Posted on 11/20/2009 6:40:11 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
It has always amazed me how unconcerned evolutionists seem to be about entropy and the problems it poses both for a natural origin of life and for macroevolution. The argument from entropy is one of the most powerful arguments against the spontaneous formation of life from a random association of non-living chemicals...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationresearch.org ...
Point 1: It seems to me that if you have a closed system, entropy will increse. You don’t have to quantify anything.
Point 2: In using the second law of themodynamics, they are not trying to refute science. They are refuting atheism.
Point 3: Your comment about Sammantha Stevens is irrelevant.
well said. But with evolutionalists you are dealing with a religion and not science so it doesn't matter.
The earth is not a closed system.
How so?
That’s very interesting. To the modern Christian the opposite of creation is nothingness, but in Genesis it reads that God created the world from some pre-existing matter.
For the ancient Near East mastering chaos, a malevolent force, was the height of power. God, creating order, did just that, no?
Apparently, it’s the kind they were practicing in East Anglia at the CRU...
How does the sun prevent entropy?
“Then quantify the enthalpy in your so-called closed system. Jeez, I hate it when people who can’t even balance their own checkbooks challenge the calulus of evolution.”
You are being so stupid! I don’t know if you can’t help yourself or if you are playing games.
You didn’t begin to refute the “one universe, one closed system” point...
~~~ PING Creation vs Evolution PING ~~~
The concept of Entropy is intriguing, and one which evolutionists have never been able to come to grips with — ie: “If the universe is a complex wound up watch ticking away, how did the watch get wound up in the first place”?
Exactly, you don't have a closed system so entropy does not govern or dominate.
Point 2: In using the second law of themodynamics, they are not trying to refute science. They are refuting atheism.
Although created by God, physics and the laws of thermodynamics are agnostic,
Point 3: Your comment about Samantha Stevens is irrelevant.
However God created everything was a process. If He didn't "abracadabra" everything into existence, what processes do you suggest He used?
“The energy provided by our sun has kept the second law of thermodynamics at bay within our local solar system so far.”
Assuming the creator created the universe and not just the earth and the people on it, then the “system” would be the whole universe. No?
>> Creationists present an incomplete equation and then attempt to use it as proof to refute science
If the system is not closed, does that mean it is unbounded?
I’d suggest a review of entropy is in order... The 2nd law of thermodynamics is completely consistent with the theory of evolution, as well as the theory of aggregation of matter into planets and stars.
Total energy in the system is decreasing, as the energy contained in accelerated mass is spent in aggregation of planets and stars, and further decreased by thermal means (friction, fission, and fusion).
That said, local entropy can reverse if the entire system is decreasing, due to the expenditure of large amounts of energy (see the aforementioned creation of stars).
If I am the stupid one why didn't you recognize the incongruity of an infinite and unquantifiable system being "closed".
“The earth is not a closed system.:
But the universe is, and assuming God created the heavens and the earth, the universe is a closed system... Get it now?
And an Evolutionist is anyone who is not a strict adherent of Genesis? Seems a little restrictive...
The 2nd law has little specific applicability to the evolution of life on earth, but plenty to the evolution of any and all matter in the universe. It took a *huge* violation of the 2nd law to create atoms, or even subatomic particles in the first place. Any subsequent violations were just tiny drops in the great universal bucket.
Legitimate minds have confronted the problem: Shroedinger, Delbruck, Prigogine, Monod, and those less thermodynamically restricted, in particular Teilhard de Chardin.
Our approach has always been cosmologically mathematical. That is, there is some field disturbance which initiates the negentropic reaction. But little quantitative insight beyond that until extraterrestrial exploration lends more evidence.
In any case there is the very real possibility those technical minds are still struggling within provincial scientific rationalization, and the human race is missing profound revelation.
Thanks for the reference.
Johnny Suntrade, The Suntrade Institute
no
it applies equally to both systems, evo PURPOSELY OVERLOOK THAT, GEEZ, EVEN EVO TRUE SCIENTISTS ADMIT IT:
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated 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), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.