Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

As posted by xingu:

Quote:

...However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system...

And USAFHokie80:

Quote:

maybe i missed something... but... how does the 2nd law ONLY apply to closed systems ? i'm not aware of that rule.

And rosborne:

Quote:

It doesn't.

And TheCorrectResponse:

Quote:

The second law of thermodynamics does only apply to closed systems.

And Dr. John Ross, Harvard University:

Quote:

Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.

Who's right?

The confusion occurs because we've all been paraphrasing the actual SLT somewhat inaccurately.

Here's the original definition: "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25]

Here's a common reformation of the original: "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."

The corollary to this would be: "The entropy of an open system can decrease". And in the case of the Earth (which is an open system) and evolution, it DOES decrease. As we can see from the evidence.

rosborne979 wrote:

The confusion occurs because we've all been paraphrasing the actual SLT somewhat inaccurately.

Here's the original definition: "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25]

Here's a common reformation of the original: "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."

Name a naturally occurring closed system.

rosborne979 wrote:

The corollary to this would be: "The entropy of an open system can decrease". And in the case of the Earth (which is an open system) and evolution, it DOES decrease. As we can see from the evidence.

So the entropy of ANY system can decrease , because ALL systems are open (according to YOUR definition, i.e. 'a system that receives energy from outside itself') , right?

And I find NOTHING in ROS's post to argue with. I have no idea from the non context sentence of the guy from Harvard what his point may be, I'll assume ROS's interpretation. "Non context"? I don't particularly see the usefulness in applying the second law to an "open" system because I don't see what usefull information it gives me that I didn't already have, but I basically agree with ROS. There are a few specific areas where I would state things differenty but they would just be taken out of context by the usual suspects so I won't bother.

Which was my point, you want to argue semantics "open", "closed" which YOU of course NEVER define for us. Right - "open" & "closed" are the same - scientifically or semantically speaking. This led me to post the M.I.T. web site which gets away from the inaccuracy of language to the exactness of mathematics. It would seem that if you bothered to look at the web site you, an engineer, should have been able to figure that out for yourself, without the need for a vote. Is that how you were taught to do science, by a show of hands?

The only thing that I would add to ROS's post is that if you include the Sun (the energy source) with the Earth you can define it as a closed system and in that case entropy would increase. Keeping the sun out of the system ROS is correct. Right. IF this happened, then this would happen, however if this happened, then this happens... And, don't hold me to my words, read my mind and we'll be on the same page... :wink:

I don't see where in my examples above ROS and I would be in disagreement, perhapse he does, but he would need to explain that to me.

It's funny, almost to a person the engineers that I have dealt with ALWAYS want to talk in terms of the math, you never seem to want to. I figure it's either because you really can't understand thermodynamics at the technical level or because you have to make science fit into your little born-again world view box or else ridicule standard theory (pretty hard to disprove the math after all)…oh…no wait… that's right…its because this is not the science forum. Exactly. Why do you have such a problem with that concept? Hey I've got an idea! How about we take all of our spiritual and religious thoughts over to the math & science forum and spew ad hominems whenever someone uses math or science to dispute our position?

So now if you want to spin it that I have been disagreeing with the others, feel free, I am quite sure that I was clear enough that they were aware of what I was saying. Right, got it. Open systems and closed systems are the same. I'm clear on your vision of that.
The problem with playing your same game over and over with the same people is that we can recite the words right along with you.

And who would have THOUGHT that RL would be right back at it again, I know I'm shocked. And let me guess: "Youra killin me..."

The only thing that I would add to ROS's post is that if you include the Sun (the energy source) with the Earth you can define it as a closed system and in that case entropy would increase.

BD its kind of funny, you still haven't told us why any of this would be of interest to you because you don't even know if the second law is valid. Remember you dared me to post a link to where you said that and I did. But as usual when put into a corner you slink away to other things. As a matter of fact you were unsure the answer to every question I asked in that post.

But my favorite is when you woke up with a brain fart and declared that science starts with conclusions, not assumptions, but conclusions. Should I post that link so you can ignore it also? Then after about a week of people finding ways to tell you that you were nuts, you moved on to other things. Never said you were wrong, never admitted you were just slinging a load of B.S., nothing.

But then recently in a post titled:
In science, we end with a conclusion. In faith, we start with one.

The post starts with the line:
In science, all the information and evidence is gathered, and then a conclusion is made.

Yet in all your responses to this post you NEVER mention that according to you the entire premise is FALSE. It's exactly the opposite of what you have defended so shrilly before. Why is that?

Could it be that the post went on to state:
In subjects such as God, heaven and, I am sad to say, evolution, people start with a conclusion.

So since that seems to fit into your little dogmatic world everything was OK?

But to end I'll just echo Wilso and ask where is the proof of creationism for which this thread was started. Since you are so pedantic about what can be discussed in specific forums and threads why don't you limit yourself to that mountain of proof you have. We are all waiting and, of course, we will be forever.

Hi ROS:
I was going to edit my previous post but had already posted to BD so I'll just add a short post here in relation to the ability to define boundaries in thermodynamics.

If I have a piece of steel linked to a piece of iron and then heat the steel and then determine which way the heat flows, am I not free to define the boundary of my experiment as the two pieces of metal? The metaphorical "closed" or "isolated" system. Can I then not remove the thermal insolation and add the table that supports the metal if I wish?

I sure hope so or I've confused more than a few students.

Hope that clear up the point I was trying to make.

HMMM Still waiting on that creationism evidence.

Kind of circular reasoning there BD. "Creation happened because some story book deploys 2 versions of same" Thats not evidence, thats hearsay.

Try harder. This has been an ongoing question for RL, you, medved, and a couple of others whose names I forget. Nobody has yet given any evidence re: Cretion and the appearance of life on earth.

You dont have to worry about thermodynamics, Creation "science" violates conservation of mass and energy, and a gazillion other laws of science.