|
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Ahh the highly debated topic of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. |
They were pretty highly debated quite a long time ago. Where on earth have you been?
There really isn't much of a debate on YEC issues such as these. As stated ad nauseum, you are bringing up issues that are dated and debunked a long time ago. An example is the Gish quote you have below:
| quote: | Anyway, back to the 2LOT.
I'm going try not to get too complicated here, for my sake and anyone else reading this - more of a "take it at face value" kind of approach. For those that don't know about the 2 LOT, it basically states that without outside energy, there is an irreversible downward trend that makes everything go to disorder, and says that, in a closed system, the available energy will decrease with every real process that occurs.
So, does Naturalistic Evolution require that atoms organize into increasingly complex, ordered arrangemnts? The whole "over billions and billions of years, everything is becoming more orderly and complex?"
"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd... The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley) |
Source: 1 Duane Gish, A Consistent Christian-Scientific View of the Origin of Life, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 (March 1979).
| quote: | Although I might agree with statements like:
"Creationists have often been vague on their position..." (regarding the 2LOT and evolution) |
As would I.
| quote: | | The 2LOT is a good example on how evolutionists and creationists can interpret science differently. For example: |
No. The 2LOT is a good example on how scientists utilize physical evidence to support the law and its application, vs. creationists distorting and misunderstanding how the law applies and utilize their ridiculous version in attempts to debunk a supporting theory.
There's quite a difference here, and I'm happy to demonstrate:
| quote: | | For a more extensive read -- |
Here's the gyst of the argument on that read:
| quote: | The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”
The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.
Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory. |
Strawman. Here are the problems with this assessment:
1.The second law of thermodynamics applies universally, but, as everyone can see, that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down. The second law allows local decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere. The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, order from disorder happens all the time.
2.The maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant, but because the universe is expanding, its maximum entropy is ever increasing, giving ever more room for order to form [Stenger 1995, 228].
3.Disorder and entropy are not the same. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy. There are no laws about things tending to "break down."
reference:Stenger, Victor J., 1995. The Unconscious Quantum, Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
| 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 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). |
Not necessarily so - If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still?
The author also is implying that the energy flow into the system is not enough to make that energy useful. An energy conversion mechanism must therefore take place, otherwise evolution wouldn't work.
This implication is also fallacious for the following reasons: Any atom can be an energy conversion mechanism. Atoms routinely convert between light energy, thermal energy, and chemical potential energy. The energy conversion mechanism is ubiquitous. Furthermore, a lack of an energy conversion system would not only invalidate evolution; it would invalidate life itself. Evolution requires only reproduction, natural selection, and heritable variation, all of which are observed in life. The conversion of energy is a quality of life, so the conversion system exists for evolution to work with.
| quote: | Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open 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]
So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?
The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.
Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).
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—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.
In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe. |
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp[/QUOTE]
Response:
1. The second law of thermodynamics says absolutely nothing about programs to direct growth, and the only "power converter" it deals with is change in entropy. You can see growth and order arising without a program in many places. Clouds form complex orderly patterns. Streams sort the size of the stones in their bed along their length. Cooling basalt forms a hexagonal pattern of cracks. All of these show an increase in organization and a local decrease in entropy, and none involve any program.
2. Increasing order is not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, even temporarily. A violation would be an increase in entropy without a greater decrease in entropy to go with it. Neither growth nor evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics because both take advantage of local differences in entropy to get work done.
3. Evolution has a program; it is called the environment. Natural selection serves to communicate information from the environment to the populations of organisms [Adami et al. 2000].
4. An increase in organized complexity is not the same as a decrease in entropy. The second law applies only to entropy; it says nothing at all about organized complexity as such.
Order from disorder is common in nonliving systems too, BTW. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.
| quote: | I know this is "propaganda" according to you, but I consider all the shit you read propaganda as well, but with a larger audience.
Counterpoint... |
The primary difference between your literature and mine is I have substantial physical evidence to support mine, as I have demonstrated above and in every reply I've given thus far (with the exception of basic logic argument replies).
Everything you have presented from your literature has been shown to distort, misguide, and misunderstand scientific principles in order to fit its unsubstantiated conclusions.
Do you really think this is how science is conducted? Have a conclusion, then find and twist evidence to support it? Why do you continue to buy into it?
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
