Can creationists explain thermodynamics to me

[Edx]

Then again, it looks like Micaiah is just going to keep repeating what he has done; and everyone else is just going to keep asking him what 7.9 means. I don't think he has any intention of teling us.

Because he doesnt understand, obviously.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

7-9 shouldn't be that hard to explain. I learned all of meanings of the various letters in a high school physics class.

Then again, it looks like Micaiah is just going to keep repeating what he has done; and everyone else is just going to keep asking him what 7.9 means. I don't think he has any intention of teling us.

Yes 7.9 is straightforward and should be easy for Micaiah to explain. It is correct for an isolated system approaching equilibrium but it is not strictly correct here because Dolphin has specified that a closed system allows energy flow into or out of the system. If energy is flowing into the system 7.9 is not always true. I don't quite understand why he bothered to state it this way. It seems to me he is just doing math to increase his equation count. It is also not relevant to evolution in any case. IMO isolated and closed systems near equilibrium are not relevant to either evolution or abiogenesis. One must look into the world of far from equilibrium thermodynamics to address these issues. So for anyone to precisely explain the relevance of 7.9 to evolution may not be so easy.

Of course if the Delta G Dolphin means is for the system and its surrounding then he is correct (given one other stipulation that Dolphin doesn't explicitly make, maybe Micaiah can tell us what it is) but he should have said so. Imprecise definitions can lead to a lot of confusion when discussing anything but particularly when discussing thermo. I'll explain later why his arguments in 7 and 8 regarding the free energy of biopolymer formation are not correct after giving Micaiah a chance if he wants to try.

 

[b*unique]

Mod hat on

Please direct your responses on the topic under discussion, not on the members. You are also ask to please refrain from flaming comments in your posts. Let's try to keep the discussion civil.

2.1 Flaming Prohibited. Members shall not flame other members.

2.2 Flaming Defined. "Flaming" is one or more deliberately insulting or belittling posts directed at another member or identifiable group of members.

2.3 Prima Facie Insulting or Belittling Terms and Phrases.

5.3 Off-topic Posting Prohibited


Mod hat off

 

[Loudmouth]

I hope the irony of this is not wasted on our lurkers. The OP starts off making fun of YEC's by implying they could not explain SLOT. I gave a general overview of the subject with some links to support the comments.

The irony is not wasted. The OP implied that creationists can no explain the thermo laws. You have not been able to do so, other than linking to other websites in hopes that the websites got it right.

You could prove the OP wrong by applying what is in those websites to the process of evolution, and energy fluctuations on earth as a whole.

If you want to start with non-biological examples, perhaps you could start with the water cycle on earth. The thermo laws also include the diffusion of soluble ions in solution. Therefore, the presence of fresh water and salt water on earth is also a violation of the thermo laws, according to the creationist versions of the thermo laws anyway.

The discussions on this topic get quite technical to those not versed in the various areas of science. When confronted with the responses competent YEC's on the topic Perplexed becomes mute, and asks me to explain what it all means. Obviously he hasn't a clue, in spite of the belittling insinuations made at the start of the thread.

Perplexed did not ask for websites. He asked for a creationist to explain them. Frumious gave a great response that deals directly with the most common misconceptions and you chose to ignore it. I would go back to that post.

 

[Mocca]

This thread is overly pathetic.