Second Law of Thermodynamics

Metaverseguy
Metaverseguy: Well, I was at the library today (no surprise) looking for a book to write a report on when I perused through a few others nearby and of course there was some on creationism vs. science.

One argument I have not heard is by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I also recently heard about the watchmaker argument and that is a very lovely one that has also been refuted. Anyways, it goes as follows:

"The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."

The argument states that because of the 2nd law things invariably progress from order to disorder and evolution does not follow this law.

Try and refute it yourself or type into google and you'll find the response (talkorigins.org is a good resource).

I nearly borrowed another book by daniel dennett, but have become so fucking tired of the subject I couldn't careless where we came from whether it was star dust or a horse's ass.
11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: The Second Law argument against Evolution is one of the stupidest arguments ever concocted by nut-jobs trying desperately to twist the laws of physics to prove their ridiculous notions.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to one thing, and one thing only.... which is Thermodynamics. You can't apply it to Particle Physics or Chemistry or Biology, any more than you can apply Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to a speeding automobile.

Here is just a few examples ----

Fact - All the elements known in the Universe can be created spontaneously from the simplest element... Hydrogen. Hydrogen collapses into a star... the star explodes... all the more complex elements are created in that explosion.... PERIOD.
If you can tell me how the Second Law of Thermodynamics somehow refutes this or has any relevance whatsoever, I would be glad to hear it.

Fact - Because of the affinity of Carbon to bond with other elements to form long and complex strings and molecules, Organic Chemistry happens all by itself... a simple Carbon atom doesn't like to stay that way, and all kinds of insanely complex configurations of Carbon-based molecules happen all by themselves.
If you can tell me how the Second Law of Thermodynamics somehow refutes this or has any relevance whatsoever, I would be glad to hear it.

------------
But if we want to play the game of twisting around the laws of physics, and miss-matching different areas of physics to prove some insane hypothesis.....
..... then I will gladly show you how I can use Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and how it relates to the observation of the movement of an electron, apply it to a speeding automobile, and PROVE that a Police-Radar Gun is a physical impossibility.
(Edited by Corwin)
11 years ago Report
4
Metaverseguy
Metaverseguy: You should also check out some of the videos by Kirk Cameron talking about how once he thought about life, outside of school, he came up with Christianity being perfectly correct. He was the child actor turned out-of-work adult who got a role in the Left Behind movies.

I saw a debate with him and actually both sides were pathetic, but he used an interesting argument. He tried to refute evolution by saying we don't have crockoducks therefore the idea of humans evolving is stupid. It's a logical fallacy called argumentum ad absurdum. A crockoduck has nothing to do with evolution because it's a hybrid between a crocodile and a duck and evolution is not a hybrid between 2 species.
11 years ago Report
1
Geoff
Geoff: The real question is "Is the universe a closed system?"

I've debated this argument. My only problem is a personal distaste of the universe ending up a lukewarm soup. I recognise that universe doesn't give a toss as my opinion, but I do consider it wasteful.
11 years ago Report
0
Metaverseguy
Metaverseguy: Do you mean closed like not expanding? I don't understand.
11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: Kirk Cameron also argued that evolution is impossible because orangutans don't get family-discount-rates on airline tickets.... and because orangutans don't know proper table-manners...

Kirk Cameron also stated, "The Wright Bros. flyer is a lot like a Boeing 747 in many ways... it has wings, and an engine... but are we to say that the Boeing 747 'Evolved' from the Wright Bros. flyer???..... of COURSE not!!"

Kirk Cameron obviously has no clue as to what the word "Evolution" means.
(Edited by Corwin)
11 years ago Report
3
Geoff
Geoff: "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease" - Is the universe a closed system?

More to the point, is gravity (as outlined by General Relativity) covered by the laws of thermodynamics? Bearing in mind that the laws of thermodynamics were initially drawn up to explain the power flow within steam engines.
11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: Yes.... and let's keep it there, shall we?
11 years ago Report
1
CoIin
CoIin: A Wireclub thread must be a closed system because entropy ALWAYS increases
11 years ago Report
1
DawnGurl
DawnGurl: My style of cooking has been used as an object lesson on entropy by several physics professors. One look at the kitchen after a cooked meal answers any and all questions on order to disorder to bathroom runs.
11 years ago Report
2
DawnGurl
DawnGurl: By the way Corvin: how DARE you summon forth scientific facts in an otherwise freewheeling say whatever you think is true format? Are you losing your grip on non reality?
11 years ago Report
1
Corwin
Corwin: Perhaps I need to adjust my meds.

Ah yes..... I see the non-reality much more clearly now.
11 years ago Report
1
Metaverseguy
Metaverseguy: I was just browsing through the trillions of articles on the internet and stepped upon William J Sidis' book The Animate and The Inanimate. This is the original book where this theory was proposed. He is the child prodigy who graduated from a difficult university cum laude at 16.

Here's an excerpt:
"Sidis theorized that inanimate (dead) objects follow the second law, while animate (living) things reverse the law, and draw on a ‘reserve fund’ of energy to mold the universe to their will. Life provided the reversal of entropy that Sidis' theory required. William's theory remains highly speculative; there is no reason to believe that a reverse universe exists. Also, biological processes are no longer the mystery they were at the time of his writing. But while working on this problem, Sidis came up with other conclusions that are interesting to this day."

He also imagined a black hole in this book about 15 years before the first known author in 1939. Pretty interesting. He actually did not believe the big bang theory to be true.
11 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: You should get the Daniel Dennett book you mentioned in your opening post. Dennett is The Man

Another dude to watch out for is Massimo Pigliucci. He's sharp as a knife, writes great books, and also debunks Creationist nonsense in his spare time. If you want to know why evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, he has an answer.

I watched Massimo in this debate (link below) the other night. The other dude is so incompetent that it actually gets embarrassing and I started to feel sorry for him.

(Edited by CoIin)
11 years ago Report
1
Eaton Busche
Eaton Busche: Thermodynamics only importance is in the brewing of alchoholic beverages.....the universe is secondary Good Sir!
11 years ago Report
0
Metaverseguy
Metaverseguy: Thanks for the good laugh Kazakstan
11 years ago Report
1