Intelligent Design is not creationism

real life wrote:

I stated that the naturalistic Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution scenario violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Which is a totally baseless statement of course...

real life wrote:

To which you replied that these 'Laws of science' don't really apply to anything in the known Universe.

Ha, that's a good one. You're very tricky Smile

I'm not sure I should waste my time explaining this to you because I think you may actually know this stuff.

Suffice to say that your misrepresentation of applied physics versus theoretical physics is creative as a debating point, but has no scientific validity.

0 Replies

As pointed out numerous times, rl, a "perfectly closed system" is a theoretical construct, not an observable phenomenon. If anything, the only perfectly closed system possible in this universe - a system isolated from and immune to outside influence - would be this universe itself. That being the case (and indeed it is the case), and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics being what it is (and indeed it is what it is), chaos (not random chance, which is a very different and unrelated thing, essentially itself an anthropometric intellectual construct) and entropy mandate differential ordering; galaxies, stars, planets, and planetessimals evolving, through gravitimoetric interaction, from gas and dust. That it be possible there would exist a set of circumstances propitious to and causitive of life as we know it irrefutably is evidenced in the fact life as we know it exists. That life as we know it be exclusive to this particular planet in this particular star system in this particular galaxy is inconsistent with logic, in that as our precision of observation increases, along with it increases evidence circumstances similar, if not identical, to the circumstances in which we find ourselves are not uncommon throughout the observable universe; physics, chemistry, and logic evidently are constants throughout the observable universe.

Now, to return to direct criticism of the style and substance of your argument, it is the burden of the religionist making a religionist claim to prove the religionist's proposition, as it is the religionist which asserts the positive. The religionist claim that there be a creator stands unvalidated, having for authority only its own inherent claim to authority, and therefore, as presented, perforce is invalid. Whether you choose to deny that or are incapable of recognizing and acknowledging that is immaterial; your proposition and your manner of presenting, arguing, and defending that propostion are absurdities, mere jokes. You present your case, but rather than make your case, you confirm the invalidity of that case. You defeat yourself.

Now, demonstrate, objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner both that religious faith be differentiable from superstition AND that the particular religious concept you personally endorse and espouse be superior to any other. The burden of proof is yours, no matter how you squirm and wiggle in attempt to avoid the responsibility.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

As pointed out numerous times, rl, a "perfectly closed system" is a theoretical construct, not an observable phenomenon. If anything, the only perfectly closed system possible in this universe - a system isolated from and immune to outside influence - would be this universe itself. That being the case (and indeed it is the case), and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics being what it is (and indeed it is what it is), chaos (not random chance, which is a very different and unrelated thing, essentially itself an anthropometric intellectual construct) and entropy mandate differential ordering; galaxies, stars, planets, and planetessimals evolving, through gravitimoetric interaction, from gas and dust. That it be possible there would exist a set of circumstances propitious to and causitive of life as we know it irrefutably is evidenced in the fact life as we know it exists. That life as we know it be exclusive to this particular planet in this particular star system in this particular galaxy is inconsistent with logic, in that as our precision of observation increases, along with it increases evidence circumstances similar, if not identical, to the circumstances in which we find ourselves are not uncommon throughout the observable universe; physics, chemistry, and logic evidently are constants throughout the observable universe.

Now, to return to direct criticism of the style and substance of your argument, it is the burden of the religionist making a religionist claim to prove the religionist's proposition, as it is the religionist which asserts the positive. The religionist claim that there be a creator stands unvalidated, having for authority only its own inherent claim to authority, and therefore, as presented, perforce is invalid. Whether you choose to deny that or are incapable of recognizing and acknowledging that is immaterial; your proposition and your manner of presenting, arguing, and defending that propostion are absurdities, mere jokes. You present your case, but rather than make your case, you confirm the invalidity of that case. You defeat yourself.

Now, demonstrate, objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner both that religious faith be differentiable from superstition AND that the particular religious concept you personally endorse and espouse be superior to any other. The burden of proof is yours, no matter how you squirm and wiggle in attempt to avoid the responsibility.

If you've pointed it out many times, why did you try to provide an example?

If the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to nothing, then how come they are used by science in practical situations constantly?

0 Replies

RL, the second law of thermo (as one example because this is that which is heisted most by the Creationists)) by the "closed system" we force the equation to work as fully reversible in such things as adiabatic cells or the passage of energy through various stages of equilibrium. Even though, we know that, reversible processes are physically impossible.

By your own admission you agree that no system is truly closed. Thus , in biological sy(this is most of reality)stems, energy is expended and derived from reactions that are associated with the living process. Life operates against physical and chemical gradients. Yet it conserves directions in its "bar code" and it applies itself to adaptation as the media and environment changes. As Ros said, you probably know this but just like to appear contararian since it "suits yer" status as a believer.

Please dont argue the Thermodynamics again, its all great gobs of Creation crap.Theres been enough written and Dr Duane has never been successful at convincing any objective
undergrad P-chem student that he knows of what he speaks

In equation form the irreversible status of entropy(S) in its state of change (dS) is equal to the heat absorbed by the system (Dq) {large D implies that this isnt an exact differential} divided by temperature (T)
or dS=Dq/T
(had this been a reversible the change of state would be conducted reversibly by merely dividing dS by T and wed get the heat absorbed) This is an impossible situation so the equation remains in a stepwise function (no need to get further flaky with making the equations complex cause I think we can all follow it this way)

In a closed system there would be no exchange of heat from the outside so the Dq would be 0, (still with me?) and therefore dS would be =0. Hey, it really doesnt take a lot of thinking when you get down to it , divide anything into zero and we get zero.

0 Replies

I'd like to point something out to RL concerning protein formation and entropy.

Let's say you have a bunch of amino acids in solution. The entropy is low in this system, because the hydrophillic (water-loving) amino acids are forming bonds with the water molecules and preventing them from moving in a Brownian motion fashion. The hydrophobic amino acids (water-hating) are clumping together naturally and causing water to form crystalline cage-like structures around them, also decreasing the entropy of the system.

When the amino acids form a chain, this entropy increases because there's less surface area for the amino acids to bond with the water. However, there's still a lot.

When this chain forms a 3d globular protein, hiding most of its amino acids away from water, even more water molecules are freed up and the entropy of the system is increased.

0 Replies

When one totally rejects real science for their own quasi-science, mixed surreptitiously with the superstition of Biblical babble, there's no way to take them seriously.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
I stated that the naturalistic Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution scenario violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Which is a totally baseless statement of course...

Evolution is the hypothesis that chemicals organize themselves into chemical systems; and then chemical systems organize themselves into living creatures, which in turn further organize themselves and develop specialized organs and systems of tremendous complexity and interdependency.

(Not only are we supposed to believe it happened once upon a time, but repeatedly.

Evolutionists claim, for instance, that the eye has evolved literally a dozen or more times independently of one another. Some say up to 40 times, or more.

This is the only way an evolutionist can make 'sense' out of the patchwork that is the sequence in the fossil record , as he has imagined it. )

This is a complete turn about from the 2nd Law. Entropy increases without the input of energy and information.

Energy alone will not overcome entropy (think: explosion ), it must be directed at the proper point, at the proper time and in the proper amount to accomplish a specific task.

Evolutionists postulate the self generation of information (in violation of the 2nd Law) to overcome entropy.

Go ahead and tell me again that the 2nd Law doesn't apply to anything in the real world, that it's all theoretical. I need another good laugh.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Evolution is the hypothesis that chemicals organize themselves into chemical systems; and then chemical systems organize themselves into living creatures, which in turn further organize themselves and develop specialized organs and systems of tremendous complexity and interdependency.

That's a very inaccurate definition of evolution. But not entirely beyond the implication of evolution.

real life wrote:

(Not only are we supposed to believe it happened once upon a time, but repeatedly.

You don't have to believe it, we're just going by the evidence. Believe what you want.

real life wrote:

This is a complete turn about from the 2nd Law. Entropy increases without the input of energy and information.

But in the case of Earth's biosphere, since we have the input of both energy as well as information (in the form of natural selection), your objection is meaningless.

real life wrote:

Energy alone will not overcome entropy (think: explosion ), it must be directed at the proper point, at the proper time and in the proper amount to accomplish a specific task.

... Natural Selection...

real life wrote:

Evolutionists postulate the self generation of information (in violation of the 2nd Law) to overcome entropy.

I see what you're implying, and it's an interesting line of reasoning, but it has nothing to do with 2nd law thermo. Raw entropy doesn't limit evolution (for reasons noted many times before).

If you want to pursue this line of reasoning, you will need to define "information" as it relates to energy. You might want to start another thread.

real life wrote:

Go ahead and tell me again that the 2nd Law doesn't apply to anything in the real world, that it's all theoretical. I need another good laugh.

Laugh all you want, science and evolution are producing real world results in medicine, agriculture, and economics to name just a few. So tell me again why we should give a twit about your pompous and repeated misunderstanings of basic physics, biology and thermodynamics?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Evolution is the hypothesis that chemicals organize themselves into chemical systems; and then chemical systems organize themselves into living creatures, which in turn further organize themselves and develop specialized organs and systems of tremendous complexity and interdependency.

That's a very inaccurate definition of evolution. But not entirely beyond the implication of evolution.

real life wrote:
(Not only are we supposed to believe it happened once upon a time, but repeatedly.

You don't have to believe it, we're just going by the evidence. Believe what you want.

So what evidence do you have that the eye has evolved 40 separate times? Just because 'it HAD to have happened that way' ?

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
This is a complete turn about from the 2nd Law. Entropy increases without the input of energy and information.

But in the case of Earth's biosphere, since we have the input of both energy as well as information (in the form of natural selection), your objection is meaningless.

see below. Your characterization of Natural Selection is incorrect.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Energy alone will not overcome entropy (think: explosion ), it must be directed at the proper point, at the proper time and in the proper amount to accomplish a specific task.

... Natural Selection...

Natural selection has no goal. It does not direct energy at the proper time to the proper place in the proper amount.

Are you trying to define Natural Selection as information? It is not.

Natural selection supposedly 'sifts out' the possessor of bad information (that genetic material which does not aid in living successfully) and 'rewards' the possessor of better information (that which helps it to live more successfully).

But Natural Selection IS not the information, neither does it SUPPLY information (good or bad).

It is supposed to be a process which has an effect AFTER new information (mutations, new genetic code) has been introduced. It adds no information.

Again you are assuming the result to get to square one.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Evolutionists postulate the self generation of information (in violation of the 2nd Law) to overcome entropy.

I see what you're implying, and it's an interesting line of reasoning, but it has nothing to do with 2nd law thermo. Raw entropy doesn't limit evolution (for reasons noted many times before).

Yeah, because the Law of Entropy doesn't apply to the real world, you told us.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

RL, I already told you that protein formation favours entropy, however, you chose to ignore that.

So, I'll give you some academic learning material that states the same thing but in more detail.

http://www.soton.ac.uk/~jbc2/folding.html

If the formation of complex proteins favours entropy, surely there is no violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics?

0 Replies

rl states

Quote:

It is supposed to be a process which has an effect AFTER new information (mutations, new genetic code) has been introduced. It adds no information.

wrong. beneficial mutations occur randomly throughout the life of an individual. Evolution is the adaptation (primarily this is being done for simplification) to environmental chnges. One doesnt "evolve a mutation" just to conveniently fit a new environment. Morphological changes and new species etc arise from adaptation via genetic variation. Mutations occur as random events, some good, some bad. You dont understand enough about the process to even cobble together a good argument against. Your "evolutionists believe what Ive just postulated" crap gets old and kind of annoying. You only partially use the information and then gloss over the most important facts. Thats a parlor trick, not good inquiry.

Mathematically weve shown that closed systems dont occur in nature , the earth loses tera calories to space each day. You have to go back to some valid science texts to gather a better understanding. Ive provided you the simplest mathematical explanation of the law no.2 and shown how , mathematically what a closed system implies and , as just about every scientist agrees , its damn difficult to achieve a closed system.

Quote:

Evolution is the hypothesis that chemicals organize themselves into chemical systems; and then chemical systems organize themselves into living creatures, which in turn further organize themselves and develop specialized organs and systems of tremendous complexity and interdependency.

This is NOT evolution . Im getting tired of your misapplying "information". This is merely something that you , as a Creationist, want people to believe what you think evolution is purporting to be. Even if your presentation were correct, science has more information to support such a "Grand theory of biogenesis and evolution combined" than does your evidence-free belief in Creationism.

You believe without reservation that all life was created at once and , of course, those forms not immediately "important" just quietly lived their lives under a bush somewhere and didnt leave any fossils until it was their turn on stage. Do you even realize how silly this sounds? Theres your Creator who just happens to overpopulate a world with forms who must, in order to survive, eat heir normal weights in plants or animals, but no evidence of table scraps or mammoth poop until the Pliocene starta. Your arguments lead automatically to a rejection of the geologic time scale, startigraphy, and succession(not to mention continental drift and geochronology). All these little disciplines underpin evolutionary evidence. SO if you reject one you reject all. Thats a real bummer cause you dont even understand Thermo properly.

Quote:

So what evidence do you have that the eye has evolved 40 separate times? Just because 'it HAD to have happened that way' ?

No, once again you just pronounce something and have little understanding of what you speak.
Plaven Salvini and Ernst Mayr give the evidence and discuss the evolution of the eye from light sensitive cells in Evolutionary Biology

The fossil record is full of evidence that eyes evolved under separate bauplans from light sensitive cells that became ocular neural centers. Most of these left fossils of quartz tetrahedrons that showed the beautiful development of compound eyes in arthropods. The shellfish and cephalopods developed a hyaline membrane that developed eyespots then multiple as well as symmetrical eye systems. Some evidence is more definative than others , like the location of motile animal cells in burrows and in rugose corals show a preference for position as a trophic response to light. This seems to lead to the development of colonial structures where the "eye" is located near the intake rather than the cloaca. It was a "hunting mechanism"
Heres the reference , if you wish to go to a U LIBRARY. this is only available on the net by subscriptION Evolutionary Biology, 1977 vol10 207-263

The evolution of the eye is a really well understood and neat analyses of evidence supporting gradualistic change and "intermediates " and divergent evolution that there is. PS , the "40 examples of separate evolution of the eye" is credited to Ernst Mayr and he stated that this number was about all that he knew of and it was always "about 40".
Its really beyond the scope of a PBB but the listing of the many progenitor eyespot owners and development of eys in the fossil record is well documented in the TREATISE ON INVERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY, whic is a multiple volume set , again, available in most University geology libraries.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Mathematically weve shown that closed systems dont occur in nature , the earth loses tera calories to space each day. You have to go back to some valid science texts to gather a better understanding. Ive provided you the simplest mathematical explanation of the law no.2 and shown how , mathematically what a closed system implies and , as just about every scientist agrees , its damn difficult to achieve a closed system.

What you haven't shown is any defense of the idea that the Laws of Thermodynamics 'don't apply to open systems'. That is the point that Ros stated. Do you agree with it?

0 Replies

I highly doubt even Rosborne would agree with that. When Rosborne replied to you earlier (here) (s)he stated the biosphere (Earth) receives energy from the Sun and the Sun releases energy--thus, (s)he indicated that both are open systems. Rosborne seems to be the victim of a careless choice of words (here) than anything else. There is evidence of this in how (s)he laughed (here) when you accused him/her (here) of stating there are no open systems. This indicates that (s)he does think there are open systems. In essence, you have framed your argument on wording semantics than the gist of Rosborne's argument.

Earlier you asked me to name a closed system inside the Universe (here) but I decided to let others answer for me since it seemed so simple of a challenge. Apparently that did not work very well. It seems that you are confused about the differences between an open system, a closed system, and an isolated system. An open system is one where energy and matter can enter and escape. The socks on your feet, the engine in an automobile, the ocean, the Earth, the Sun, the galaxy, etc. are all open systems. A closed system is one where energy can enter and leave but matter cannot. A stopped wine flask, sealed TV dinner, vacuum-packed pickle jar, etc. are all closed systems. An isolated system is one where energy and matter cannot enter or leave. There are no such things as isolated systems and they are nothing more than idealized constructs. Even an asteroid a trillion miles away from any object cannot be an isolated system because it would be absorbing energy from the cosmic background radiation.

0 Replies

thanks for the well-written explanation, megamanXplosion

(by the way, rosborne is a he)

0 Replies

As matter and energy can neither enter or leave the universe then the universe is an isolated sytem but the word isolated has no meaning without its bi-polar; something to be isolated from.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

thanks for the well-written explanation, megamanXplosion

(by the way, rosborne is a he)

No problem Wandeljw. It is nice to know that Rosborne is a he, now I can stop using that irritating he/she construct when talking about him.

spendius wrote:

As matter and energy can neither enter or leave the universe then the universe is an isolated sytem but the word isolated has no meaning without its bi-polar; something to be isolated from.

When I wrote the post I thought about whether I should use the Universe as an example of an isolated system. There were mainly two questions in my mind that I wasn't able to answer--at least, not without a great amount of research. The first question is: can it be said that the Universe is expanding if photons were to travel beyond the current edges or do they die as they approach the edge? (I'm not very knowledgeable in physics so please excuse me if it seems like a stupid question.) The second question was: if the M-Brane hypothesis is correct is it fair to say this Universe is isolated? If you, or someone else, could provide an answer I would appreciate it.

For the purpose of this discussion I suppose it can be considered an isolated system though.

0 Replies

Hi MegamanX,

megamanXplosion wrote:

The first question is: can it be said that the Universe is expanding if photons were to travel beyond the current edges or do they die as they approach the edge?

There is no "edge" of the universe in any physical sense. If anything, the "edge" is the speed of light itself.

megamanXplosion wrote:

The second question was: if the M-Brane hypothesis is correct is it fair to say this Universe is isolated? If you, or someone else, could provide an answer I would appreciate it.

First of all, thank you for clarifying the difference between "closed" and "isolated" systems. I think it's a useful distinction.

Regardless of the veracity of M-Brane, or any other hyposthesis regarding the precursor to the Universe, the Universe would still be the epitome of isolation as far as current physics are concerned. Even if we were to quantify a state of being outside of the current universe, all that would happen is that the concept of "Universe" would expand to accept the pre-conditions, and we would be left with a "larger" isolated Universe.

megamanXplosion wrote:

For the purpose of this discussion I suppose it can be considered an isolated system though.

Indeed.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

megamanXplosion wrote:
The first question is: can it be said that the Universe is expanding if photons were to travel beyond the current edges or do they die as they approach the edge?

There is no "edge" of the universe in any physical sense. If anything, the "edge" is the speed of light itself.

From my current understanding, the Universe is expanding at a specific rate and as time goes by the rate increases so that it approaches the speed of light. So it seems that when scientists talk about the expansion rate of the Universe they are speaking about matter. Does this mean that the Universe itself is where all matter currently belongs? If this is true then energy must able to go further than any matter has been because energy can move faster than any matter and consequently "escape" the Universe. That is, of course, only applicable if the Universe is described as the region of matter inside the infinite vacuum beyond it. It would not apply if the Universe is described as "the extent of reality." I suppose it is more of a philosophical problem than a physical one.

rosborne979 wrote:

megamanXplosion wrote:
The second question was: if the M-Brane hypothesis is correct is it fair to say this Universe is isolated? If you, or someone else, could provide an answer I would appreciate it.

First of all, thank you for clarifying the difference between "closed" and "isolated" systems. I think it's a useful distinction.

Regardless of the veracity of M-Brane, or any other hyposthesis regarding the precursor to the Universe, the Universe would still be the epitome of isolation as far as current physics are concerned. Even if we were to quantify a state of being outside of the current universe, all that would happen is that the concept of "Universe" would expand to accept the pre-conditions, and we would be left with a "larger" isolated Universe.

Well my point seems to have been hinged on an unstated premise. From my understanding of M-Brane theory there is more than one Universe and the total extent of all the Universes would be defined as the Multiverse. The Multiverse could be described as an isolated system but each individual Universe, including ours, would be an open system instead of an isolated one.

0 Replies

megamanXplosion wrote:

I highly doubt even Rosborne would agree with that. When Rosborne replied to you earlier (here) (s)he stated the biosphere (Earth) receives energy from the Sun and the Sun releases energy--thus, (s)he indicated that both are open systems. Rosborne seems to be the victim of a careless choice of words (here) than anything else. There is evidence of this in how (s)he laughed (here) when you accused him/her (here) of stating there are no open systems. This indicates that (s)he does think there are open systems. In essence, you have framed your argument on wording semantics than the gist of Rosborne's argument.

Earlier you asked me to name a closed system inside the Universe (here) but I decided to let others answer for me since it seemed so simple of a challenge. Apparently that did not work very well. It seems that you are confused about the differences between an open system, a closed system, and an isolated system. An open system is one where energy and matter can enter and escape. The socks on your feet, the engine in an automobile, the ocean, the Earth, the Sun, the galaxy, etc. are all open systems. A closed system is one where energy can enter and leave but matter cannot. A stopped wine flask, sealed TV dinner, vacuum-packed pickle jar, etc. are all closed systems. An isolated system is one where energy and matter cannot enter or leave. There are no such things as isolated systems and they are nothing more than idealized constructs. Even an asteroid a trillion miles away from any object cannot be an isolated system because it would be absorbing energy from the cosmic background radiation.

Name a naturally occurring 'closed system' using your definition.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

megamanXplosion wrote:
I highly doubt even Rosborne would agree with that. When Rosborne replied to you earlier (here) (s)he stated the biosphere (Earth) receives energy from the Sun and the Sun releases energy--thus, (s)he indicated that both are open systems. Rosborne seems to be the victim of a careless choice of words (here) than anything else. There is evidence of this in how (s)he laughed (here) when you accused him/her (here) of stating there are no open systems. This indicates that (s)he does think there are open systems. In essence, you have framed your argument on wording semantics than the gist of Rosborne's argument.

Earlier you asked me to name a closed system inside the Universe (here) but I decided to let others answer for me since it seemed so simple of a challenge. Apparently that did not work very well. It seems that you are confused about the differences between an open system, a closed system, and an isolated system. An open system is one where energy and matter can enter and escape. The socks on your feet, the engine in an automobile, the ocean, the Earth, the Sun, the galaxy, etc. are all open systems. A closed system is one where energy can enter and leave but matter cannot. A stopped wine flask, sealed TV dinner, vacuum-packed pickle jar, etc. are all closed systems. An isolated system is one where energy and matter cannot enter or leave. There are no such things as isolated systems and they are nothing more than idealized constructs. Even an asteroid a trillion miles away from any object cannot be an isolated system because it would be absorbing energy from the cosmic background radiation.

Name a naturally occurring 'closed system' using your definition.

What do you hope to accomplish by asking this question? It seems like you just wish to be irritating. It does not take much effort to think of one: an asteroid. But I shall stop beating around the bush now...

Evolution and abiogenesis do not contradict the concept of entropy. The chemicals postulated by abiogenesis combined--did "work"--by utilizing a free supply of energy. Energy is never used 100% efficiently so there is an increase in entropy. This is why perpetual motion machines cannot exist. While the chemicals combined and created a local decrease in entropy the overall entropy of the system (the Universe) increased. The energy provided to do "work" in relation to abiogenesis comes from lightning strikes. Those chemicals can continue to combine in whatever way they did by utilizing energy and thusly increasing the overall entropy of the Universe. Now let's jump forward to plants and animals and evolution. Life forms do "work" by utilizing energy supplied from an outside source--the Sun. The Sun has nuclear reactions that release energy. The nuclear reaction process wastes energy, some of the released energy goes to the vacuum of space where it serves no purpose and that energy is wasted. The Sun is constantly increasing the entropy of the Universe. Only a small amount of the energy released by the Sun reaches Earth. Plants on Earth use this little amount of energy to grow, create sugars, create seeds, etc. Energy is wasted in this process too so the entropy of the Universe increases. Animals eat the plants and animals eat eachother and use that energy to do "work" like having offspring. Again, energy is wasted and the entropy of the Universe increases.

Creationists tend to use the entropy argument by applying it directly to life forms. This is a misapplication of the concept. Entropy applies directly only to isolated systems that have no free supply of energy, like the Universe. Open systems, such as life forms, are only affected by entropy indirectly. The free supply of energy in open systems allows them to locally counteract entropy. It is only when the free supply of energy begins to cease, and thusly they convert from open systems to isolated systems, that entropy takes it toll. Life, under ideal situations, could continue to survive and evolve until the supply of energy is cut off, like when the Universe does it's show-stopping "big freeze." There is no contradiction amongst abiogenesis, evolution, and thermodynamics. A contradiction only arises when the interpretation of entropy is wrong. The entropy-against-evolution argument is nothing more than a bunch of creationist baloney.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics