Simulation

1. Granted, the Hubble telescope is a wonderful instrument, but scientists using it are ignoring a fundamental law of science in their observations: The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
A. This law basically states that all things eventually go to disorder (whether in a closed system or open system).
B. This law is tried and proven true.

2. The theory of evolution HEAVILY relies on the hypothesis that order comes from disorder. However, this idea is completely contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We can watch the Second Law in effect every day. Things break, burn, and have to be rebuilt. The expansion of the universe observed by the Hubble telescope is an observation of increase in entropy (or disorder), and NOT vice versa.

3. The universe is expanding, which does not increase order or complexity.
A. Our own solar system is slowly gravitating towards the sun, in which, the earth will eventually be burned up by it. The destruction of a highly ordered solar system is an increase in disorder.

So the question for the Hubble scientists is: Does it look like the earth’s solar system and all the other systems and galaxies in space just randomly exploded into orbits and complex rotations? Or does the evidence point to an intelligent Creator who put things in place to start with?

The universe is only the tip of the iceberg….

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Simulation ]</p>

CodeMason

Sigh. Another idiot troll.

daemon

This is very typical of creationist arguments, at least, in one way--it starts off with a fundamentally incorrect definition of the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics does not state, basically or otherwise, that all things tend towards disorder, but that entropy in a closed system will constantly increase. Entropy is not equivalent to disorder. Thus, it is not a violation of thermodynamics for order to come from disorder.

As to whether the universe looks like one or the other of your choices, thus is a matter of philosophy, not science. Science has no way of discerning a difference between a universe designed by a god and one that exists as it does due to natural law.

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: daemon23 ]</p>

hezekiah jones

By the way, why don't you e-mail your questions to: webmaster@hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov

That way, you can personally teach them all about physics.

CodeMason

Creationists that use this "argument" should throw away their heathen evilutionist refridgerators, which only work on the concept of local entropy decreasing at the expense of the environment.

Pantera

Actually the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the flow of heat from a body at low temperature to one at high temperature is impossible without the input of energy.

Perhaps you could explain how you get from this statement to proving that the solar system could not have formed under natural conditions?

BTW, about applying it to open systems - either you're a liar, or the person who told you that is a liar. If youd like to see a spontaneous decrease in entropy in an open system, put some water in your freezer for a few hours.



I'm always amused that creationists reject out of hand practically all the conclusions of modern science, except thermodynamics, which they accept completely uncriticly. Or perhaps you could explain how the law has been proven true?

...has nothing to do with the formation of the solar system, or the Hubble telescope. I smell a Hovind acolyte.

Simulation

Perhaps you could explain how you get from this statement to proving that the solar system could not have formed under natural conditions?

I didn't make up this statement, someone threw it at me. I'm just wondering if any of you have seen something like this before.

Simulation

Here's another statement I've never seen before. It has to do with the age of the earth so it may not belong here.


"Imagine if you will, that, at the "Big bang" (which I actually haven't ruled out...God spoke, and BANG! There it was. Anyway), the dimensions we know were created: Width, Height, Length, and Time. When something initially explodes, the repercussions are tightly packed together, and fast. As the explosion expands, those repercussions "slow down"...the space between them gets bigger, and slower. Is it possible then, that Time has actually slowed down as it's gone on? As the Universe expands, Time slows? This might account for the disagreements we have over the age of the universe, age of the earth, etc etc... Is this at least something worth considering? It sure has made me think..."

Pantera

Oops - sorry. Mistook you for a creationist troll there.

Yes, I'm afraid the second law of thermodynamics argument gets rehashed and rehashed over and over again, so much it's not even funny anymore. And yes, these are fairly typical.

Entropy as referred to by the 2LoT actually refers to the distribution of energy in a system. It does not actually refer to broken glass, or the formation of planets, or the evolution of complex animals. The image of it referred to in your post is a cartoon version sometimes used to explain the rough concept behind it to laymen - and some creationists, through incompetence or dishonesty, would have us believe that this cartoon version is actually an accurate description of the laws of nature, and that it preculdes evolution, and lots of other things which aren't related to biological evolution but which they don't much like anyway. Of course, if the argument had any merit, every physics professor in the world would have publicly denounced Darwinism by now. I mean, does your correspondant seriously believe that the astrophysicists at the Hubble project have never heard of the 2LoT? Or are they just all deluded by Satan?

A couple of articles on TalkOrigins

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html" target="_blank">Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution</a>

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html" target="_blank">The Second Law of Thermodynamics,
Evolution, and Probability</a>

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html" target="_blank">Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics</a>

CodeMason

The speed of something is measured by time. How do you propose that time measures itself?