Ping!
How is a 2008 article “News”? How is entropy applicable to a non-closed system?
That was written by someone who understands what the word “entropy” means, but not how it works.
wow this is old...
The energy provided by our sun has kept the second law of thermodynamics at bay within our local solar system so far.
~~~ 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”?
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
There is a large sign at the corner of Dale Mabry and Van Dyke that states: God, Guns and Guts made America free. Great tag line.
5.56mm
As a mechanical engineer with extensive background in thermodynamics, I’ve been through these idiotic arguments before. Entropy is not a limiting condition in open systems with energy sources and heat sinks.
In fact, evolution is pro entropy creation, because the creation of local order comes at the overall enhanced disorder of the rest of the universe.
I love the way these organizations crave the respect that they can never earn.
Quoted from their site, their articles are:
“Peer-reviewed by degreed scientists”
Hilarious!
Yes to the first. Of course entropy creates problems for origin of life theory. But far from being "unconcerned," those working on origin of life are entirely concerned. The whole point is not to deny the problem -- how you get from non-life, to living organisms, which internally drive chemical reactions against entropy -- but to solve it. If they were "unconcerned," then by definition those working on origin of life theories, uh, wouldn't be working on origin of life theories.
The author's second contention, that entropy creates problems for "macroevolution," is simply stupid. Not only that, it is contradictory to his first contention.
The whole reason entropy provides a problem in elucidating how life might have originated is precisely because living things export entropy, i.e. concentrate negative entropy in themselves, i.e. preferentially catalyze internal chemical reactions in a way that internally increases energy available to do work. Living things do this continually, systematically and persistently. By contrast, non-living systems do not generally do this, not at least to the degree or with the persistence that organisms do. So the problem is how do you bridge that gap.
But, once you do have living organisms, that gap has already been bridged. You can no longer appeal to that problem.
Because evolution, including macroevolution, only concerns living organisms, and living organisms reduce entropy, there can't be any contradiction between evolution and entropy. Certainly not in the facile fashion this creationist and others propose.
Consider that, not only is a living organism, like a mammal for instance, able to concentrate enough negative entropy to develop from a single cell to millions of cells organized into complex, and complexly interacting, organ systems; it is further able to daily expend thousands of calories in doing work on the world around it; even, in the case of one particular species, to build skyscrapers and civilizations.
By comparison, the amount of work against entropy required to evolve a mammal from a fish, distributed in tiny bits over the course of hundreds of millions of years, is utterly trivial!
I don't remember the name of the book and I wanted to pick up a copy. Does anyone know what book this is?
thanks
The title should be:
Creationists once again mis-understand entropy.
I love how creationists are experts on everything based on a religious text, the bible.
Why don’t you use the effort you use to memorize every word in the bible to actually learn some science.