Creationism is false

real life wrote:

I agree that no natural system on Earth is isolated from the rest.

That is why I maintain that the commonly used evolutionary interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as ONLY applying to 'isolated' systems is false.

Pte Darkness wrote:

The way I saw it was that Entropy is the tendency of an isolated energy system to run down; systems go from a higher to a lower state of order. Evolution promotes that organisms move from a lesser state of organization to a higher state, or up hill (microbes to man) and therefore is diametrically opposed to, and breaks this Second Law of Thermodynamics.
However, with outside forces acting upon everything, the second law would only apply to systems fundamentally isolated from all other systems. As was said, there are many uncountable subsystems working on every other system and subsystem so pure isolation is not possible, (Unless looked upon as the universe being one whole system) therefore evolution and the second law of thermodynamics do not correlate.
If there was ever a way to fully isolate a system, things would digress, become more basic and simple. Since this is not possible, evolution remains a plausible theory which has yet to run into any brickwalls, if you will.

If there are no isolated natural systems, then the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to nothing?

0 Replies

I wouldn't go so far as to say it applies to nothing. I would say, in my opinion of course, that the second law applies in an ideal situation. Almost like a theory, which some physics is based upon. However, it is also true for the most part. Eliminate as much of the outside interference as possible, and the second law applies as much as it can. Basically, it won't apply as directly as the definition states, but with more isolation than the alternative, it does apply to an extent.

0 Replies

Pte Darkness wrote:

I wouldn't go so far as to say it applies to nothing. I would say, in my opinion of course, that the second law applies in an ideal situation. Almost like a theory, which some physics is based upon. However, it is also true for the most part. Eliminate as much of the outside interference as possible, and the second law applies as much as it can. Basically, it won't apply as directly as the definition states, but with more isolation than the alternative, it does apply to an extent.

Well, when you are finished beating around the bush, simply admit that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to all systems. Smile

0 Replies

lol Well, let's put it this way. It has the ability to, and does effect all systems, but many times it only affects the system so remotely, it's like it doesn't affect it at all.
In order for the 2nd law of thermodynamics to really work true has to be on nonliving totally isolated systems.
Since neither of those ring true inside this universe in relation to evolution... Evolution 0 :: Creationism 0. Neither have been proved or disprove at this point; both are still plausible after that first quote by yourself. Correct? Smile

0 Replies

Not really. Living organisms are simply complex chemical reactions and the line of distinction between living and nonliving is a dubious one, unless you want to get into discussions on soul or spirit.

Therefore, the 2nd Law applies to 'living systems' as well as 'nonliving'.

And even if this weren't so, the 2nd Law is a huge barrier to abiogenesis, since the 'chemical soup' from which the first living critter supposedly emerged was definitely all nonliving stuff, agreed?

Evolution has a long way to go to make a plausible case in light of the 2nd Law.

Extraordinarily complex, information-based, interdependent systems just don't assemble themselves.

0 Replies

Given theoretically perfect circumstances - which, of course, exist only in theory - in a theoretically perfect closed system wholly isolated from external influence, the 2nd Law will pertain with theoretical exactitude; with no net change of energy quantity (positive or negative) from external source, a given quantity of energy will disperse within its environment until such time as equilibrium - totally even, homogenous distribution of that quantity of energy within its environment - is reached. Even in theory, however, the OVERALL QUANTITY of energy doesn't go anywhere in relation to its environment, it does not leave the environment, it does not increase, nor does it decrease; it still is there, that same, original quantity of energy, neither more of it nor less, its just distributed differently within its environment than it was at the start of the process.

Now, lets move into the real world - or universe. The first thing we notice is that we do not find theoretically perfect circumstances. That pretty much means, that for theoretical exactitude, the game's over. In the real world/universe, myriad influences impinge on any system within the real world/universe - no escaping that. Another thing we have to deal with is that energy and matter fundamentally are the same thing - e=Mc² and all that, remember. Matter is an arrangement, a configuration, of energy; same thing, just stacked different.

So, what does that mean in terms of the 2nd Law? It means that, while on its way to equilibrium, energy is acted upon, is subject to all sorts of influence, its trip to equilibrium is retarded here, accellerated there, never unaffected anywhere - effects which by their interactions with one another themselves have further effect on that trip to equilibrium. While there may be no overall net energy gain or loss, the distribution of energy is anything but unimpeded on its way to equilibrium. The 4 Fundamental Forces - Electromagnetic, Weak, Strong, and Gravity - are there, and they're working the way they work, just as the 2nd Law works the way it works; it all works together.

Further, these perturbations multiply and intensify as they interact with one another. The result is relatively smaller discrete areas of intense - denser - energy concentration, and relatively larger areas of less intense - less dense - energy concentration. Think stars and galaxies, and think "Empty Space", which really isn't empty at all, its energy is just very much less dense than in concentration areas. The 2nd law is hard at work, but so are all those other factors, from gravity right on down to molecular chemistry and into the realm of sub-atomic interactions. In the real world/universe, while overall entropy may neither increase nor decrease, localized circumstances of vastly differing energy states are mandated.

What does this mean in terms of the application of the 2nd Law to evolution? It means that in the real world/universe the 2nd law drives evolution - evolution of stars and solar systems, of star systems and of galaxies and of galaxy clusters and of everything within them and around them. It also means there should be observable Cosmic Background Radiation, the echo of the Big Bang, an overall very much less energy-dense, very nearly (but not theoretically perfect) homogenous energy level showing that overall, energy is seeking equilibrium, subject, of course, to all the other forces at work in the real world/universe. We do see just that, and with increasing precision the better our technology becomes.

Now factor in the expansion of space ... arguably, expansion implies spontaneous change in energy state; the expansion of space itself is a net input to - influence upon - the overall quantity of energy within the universe. Whole new ballgame.

Now, what does all of that mean for the Creationist/ID-iot take on the 2nd Law? It means they have no idea what they're talking about - the 2nd Law is there, its real, it works, it works just the way its supposed to, and the Creationists/ID-iots have nowhere to go with that dodge either.

0 Replies

Nice, Timber.

But I am a layman, so I'll have to read it twice, and then there will still be things I don't get. But I think I get the gist of what you're saying.

Another thought that's entered my mind is that creationists project their ignorance of science onto scientific theory. Their ignorance becomes the fallacy of science in their eyes.

But the same is true of those who heed science only. Their ignorance of religion becomes the fallacy of religion in their eyes.

But I think that most of us here are not so extreme in our views, since we can recognize the fact that science and religion have never been in direct conflict. They are merely hammers humans wield against eachother.

0 Replies

timber, the 2nd Law does not drive evolution.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

timber, the 2nd Law does not drive evolution.

Your denial of or failure to recognize and acknowledge the fact notwithstanding, rl, by real science, by that which we have observed and confirmed, Yes it does - without it, neither energy nor matter would be distributed as we observe and confirm them to be. Were energy and matter not distributed as we observe and confirm them to be, we would not be here to observe and confirm that evolution, in all its permutations, is responible for the universe the properties of which we to this point have observed and confirmed.

A Christianist Takes on the 2nd Law.

Quite simply, rl, the proposition you forward - and which proposition you forward in manner no less inept and intellectually bankrupt than is typical of that proposition's proponents and adherents as a demographic - is at once bad science and bad theology.

0 Replies

And yet rl is right in the statement you quoted.

The 2nd law doesn't drive anything. It is a description of an aspect of evolution. :wink:

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

And yet rl is right in the statement you quoted.

The 2nd law doesn't drive anything. It is a description of an aspect of evolution. :wink:

I can accept that, Cyracuz - perhaps more precise would have been had I said "By itself, individually, the effect described by the 2nd Law is a necessary, indivisible, critically functional component of the conjoined, mutually interoperative, symbiotic forces and factors which drive evolution." Laughing

0 Replies

That hits the nail so the walls reverberate Smile

0 Replies

The reason that evolutionists often attempt to interpret the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as only applying to 'isolated' or 'closed' systems is because if it applies to everything then it is a huge barrier to evolution, not a driver of evolution.

As far as evolution is concerned, the 2nd Law takes things in the wrong direction.

The 2nd Law applies to all systems, and that is very bad news for evolution.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The reason that evolutionists often attempt to interpret the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as only applying to 'isolated' or 'closed' systems is because if it applies to everything then it is a huge barrier to evolution, not a driver of evolution.

It's not a barrier to evolution. Only your mistreatment of the theory is a barrier.

real life wrote:

As far as evolution is concerned, the 2nd Law takes things in the wrong direction.

No it doesn't.

Biological evolution happened on Earth. The Earth gets energy from the Sun. Lots of energy to work with.

real life wrote:

The 2nd Law applies to all systems, and that is very bad news for evolution.

Yeh, and gravity applies to all systems, and that's very bad news for anything which wants to get off the ground. Like birds and bugs and dandelion seeds and rockets and balloons and clouds etc.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The reason that evolutionists often attempt to interpret the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as only applying to 'isolated' or 'closed' systems is because if it applies to everything then it is a huge barrier to evolution, not a driver of evolution.
Quote:

My earlier post and its accompanying documentation demonstrate the absurdity of that particular Creationist/ID-iot ploy.

[quute]As far as evolution is concerned, the 2nd Law takes things in the wrong direction.

The 2nd Law applies to all systems, and that is very bad news for evolution.

That statement demonstrates functional ignorance of the properties and parameters of the 2nd law, and of science in general. What may be expected next is that the religionist forwardin such claim - typically that religionist will be a Funadmentalist Christian - will respond with a cascade of wingnut pseudoscience, claptrap flogged through Creationist/ID-iot websites and literature, available nowhere else and most pointedly not to be found in pertinent independent, academically, scientifically and or professionally accreddited journals.

These manufactured talking points - for that largely is what they are - often are catalogued by their sources as "Answers to Evolutionists", and suggested as counters to scierntific and academic refutation of the Creationist/ID-iot proposition. Largely, when seen in full context, withj preamble, prologue, and endnotes, they amount to screed-filled tracts. A notable feature of such websites and literature is that the responsible principals only very most rarely, if ever, have relevant credentials and accreditted standing in the life, earth, or cosmologic sciences. Furthermore, no support for the contentions and objections offered therein is to be found, or even referenced, in legitimate, independent professional, scientific, or academic journals or other literature of legitimate scientific, academic, or professional pedigree. Quite simply and plainly, "Science" doesn't work the way Creatinists/ID-iots claim it does.

Such actual science as they may reference will be misapplied, misrepresenteted, even outright mis-stated, and will be couched in manner to lend the appearance "Science" validates this or that specious proposition, where in point of fact at the very least, "Science" does no such thing, and in many instances, what "Science" in full context and proper application actually demonstrates is that the Creationist/ID-iot proposition and the Creationist/ID-iot employment of twisted, tortured, quote-mined extracts from "Science" and/or outlandish, blatantly sophistic iterpolations/interpretations thereon, not only are absurd but fundamentally and foundationally are dishonest.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:
The reason that evolutionists often attempt to interpret the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as only applying to 'isolated' or 'closed' systems is because if it applies to everything then it is a huge barrier to evolution, not a driver of evolution.

My earlier post and its accompanying documentation demonstrate the absurdity of that

Your earlier post was an admission that the 2nd Law applies to all systems, as I had stated, and as evolutionists often attempt to deny, including you http://www.able2know.com/forums/a2k-post1931610.html&highlight=closed+systems#1931610

Since you were not any longer able to deny the obvious, you did a 180 and attempted to assert that the 2nd Law is the driver of evolution, an equally ridiculous claim.

That's about all that comprised your earlier post.

You can't seem to make up your mind if the 2nd Law is the driver of evolution...........

..................or not applicable because the Earth is an 'open system'.

But either way, you faithfully conclude that with or without the 2nd Law, a presupposition of evolution must reign, regardless.

You're quite the switch hitter, and your willingness to play both sides against the middle effectively denies falsifiability to your evolutionary position, which makes it a position of faith, not science. Uh oh.

0 Replies

RL - Don't poster yourself as being curious. The second law of thermo discussion has come and gone. Do you wish for me to take us there again? I'm only going to type up this kind of thing for you so many times.

Creationists often misquote and miseducate other creationists on the second law.

And since I'm here. If creationists are so in love with the fossil record evidence, then how come the fossil record of humans is much more shallow (therefore newer) than the dinosaurs, and other early life?

We were all made right? Created? Designed? Answer me this, Why do look the ay we do? What is the purpose? Why is there different races?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

The second law of thermo discussion has come and gone. Do you wish for me to take us there again?

Be my guest. Are you here to restate that the 2nd Law applies to all systems?

0 Replies

The second law as told to "real life" high school janitors.

The Second law is omposd of two statements:

1) The Kelvin-Planck Statement
------
There is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work

2) The Clausius Statement
------
A cycle operating between two themal resiviors will produce some net amount of work.

Combined these two statements form the second law.

Why some people say that the 2nd law only applies to closd systems is because the conservation of mass for a cycle is the same as it is for a closed system. However, individual components of a cycle are either Steady-state-steady-flow (SSSF) or uniform-state-uniform-flow (USUF), both of which are examples of open systems. The second law is always in effect in open sysems, it is just not observable in the same way as the systems in a cycle.

The Universe having a finite amount of mass, but having a fluxuating spacial dimention is still a closed system. Confining vision to earth is like looking for the second law as it applies to a single compressor in heat engine.

The creationist use of the Entropy/chaos/lesser and greater beings

Stephen Hawking described this using time as an entropy base. For example, when time moves in a forward direction and one, say, breaks a cup of coffee on the floor, no matter what happens, in our universe, one will never see the cup reform. Cups are breaking all the time, but never reforming. Since the Big Bang, the entropy of the universe has been on the rise, and so the Second Law states that this process will continue to increase.

Creationists then take this idea and develop it as simple life-forms such as a bacteria or virus can not evolove into a infiitely more comlex creature such as a human.

THIS IS FALSE.

Such arguement would further suggest that greater beings, would have greater cause to become lesser beings.

In terms of statistical mechanics, the entropy describes the number of the possible microscopic configurations of the system. The statistical definition of entropy is generally thought to be the more fundamental definition, from which all other important properties of entropy follow. Although the concept of entropy was originally a thermodynamic construct, it has been adapted in other fields of study, including information theory, psychodynamics, thermoeconomics, and evolution.

dS = dQ/T <--for entropy

Do you think that in information theory, entropy is the measure of themal energy per unit temperature?

The term "entropy" is terribly misused in discussion about evolution.

A important reminder about chaos, is that chaos is not the absence of pattern, but the presence of all pattern.

As it has been fairly stated, the most likely causes of evolution aren't as mutation but restructuring of the existing genome.

If in the Earth's sake one would say thatin thin ght e last 65,000,000+ years living organisms suchs as virtibrates were retaining the more exergy (useful energy) in time, in our our planets system, yes that would be fair. however let us not forget how much useful energy we have entering our system:

The Sun
Geothermal energy
Chemical energy stored living things

Returning finally to Hawkins' coffee cup example, we must not for get that a coffee cup's geometery is fairly simple. However, it is the act of the cup breaking that creates multiple more unique and more complex geometries. Entropy while it seems to destroy, also makes wake for more complexity, chaos, reorganization.

I'm sure your mop is dry now, I hope you enjoyed.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
real life wrote:
The reason that evolutionists often attempt to interpret the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as only applying to 'isolated' or 'closed' systems is because if it applies to everything then it is a huge barrier to evolution, not a driver of evolution.

My earlier post and its accompanying documentation demonstrate the absurdity of that

Your earlier post was an admission that the 2nd Law applies to all systems, as I had stated, and as evolutionists often attempt to deny, including you http://www.able2know.com/forums/a2k-post1931610.html&highlight=closed+systems#1931610

Poppycock, nonsense, tommyrot, and bullshit. Both of the posts of mine you reference make quite plain that the 2nd Law does not conform to the Creationist/ID-iot characterization of that law. Further, you present a straw man, in that explicitly mentioned and described was that the 2nd law performs to theoretical ideal only given theoretically perfect circumstances, circumstances which pertain only in theory, whereas in the real world, in the real universe, the 2nd Law does as it should, performs as predicted, IN CONJUNCTION WITH AND AS INFLUENCED BY OTHER EXTANT OPERATORS. The distribution of energy throughout the universe follows the 2nd Law, and it follows other laws and conforms to many accepted theories - all in all, behaving precisely as it actually is understood to behave, NOT AS CREATIONSTS/ID-IOTS PURPORT IT TO BEHAVE.

Quote:

Since you were not any longer able to deny the obvious, you did a 180 and attempted to assert that the 2nd Law is the driver of evolution, an equally ridiculous claim.

I've denied nothing, "180"d nothing, rl, and certainly made no ridiculous claim - that practice is the exclusive province of Creationists/ID-iots, as so readilly and plainly your posts demonstrate.

Quote:

That's about all that comprised your earlier post.

Evidently, there was far more to that post than accommodated by your capacity for understanding. Not much surprise to that.

Quote:

You can't seem to make up your mind if the 2nd Law is the driver of evolution...........

..................or not applicable because the Earth is an 'open system'.

Straw man - no such circumstance as is required to sustain your objection obtains elsewhere than in your misconstrual and misrepresentation of what has been said.

Quote:

But either way, you faithfully conclude that with or without the 2nd Law, a presupposition of evolution must reign, regardless.

Straw man - no presupposition is implied or expressly stated. What expressly is stated is that all available evidence supports and confirms evolution, from the cosmic scale all the way down to the subatomic, while there is available no evidence to the contrary, and further that such is the overwhelming consensus of the legitimate, relevantly credential, pertinently work-experienced academic,scientific, and professional communities, as reflected through the entire body of literature attendent thereto and additionally specifically itterated via unambiguous organazational and institutional public statements and declarations to that effect. That is not presupposition, that is statement of evidenced fact.

Quote:

You're quite the switch hitter, and your willingness to play both sides against the middle effectively denies falsifiability to your evolutionary position, which makes it a position of faith, not science. Uh oh.

Again, poppycock, nonsense, tommyrot, and bullshit. I acknowledge, and proceed from, what is known and accepted, I acknowledge what is unknown, making no presumptions predicated thereon, but rather allow imprecision is attendant thereon, and I endorse further discovery and attendent greater precision of understanding. Creationists/ID-iots, however begin with the undemonstrated, therefore wholly, entirely, subjectively, self-fullfillingly presumptive, perforce logically and forensically invalid, hence absurd, proposition that "There must be a designer, therefore there is a designer."

Your proposition is founded in absurdity, an undemonstrated central premise, an unwarranted conclusion, and proceeds therefrom. While science is taken wherever the evidence takes it, drawing conclusions therefrom, adjusting, revising, and refining itself in the process, Creationists/ID-iots strive to take - or to manufacture - such evidence as they believe to be convenient for their proposition and bring it to somewhere near the neighborhood of the irrepairably absurd conclusion from which they begin. That just plain ain't science - that's bullshit.

0 Replies

Creationism is false

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know