real life wrote:TheCorrectResponse wrote:Closed systems: a light bulb, a tank of oxygen, a beaker of water with a stopper in it, a freaking fertilizer plant. ANYTHING that has a fully defined input, output and process is a closed system. A closed system doesn't mean physically closed off from the universe. You can arbitrarily assume anything as a closed system and analyze it as such as long as you have know I/O and process.
I can understand that not everyone had or could understand graduate level thermodynamics but I would have assumed that, those not from a third world country, took 9th grade science.
Since we are talking about evolution, the discussion is about
naturally occurring closed systems.
Actually, the thread is not about evolution. It's about proof of creationism. But I can see why you'd rather dodge that topic.
Okay, a rock is a closed system, the human body is a closed system. In fact its pretty tuff to chuck that rock without hitting a closed system.
So "Are you smarter than a fifth-grader"...apparently not.
TheCorrectResponse wrote:Okay, a rock is a closed system, the human body is a closed system. In fact its pretty tuff to chuck that rock without hitting a closed system.
So "Are you smarter than a fifth-grader"...apparently not.
I do think you're wrong here.
A rock can heat up when left in the sun...therefore it is not a closed system, outside heat sources have an effect on it's temperature....at least that's how I understand it.
Human body, same thing, not to mention our food sources, waste, etc.
As long as I can determine the energy it absorbs and the energy it loses I can define it as a closed system. Same with the human body. How do you think that they do metabolic studies. But I'm certain that RL will grab onto your comment as a disproof.
You are taking the term in its colloquial sence. It has a specific, well defined, meaning in thermodynamics. You have to get away from the idea of something closed off from the world.
The lightbulb, etc. from my previous example also absorb energy from the environment and emits energ,y more properly, entropy into the system. Doesn't mean I can define them as closed systems. I can then use the equations of thermodynamics to calculate things, and the laws of thermodynamics to predict things.
TheCorrectResponse wrote:As long as I can determine the energy it absorbs and the energy it loses I can define it as a closed system. Same with the human body. How do you think that they do metabolic studies. But I'm certain that RL will grab onto your comment as a disproof.
You are taking the term in its colloquial sence. It has a specific, well defined, meaning in thermodynamics. You have to get away from the idea of something closed off from the world.
The lightbulb, etc. from my previous example also absorb energy from the environment and emits energ,y more properly, entropy into the system. Doesn't mean I can define them as closed systems. I can then use the equations of thermodynamics to calculate things, and the laws of thermodynamics to predict things.
Like I said...I don't know....some of the sites I was reading used the sun's energy as an example of how a system wasn't closed.
For all I know it was some nonsense creationist website...I tried to screen for those, but who knows.
What I do know is that if the 2nd law truly did void out evolution then there are thousands of scientists who would jump on the opportunity to disprove evolution.
So funny...and so how it really is huh? I forwarded this to a few of my buddies.
maporsche wrote:Like I said...I don't know....some of the sites I was reading used the sun's energy as an example of how a system wasn't closed.
For all I know it was some nonsense creationist website...I tried to screen for those, but who knows.
What I do know is that if the 2nd law truly did void out evolution then there are thousands of scientists who would jump on the opportunity to disprove evolution.
Careful guys, RL has you discussing the SLT, rather than providing you with any evidence for "Creationism". He always does this. If he didn't, I would suspect that someone had tied him up in a corner and taken his place at his computer.
map:
Yes, the line goes something like this. The evolution of simple to complex disproves evolution because you go from disorder to order rather than the reverse in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The problem is they don't define their system boundaries correctly. They are never talking about a closed system.The argument started at the level of the cell and moved out as it could be shown theormodynamics was rigth. The totality that must be taken into account is the Sun-Earth system. As you noted the sun provides the energy to the system. It is pretty hard to do energy balance equations when you neglect the energy source. So the argument moved there and went something like this...
The sun is this BIG cauldron of disorder it sends energy to the Earth and it is used to the point of creating complex creatures such as us. This means more order -- humans, not less, the chaotic sun.
The proper description is quite different. Stars are actually the nucleuses of ORDER in the universe. A star, we'll use our sun, sends out relatively few, very high energy particles into space. The Earth intercepts some of these; it uses them to create rain, grow plants, and grow people. It then sends back out into a relatively huge amount of relatively very low energy particles (heat), so disorder does increase overall.
As long as you define the subsystems properly you can take this down to the level of the cell and not get a contradiction. The latest version is that since both Sun and Earth are in space they are not a closed system.
You are never going to go around and say, hey, there is a closed system. I can always add something to what you are calling a closed system to make it an open system. It's not a thing it is a concept. The concept could be talking about a physical thing, your car tire, or group of chemical retorts.
When you get down to it science isn't based in pros it is a math based. So for something like this, I, like one of the other responders finally say. Here are the equations show me where there wrong. Here is an analysis of the system using those calculations, show me where its wrong.
Thanks Ros, I am embarrassed for posting on this thread. I hate these kinds of threads. I should have known better. I have sinned.
TheCorrectResponse wrote:Thanks Ros, I am embarrassed for posting on this thread. I hate these kinds of threads. I should have known better. I have sinned.
I like your posts. Don't worry about it
Just remember, if you're trying to catch an octopus, don't get distracted by the could of ink when they dart away
Boy that was a whoopass piece of humble pie. I let RL get me. If I ever fall into spendi's game I hope one of you nice A2K'ers will have the decency to just shoot me!
14 pages and all I've seen from the creationists is the normal circular crap they always spew out. Nothing even remotely resembling evidence. It's hardly surprising given the standard of the deluded nut jobs believing in poofism.
TheCorrectResponse wrote:Boy that was a whoopass piece of humble pie. I let RL get me. If I ever fall into spendi's game I hope one of you nice A2K'ers will have the decency to just shoot me!
Ha, me too
At least if you chase RL you get a merry chase. A Spendi post isn't worth the effort it takes to move your eyeballs from left to right.
kickycan wrote:real life wrote:Well, truly, evolution is little more than a hypothesis now, even though it is widely regarded as a theory, and often referred to as a fact.
But evolution has never been observed, cannot be falsified, nor tested or repeated and is not the only possible explanation for the question it addresses.
Which of course leads to the only other viable option: A man in the sky made everything out of nothing in seven days. Silly evolutionists!
When I use a response like 'The mathematical odds against complex organs and interdependent biological systems generating themselves from squat make evolution an impossibility' --
--- then I get accused of using 'an argument from incredulity'.
Isn't your reply the same? 'Creation can't have happened because nobody's ever seen God.'
kickycan wrote:real life wrote:TheCorrectResponse wrote:Closed systems: a light bulb, a tank of oxygen, a beaker of water with a stopper in it, a freaking fertilizer plant. ANYTHING that has a fully defined input, output and process is a closed system. A closed system doesn't mean physically closed off from the universe. You can arbitrarily assume anything as a closed system and analyze it as such as long as you have know I/O and process.
I can understand that not everyone had or could understand graduate level thermodynamics but I would have assumed that, those not from a third world country, took 9th grade science.
Since we are talking about evolution, the discussion is about
naturally occurring closed systems.
Actually, the thread is not about evolution. It's about proof of creationism. But I can see why you'd rather dodge that topic.
Blame it on maporsche.
He posted here in the creation thread an answer to a question I had asked in the evolution thread.
real life wrote:kickycan wrote:real life wrote:Well, truly, evolution is little more than a hypothesis now, even though it is widely regarded as a theory, and often referred to as a fact.
But evolution has never been observed, cannot be falsified, nor tested or repeated and is not the only possible explanation for the question it addresses.
Which of course leads to the only other viable option: A man in the sky made everything out of nothing in seven days. Silly evolutionists!
When I use a response like 'The mathematical odds against complex organs and interdependent biological systems generating themselves from squat make evolution an impossibility' --
--- then I get accused of using 'an argument from incredulity'.
Isn't your reply the same? 'Creation can't have happened because nobody's ever seen God.'
It is an argument from incredulity RL, unless......
Please provide the math that you used to support your statement. Inability to provide the math would point to your incredulity.
real life wrote: When I use a response like 'The mathematical odds against complex organs and interdependent biological systems generating themselves from squat make evolution an impossibility' --
--- then I get accused of using 'an argument from incredulity'.
Not by me. I would accuse you of implicitly assuming that neo-Darwinian evolution is a random process. The contrary is true: it's a supremely non-random process. Indeed, it's the only known mechanism under which the emergence of complex biological organisms is
not prohibitively improbable.
Your explanation, "god did it", does not explain anything, because it creates a greater mystery than it solves: how did god come to exist?
maporsche wrote:TheCorrectResponse wrote:As long as I can determine the energy it absorbs and the energy it loses I can define it as a closed system. Same with the human body. How do you think that they do metabolic studies. But I'm certain that RL will grab onto your comment as a disproof.
You are taking the term in its colloquial sence. It has a specific, well defined, meaning in thermodynamics. You have to get away from the idea of something closed off from the world.
The lightbulb, etc. from my previous example also absorb energy from the environment and emits energ,y more properly, entropy into the system. Doesn't mean I can define them as closed systems. I can then use the equations of thermodynamics to calculate things, and the laws of thermodynamics to predict things.
Like I said...I don't know....some of the sites I was reading used the sun's energy as an example of how a system wasn't closed.
For all I know it was some nonsense creationist website...I tried to screen for those, but who knows.
from
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
Quote:the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
from
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441
Quote:
However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system - one that does not have anything going in or out of it.
from
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/2nd_law_of_thermodynamics_prohibits_evolution
Quote:
The smallest non-artificial thermodynamically closed system in the universe, is the universe itself. The 2nd law does not apply to mere subsets of it.
from
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/rmind1.html
Quote:
the second law of thermodynamics applies to a "closed system," that is, to a system that does not gain energy from without or lose energy to the outside. The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole.
Yup. These sound like some wily creationists. Beware.
Thomas wrote:real life wrote: When I use a response like 'The mathematical odds against complex organs and interdependent biological systems generating themselves from squat make evolution an impossibility' --
--- then I get accused of using 'an argument from incredulity'.
Not by me. I would accuse you of implicitly assuming that neo-Darwinian evolution is a random process. The contrary is true: it's a supremely non-random process. Indeed, it's the only known mechanism under which the emergence of complex biological organisms is
not prohibitively improbable.
Your explanation, "god did it", does not explain anything, because it creates a greater mystery than it solves: how did god come to exist?
How did matter/energy come to exist?
How did scientific law come to exist?
Do you think that a purely naturalistic viewpoint does not create a greater mystery than it solves? Think again.
