Creationist Lies
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- discipler0
Kuz, how does that in any way explain that fact that the second law communicates a universal loss in usable energy over time and the impact this truth has on Macroevolution???
The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process:
1. by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and
2. by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)
Entropy is a measure of :
1. the amount of energy unavailable for work within a system or process, and/or 2. the probability of distribution or randomness [disorder] within a system.
"The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”
The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.
Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.
The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.
But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist)]So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?
The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
1. A “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. A mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.
Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).
While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.
In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe. "
- ********0
Now don't you feel stupid? I hope you and your websites will just just shut the fuck up... WATCH!
it is fallacious to view the second law as a predictor of disorder. The second law concerns energy, not patterns of objects. The second law states that energy tends not to be restricted to one or a few energy levels in atoms and molecules, but to be dispersed to as many such levels as possible – rephrased in homely terms involving molecules, "Intense or concentrated energy tends to spread out and diffuse".
In that spreading-out process, macro objects sometimes are displaced and moved to random arrangements that humans subjectively define as "disorder". A violent wind not only can break a window in a building and blow the papers in an office all over a square mile, but also destroy the building itself. However, this is an incidental consequence of dispersing and spreading out of the energy in a tornado, not an event that is due to the innate nature or behavior of inanimate objects themselves in the absence of such an energy flow. Moving common objects around so they fall in disorder is a singular and accidental aspect of the universal tendency of energy to diffuse, not the general thrust or meaning or requirement of the second law that applies to objects.
- ********0
Coming soon to a theater near you:
Creationist Lies: The Movie
- ********0
BUT THAT'S JUST IT DICKIPLER!
The second law is not about universal loss of usable energy over time!!!!!
omg! that is a fundamental miswording/deliberate lie of creationists website!
listen again...
the second law is a tendency, not an instantly effected edict. Its predictions might not come true for millions or billions of years. These kinds of delay are due to the second law being obstructed and hindered by what chemists call "activation energies". All the biochemicals in our bodies except inorganic substances are protected and kept from oxidation or other disastrous reaction by activation energies. Almost all the materials from which our orderly prized artifacts are made are similarly kept from rapid oxidation in air. The second law is a powerful generality, but it is often blocked (to our human advantage) in chemical substances, chemical reactions, and physical events in everyday life.
see???
- ********0
omg good discipler, the simple fact that you posted all that nonsense that i JUST ANSWERED, proves to me you are not reading a SINGLE WORD of what i'm posting.
You tell me to go to your crazy christian sites but can't even read what i post... pah.. you're the reason we go in circles
- ********0
i'll say this slowly....
the spontaneous formation of millions of far more complex compounds than their elements is energetically favored by the second law. This is true whether the new molecule is more or less complicated than its starting materials because the second law is concerned only with energy. All other requirements or consequences are not within the purview of the law.
- discipler0
Kuz, you are simply repackaging the old "open/closed system" argument! That's all your data is communicating - I've read it thoroughly. It's just not using the terms: open and closed systems. What you're saying is bunk.
- ********0
ok now i have to go home again...
you ain't gonna read this, but for those who are getting seduced by disicplers lies and smokescreens
The "automatic" formation of complicated, orderly substances both spontaneously and non-spontaneously is simply the consequence of normal chemical laws and the second law of thermodynamics. (The intense energy sources in space make possible non-spontaneous synthesis there.)
- ********0
I've read it thoroughly. It's just not using the terms: open and closed systems. What you're saying is bunk.
discipler
(Jun 15 05, 09:23)oh my god. May your god have mercy on your soul. I thought it was a sin to lie, but apparently not.
I never once mentioned open/closed system. Mayne the devil have mercy on your soul!youch!
*out
- discipler0
"the “generalized 2nd law” applies the same entropy principle to information systems in such a way that, left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began (again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case informational entropy), and likewise, applied to Statistics, left to itself over time, the order or regularity of a system will be less than when it began (and again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case statistical entropy)."
The vital point to be grasped here is that the presence of a system (whether organizational or mechanical) hardly guarantees continuous enhancement, but more realistically is subject to continual degradation, if it is not kept to the pre-determined standard defined in its original design. Evolutionistic thinking often ignores this principle, despite the fact that it is a profoundly and empirically established scientific fact.
Law. Not a theory. Law.
- discipler0
If I could summarize this in a couple of sentences:
1. Evolution would have things getting more refined and organized over time.
2. A confirmed Scientific Law States the opposite. Things degrade over time. A loss of energy resulting in decay. For both open and closed systems.
- mrdobolina0
Discipler, what are you trying to accomplish here?
- discipler0
Why not ask Kuz/Kes that same question, mrdobs.
I was responding to him.
- Mimio0
Discipler, what Kuz is saying is that there's enough energy to fuel life processes. Energy itself creates the complexity in systems, and different systems use energy it more efficiently than others.
- discipler0
I understand what his quotes are saying, mimio. Energy as the fuel for life processes does not account for the fact that universally, energy is depleted over time and that matter degrades as the result, both on a large and small scale. I think it's important to note also that energy does not spontaneously generate, there must be causal factor.
- ********0
There's also some current thinking that the laws that we consider "universal" might actually change over vast differences of time. So the fundamental laws of the universe (speed of light, decay, weak gravitational force, etc) might have had different values in he past and may continue to change into the future...
- Mimio0
What does a causal factor have to do with this? We're talking about a systems ability to achieve & sustain equilibrium with it's input energy. We're talking about the spontaneous decrease of entropy in a system.
By the way Discipler, now is a good time to point out how your own view of creationsim(ID) is in direct conflict with this law. And inevitably this where you get off the train into pseudo-science world and claim magic is the answer.
- ********0
Mimio he has psuedo science support. You cannot win...we can just be louder...which of course doesn't look good
- ********0
There's also some current thinking that the laws that we consider "universal" might actually change over vast differences of time. So the fundamental laws of the universe (speed of light, decay, weak gravitational force, etc) might have had different values in he past and may continue to change into the future...
TheTick
(Jun 15 05, 10:21)I've never heard that. There is big G and little g. Gravity on this planet and others is little g and Universal Gravity big G. Obviously, same goes for temperature and pressure on other planets and space.
That debunks the Theory of Uniformitarianism
- ********0
Yeah JazX - Discover or one of those other scientific mags had a whole article on this idea in the last month or so..also a british scientist suggested it ..crap..what was his name..Sheldrake!! Something Sheldrake proposed the idea and he got weird looks..of course he was also trying to bring some lamarkian concepts back into evolutionary theory. An interesting guy...