical precursors when their bonding energy is less negative than that of their chemical precursors and whose thermal and configurational entropies are also less than that of their chemical precursors?

This may be a good question. However, the answer to this question does not necessarily involve the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT). The 2LOT only says that entropy in a CLOSED system must increase. It does not address how LOCAL decreases in entropy might occur.

Fisherking seems to be arguing that since we don't know the mechanism or details of how a local decrease in entropy occurred, it therefore must now have occured by the 2LOT.

THis is fallacious.

[Thought Criminal]

Fisherking has alluded to this thread in the Evolution a Religion thread. He seems to think his claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics 'has already been covered' and supposedly confirmed in this thread.

I'm amazed that people continue to trot out this error after all these years. It's never made even a little bit of sense because it pretends that the Earth is a thermodynamically closed system. My guess is that it's an example of picking and choosing scientific principals without understand them.

TC

[Beastt]

Can you explain how the complex molecular configurations of living systems arose from their chemical precursors when their bonding energy is less negative than that of their chemical precursors and whose thermal and configurational entropies are also less than that of their chemical precursors?

Are you familiar with the difference between abiogenesis (which is what you appear to be referencing here), and evolution? The two are completely separate. Evolution addresses the diversity of species after life formed. Abiogenesis deals with how life formed. But in either case, the second law of thermodynamics is not an obstruction because Earth is NOT a "closed system".

If you can tell us what it is about the phrase "closed system" that isn't making sense to you, perhaps we can help you to understand why that phrase is so important to the second law of thermodynamics, and thusly, why neither abiogenesis or evolution in any way violates that law.

It appears some of the confusion is being produced by trying to conflate the universe with the Earth. The universe is a closed system where energy states can neither rise nor decline. But energy can certainly transition within the universe such as energy flowing from the sun, to the Earth. So the universe can be viewed as a closed system but an individual planet, solar system or galaxy is not closed. And since the Earth is not a closed system and does receive energy from the sun, the second law of thermodynamics cannot be applied to evolution or abiogenesis on Earth.

Does that help you?

[Fisherking]

The 2LOT only says that entropy in a CLOSED system must increase

It's never made even a little bit of sense because it pretends that the Earth is a thermodynamically closed system.

second law of thermodynamics is not an obstruction because Earth is NOT a "closed system"

If you can tell us what it is about the phrase "closed system" that isn't making sense to you, perhaps we can help you to understand why that phrase is so important to the second law of thermodynamics, and thusly, why neither abiogenesis or evolution in any way violates that law

How about showing me a case where the second law doesn't doesn't apply equally well to open systems?

"...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
So, what is it that makes life possible within the earths biosphere, appearing to violate the second law of thermodynamics?

The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

1. a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity

2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy."

Each living organisms DNA contains all the code (the program or information) needed to direct the process of building (or organizing) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organisms physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential componenttheir own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the suns energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So we see that living things seem to violate the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures in spite of the second laws effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies). Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism

[Thought Criminal]

How about showing me a case where the second law doesn't doesn't apply equally well to open systems?

We already did: snowflakes.

Why do you think the law specifically mentions closed systems? Do you imagine that scientists forgot to include open systems by mistake but you're so much smarter? Frankly, your question stinks of desperation and dishonesty. Your argument has been refuted; accept it and move along.

TC

[Fisherking]

How about showing me a case where the second law doesn't doesn't apply equally well to open systems?

We already did: snowflakes.

How does a snowflake violate the second law of thermodynamics?

[Thought Criminal]

How about showing me a case where the second law doesn't doesn't apply equally well to open systems?

We already did: snowflakes.

How does a snowflake violate the second law of thermodynamics?

A snowflake does not violate the second law of thermodyanics. Nothing does.

A snowflake is an example of entropy decreasing in an open system. If entropy were to decrease in a closed system, which it does not, then the second law would be violated.

TC

[otseng]

Frankly, your question stinks of desperation and dishonesty.

Moderator note:

Please avoid comments about judging the desperation and dishonesty level of others. Simply present your arguments without having to comment about the poster.