Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thestickman · 01-09-2003, 05:21 AM

Ok, i heard this from a creationist friend. And i searched for articles about it and asked about it on www.evcforum.net, but he showed me this article http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp which argues against this site http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html, which was a link given to me, to explain the 2LOT [which i have trouble understanding, with my yr11 physics knowledge, i mean, my physics teacher didn't even know what entropy was]. So, i need some people that actual understand this stuff to maybe give me a hand. Unfortunately i am going away until the 18th [leaving on the 11th]. All help would be greatly appreciated
thestickman

diana · 01-09-2003, 06:57 AM

I think this discussion will get better play in E/C.

d

NialScorva · 01-09-2003, 09:15 AM

Imagine a pan of water.

The second law of thermodynamics says that if you cause a ripple in the pan, it will eventually settle down into a flat surface. However, if you poor more water into the pan, it'll cause more ripples. That's the difference between a closed and open system, a closed one doesn't allow you to poor more water into it.

In a nutshell, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply because:

1. the pan is still rippling, and will be for billions of years
2. a bunch of simple waves can generate high points and low points that will eventually average out, but until then will create some pretty neat patterns.

If you look at the earth alone, it's a pan that's having a *lot* of water poured into it by the sun, and thus an open system. You can look at the sun and the earth together as a huge pan leaking into a smaller "earth" pan, which would be a closed (more or less) system. Both will eventually even out in this closed, but right now there are plenty of waves to generate life.

Entropy is kinda like the flatness of the pan in this example. If the pan goes from rippled to flat, then the entropy increases. Creationist like to think that entropy only increases. This is true in a closed system, but only if you average out across the entire system. If you take both the sun and earth pans and measure how far from flat they are, they will gradually become more and more flat as time goes by. However, small areas in the pan may become less flat, so long as they are balanced by areas that are flatter than the average. This is the part that creationists usually don't get.

Asha'man · 01-09-2003, 09:21 AM

People all start out with 1 simple cell, and end up with millions of them in complex relationships. If the creationist argument about Thermodynamics was valid, then people couldn�t exist. Clearly, the argument must be invalid.

By the way, your thread title makes no sense....

Jack the Bodiless · 01-09-2003, 09:26 AM

The explanation is simple: Steiger is correct, Wallace is wrong.

Furthermore, I suspect Wallace is deliberately lying. The "Trueorigins" aticle reads like propaganda, a deliberate attempt to deceive the reader.

Quote:

...because a handful of dogmatic evolutionists continue to vocally and energetically deny the truth concerning a simple matter of scientific knowledge:

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.)

This statement is false.

Quote:

Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

This statement is false.

Quote:

Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon...

False.

Quote:

Not only did this alleged remarkable random act of self-transformation take place in defiance of the second law...

False.

Wallace eventually gets around to expaining WHY evolution does NOT contradict thermodynamics:

Quote:

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, even though he KNOWS this is the scientific explanation, he doesn't introduce it until he has already (repeatedly) falsely declared that evolution violates thermodynamics!

Now he resorts to handwaving to disguise the fact that the "problem" has been solved:

Quote:

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).

Raw solar energy ALONE doesn't automatically cause reduced energy, but it PERMITS localized reduction of entropy: it can power evolution. Therefore the creationist case has failed, because evolution doesn't contradict thermodynamics. But the author doesn't want to talk about that, so he swiftly changes the subject and moves on.

Now he's talking about "information". This has nothing to do with thermodynamics anymore. Furthermore, the accumulation of "information" is easily explained by evolution.

Quote:

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

What is the "it" that "doesn't offer any solution"? The author does not say. The actual solution comes from the mechanism of evolution, not from some intrinsic clause of the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics also fails to explain the popularity of Britney Spears or the fall of the NASDAQ: but these don't contradict thermodynamics, they are simply not covered by it.

The author is attempting to deceive the reader by implying that because evolution is not powered by the laws of thermodynamics alone, it must inevitably contradict them.

Dr.GH · 01-09-2003, 10:56 AM

The first 2nd law argument I know of was made by creationist Henry Morris (of ICR fame) in his portion of The Genesis Flood. In the 1970s it was heavily pushed by Morris and D. Gish.

They especially liked to debate anthropologists, or archaeologists who had little biology and less physics.

An additional web site you might look at is:

http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

Paul2 · 01-09-2003, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NialScorva
Imagine a pan of water.

/me saves for later. nice explaination.

Undercurrent · 01-09-2003, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NialScorva
Imagine a pan of water.

I have an even simpler example.

Imagine a hot brick and a cold brick, in contact each other, hanging in space, with no outside influences (stars, planets, creationists, &c.) except perhaps being surrounded by a perfect mirror so that any radiation emitted by the brick is reflected back at it.

The second law of thermodynamics says that the cold brick will get warmer (being warmed up by the hot brick) and the hot brick will get cooler (being cooled by the cold brick). The second law would be violated if the hot brick got hotter and the cold brick got colder.

The only way to make the hot brick get hotter and the cold brick get colder is to remove the condition that there be no outside influcences, and fire a blowtorch at the hot brick while placing a refrigeration unit around the cold brick.

While this simple truth has some important overtones, the creationist substitution of "information", or "specified complexity", or "order", or "goodness" for entropy is just a crock of shit

m.

Monkey · 01-10-2003, 10:31 AM

Quote:

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).

Isn't Thermodynamics strictly a mathmatical equation? Entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature.

Plus from a Creationist point of view, wouldn't Earth with an intervening God be an open system and to call the earth a closed system would be saying God isn't intervening! What about Biological systems? Surely there is an increase in "order" when a plant grows. Guess that's why it's NOT A SCIENCE!

Nickle · 01-10-2003, 10:42 AM

NialScorva, the pan analogy is great. I'm stealing it.

01-09-2003, 05:21 AM	#1
thestickman Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Down Under Posts: 18	Is evolution the only thing to contradict evolution? Ok, i heard this from a creationist friend. And i searched for articles about it and asked about it on www.evcforum.net, but he showed me this article http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp which argues against this site http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html, which was a link given to me, to explain the 2LOT [which i have trouble understanding, with my yr11 physics knowledge, i mean, my physics teacher didn't even know what entropy was]. So, i need some people that actual understand this stuff to maybe give me a hand. Unfortunately i am going away until the 18th [leaving on the 11th]. All help would be greatly appreciated thestickman

01-09-2003, 06:57 AM	#2
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	Welcome, thestickman I think this discussion will get better play in E/C. d

01-09-2003, 09:21 AM	#4
Asha'man Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: southeast Posts: 2,526	growing up People all start out with 1 simple cell, and end up with millions of them in complex relationships. If the creationist argument about Thermodynamics was valid, then people couldn�t exist. Clearly, the argument must be invalid. By the way, your thread title makes no sense....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-09-2003, 09:15 AM	#3
NialScorva Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Median strip of DC beltway Posts: 1,888	Imagine a pan of water. The second law of thermodynamics says that if you cause a ripple in the pan, it will eventually settle down into a flat surface. However, if you poor more water into the pan, it'll cause more ripples. That's the difference between a closed and open system, a closed one doesn't allow you to poor more water into it. In a nutshell, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply because: 1. the pan is still rippling, and will be for billions of years 2. a bunch of simple waves can generate high points and low points that will eventually average out, but until then will create some pretty neat patterns. If you look at the earth alone, it's a pan that's having a lot of water poured into it by the sun, and thus an open system. You can look at the sun and the earth together as a huge pan leaking into a smaller "earth" pan, which would be a closed (more or less) system. Both will eventually even out in this closed, but right now there are plenty of waves to generate life. Entropy is kinda like the flatness of the pan in this example. If the pan goes from rippled to flat, then the entropy increases. Creationist like to think that entropy only increases. This is true in a closed system, but only if you average out across the entire system. If you take both the sun and earth pans and measure how far from flat they are, they will gradually become more and more flat as time goes by. However, small areas in the pan may become less flat, so long as they are balanced by areas that are flatter than the average. This is the part that creationists usually don't get.

01-09-2003, 10:56 AM	#6
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	The first 2nd law argument I know of was made by creationist Henry Morris (of ICR fame) in his portion of The Genesis Flood. In the 1970s it was heavily pushed by Morris and D. Gish. They especially liked to debate anthropologists, or archaeologists who had little biology and less physics. An additional web site you might look at is: http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

01-10-2003, 10:42 AM	#10
Nickle Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 385	NialScorva, the pan analogy is great. I'm stealing it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.