Evolution? How?

There are at least six holes in that theory.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:
Step up to the plate, and defend your proposition my friend.

Who you talkin' to, and what are you talkin' about?

Hi Timber,

You put forth the proposition that the 2nd Law only applies to closed systems, which you defined as those not receiving energy , etc from any external source such as the sun.

I countered that all systems on earth would be disqualified as being subject to entropy under such a definition.

Name one system that would be considered 'closed' under your broad definition and therefore subject to entropy.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hi Timber,

You put forth the proposition that the 2nd Law only applies to closed systems, which you defined as those not receiving energy , etc from any external source such as the sun.

That is correct. Entropy kicks in when net-gain energy input ceases.

Quote:

I countered that all systems on earth would be disqualified as being subject to entropy under such a definition.

That is incorrect; entropy kicks in when net-gain energy input ceases.

Quote:

Name one system that would be considered 'closed' under your broad definition and therefore subject to entropy.

Any system isolated from net-gain energy input.

For a layman's primer on the 2nd Law, refer to the link I provided.

0 Replies

real life, Timber is not "putting forth a proposition". That is part of the DEFINITION of entropy. Anybody that has ever read a college introductory physics textbook would know that. You gonna use the speech, at least know the speech. Any biological system, kind of by the very definition of life, has to have some external energy source, since it doesn't generate the energy itself--that can be sunlight, or the nutrients it needs to continue metabolism.

You want a closed system. Think a man alone in the middle of the sesert. No food, no water. No transportation. No energy source accessible and processable. Death equals entropy at work.

0 Replies

What Timber said.

0 Replies

A good definition of entropy?

The religious fervor of the christians, gradually waning, due to total reliance upon scripture, for which there is no new input, and therefore a closed mental system.

Would that one could speed up the process . . .

0 Replies

Set, Good try. But we all know that isn't enough to discourage the religious fanatics that can't see two feet in front of their eyes. Beyond two feet, it becomes blurry for them - a mental state that will not change till death do they part.

0 Replies

Quote:

he religious fervor of the christians, gradually waning, due to total reliance upon scripture, for which there is no new input, and therefore a closed mental system.

Unfortunately it is a very closed system...as I am noticing more and more about my family. Once again, I hold my position that any kind of legalism is bad.

0 Replies

TR, you are a profound disappointment to me. How am i to heap the coals of contempt upon your devoted pate if you go about making reasonable statements?

You show a distinct lack of consideration . . .

0 Replies

I'm sorry.....I didn't mean to open my mind, honestly.

0 Replies

Quote:
he religious fervor of the christians, gradually waning, due to total reliance upon scripture, for which there is no new input, and therefore a closed mental system.

tr32 wrote:
Unfortunately it is a very closed system...as I am noticing more and more about my family. Once again, I hold my position that any kind of legalism is bad.

I see the same in my siblings; they are all christians, and I find they're locked into the bible even though they have repeatedly been disappointed in many ways. When my sister's husband was alive with Parkinsons and a heart attack, she cared for him and prayed - thinking his health will return from the praying. My siblings also think that our accomplishments were the results of their (our mother's) prayers After many years, her husband passed away. She quit going to church for a couple of years, then returned - to go back to where she started before her husband's death. Once ingrained into religion, it's almost impossible to change.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:
Hi Timber,

You put forth the proposition that the 2nd Law only applies to closed systems, which you defined as those not receiving energy , etc from any external source such as the sun.

That is correct. Entropy kicks in when net-gain energy input ceases.

Quote:
I countered that all systems on earth would be disqualified as being subject to entropy under such a definition.

That is incorrect; entropy kicks in when net-gain energy input ceases.

Quote:
Name one system that would be considered 'closed' under your broad definition and therefore subject to entropy.

Any system isolated from net-gain energy input.

For a layman's primer on the 2nd Law, refer to the link I provided.

So is an area that is hit by an A-bomb subject to entropy since it is experiencing net-gain energy input?

0 Replies

rl, do you specialize in absurdity?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Quote:
Name one system that would be considered 'closed' under your broad definition and therefore subject to entropy.

Any system isolated from net-gain energy input.

For a layman's primer on the 2nd Law, refer to the link I provided.

Timber,

Is there any such system (completely "closed") which exists outside of pure theory? And if so, can you provide an example (I'm just curious because I can't really think of one).

0 Replies

Obviously not--that's the exact opposite of the definition he has provided. You don't seem to understand what is being told you.

0 Replies

timber, I'm surprised at you!~

"rl, do you specialize in absurdity?"

He is abs...., but I admire your patience!

0 Replies

Note: my question to rl re absurdity was merely rhetorical - its answer is demonstrably self-evident.

ros, thats about it in a nutshell; entropy is a tendency, subject to external influence. As with much of physics, it is an absolute only in the strictest theoretical sense, though as a tendency, its effect readilly may be observed, subject, of course, to relational effect imposed by external influence.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

rl, do you specialize in absurdity?

Not at all.

If you don't like the A-bomb example, how about an area that is engulfed in a forest fire? Net-gain energy input, check.

Ok so .....subject to entropy or no?

The point should be obvious to all, as username has alluded to -- energy alone is not enough to overcome entropy. Information is also required to organize the input of the energy in a useful manner. (His 'man in the desert' is a great example -- lotsa energy input, and death , if the energy is not organized by means of information to be usable to him.)

What has this to do with our discussion? Obviously raw chemicals in the early Earth had no means of organizing raw energy into a useful form.

Thus, entropy would prevent them from organizing themselves into ever more increasing complexity and eventually to a living state. The chemicals are subject to entropy and no amount of raw energy is sufficient to negate it.

0 Replies

rl, you get marks for consistency ... as demonstrated - again.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

rl, you get marks for consistency ... as demonstrated - again.

You are too kind, my friend. *bows in oriental fashion*

Laughing

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know