The Second Law fallacy

shinbits,

My short answer is that the guy who wrote the piece you quoted didn't know beans about thermodynamics. It's so full of errors that I hardly know where to start; as I said I'm extremely pressed for time but the entire quote is already disproved in the OP.

For example, the bit about open vs. closed systems is a result of not realizing that "entropy" is used to describe two distinct properties, and I answered that in the sections defining entropy and enthalpy and explaing that there is no such thing as a "local violation" of the Second Law.

I'll try to get a grip on the questions in your last post, I know the answer but it'll take a bit of thought to figure out how to explain it. The way you ask the questions tells me that you're still laboring under a number of misunderstandings. Part of the problem is that entropy isn't at all what you've always been told it is, and that's not your fault.

For now I can only suggest that you carefully reread my OP, and remember that it took me 3 months of classrooom study and 14 years of engineering experience before I was able to craft, over a period of 18 months, a fairly non-technical yet accurate response to erroneous claims that take thirty seconds to make.

__________________
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you....For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink..."
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him...
John, Ch. 6

Thank you, chilehed, for your gracious response.

And I think you made a good point here:

True. If anything has errors, I know it will take time to think about them, so I'll wait for your response.

I will admit: yes, I believe in Intelligent Design; however, I'm open to anything offered on the part of evolution.

I will anylize, of course, whatever is offered. But I don't anylize with a mindset that it's already wrong---I just examine it to see if everything makes sense or is factual, and if there's evidence of whatever's been said.

So if I ask questions, know that it's only to find out what's true. If it turns out that what's offered on the part of evolution is true, I'll gladly accept it as fact.

Thank you for starting this thread.

__________________
Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is praise worthy--think of these things.

To chilehed: Doesn't a substance at absolute zero have a constant, non-zero entropy by the Third Law of Thermodynamics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics and what would that mean?

__________________

Lots to answer, chilehed.

Maybe the Second Law does contradict evolution after all.

But again, I'm open to your response.

__________________
Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is praise worthy--think of these things.

Not unless you can name a physical mechanism used in the theory of evolution that violates the law. The theory of evolution can't violate the second law as it is not a physical thing. Only a physical interaction, such as a chemical reaction, can violate the law or be looked at in the context of the laws of thermodynamics.

Unless one is named and the math is shown, don't get your hopes up.

Since all of the physical mechanisms that are involved in the theory of evolution have been observed, claiming that any one of them violate the laws of thermodynamics would be a silly thing to do.

__________________

Nope, that factual error doesn't affect the basic premise of the article. Basically the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that when hot touches cold the hot doesn't grow hotter and the cold colder. Unless you can show that evolution requires that don't get your hopes up.

__________________

I believe what's specifically in question here, is the Law of Entropy, and the whole "disorder" thing.

That's really what the argument with creation/evolution is.


As it is, we are currently awaiting a response from the original poster.


If he can't come through here, then we haven't established a basis to claim that evolution violating the Entropy Law is false.


Let's see what happens.

__________________
Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is praise worthy--think of these things.

Again, you need to name a mechanism that violates the law. 'evolution' is not a mechanism and therefore cannot violate the law.

Until you name one, you are not talking about anything relevant to the laws. They are laws of physics and only apply to physical, mechanical, chemical, atomic, or electromagnetic interaction.

Your discussion on evolution being in violation of these laws is a little light on actually discussing any physical mechanisms.

Can you name a physical mechanism that is used in defining the theory of evolution that supposedly violates these laws?

If you can't, again, you have no case and are simply repeating points that in reality have little to do with the laws of thermodynamics.

__________________

What's happening is that you are confusing mechanical entropy with "creationist entropy". Mechanical entropy has something to do with the distribution of heat in a system. Creationist entropy is more about how nice and orderly something looks. The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that mechanical entropy increases, not that creationist entropy increases.

__________________

I don't need to name anything;

see, the original poster, put up what he believes falsifies the fact that the Entropy Law has to do with order/disorder.

I'm just showing that what he's put up so far has holes.

The OP sets out to prove that Entropy has nothing to do with order. Because if he succeeds in doing that, then no one can say that evolution theory violates a law.

He hasn't done it. Why?

Again, what he's put up has holes. He said he'd reply soon enough, though.

__________________
Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is praise worthy--think of these things.