Ewww, he used the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument. I thought you said this site has valid critiques on evolutionary theory, rambot.rmwilliamsll said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ewww, he used the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument. I thought you said this site has valid critiques on evolutionary theory, rambot.rmwilliamsll said:http://darwinismrefuted.com
introducing: Turkey's Islamic Henry Morris, Harun Yahya
there is no science there.
What would count as evidence for a devine entinty? If the general concensus is that science cannot prove or disprove God, what can be given?Wiccan_Child said:Is there any evidence that the Universe was created by a divine entity? Is there any evidence that this is the same Divinity as a particular terrestrial monotheism, namely Christianity?
I don't know about "fail terribly".....but the Big Bang doesn't give any evidence for evolution of a universe. They can give evidence of age like dopler shift, but not evidence that it set evolution in motion.As a side note, I read in another thread that 'The Big Bang and Evolution hypotheses fail terribly" in terms of evidence. Where do either fail? We have doppler shift, background microwave radiation, the fossil record, pæleogeographical and geological dating evidences, etc etc.
There is no such thing as a totally isolated system in the entire universe. So this can't be what u say it's about.MrGoodBytes said:rambot: For clarification, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a totally isolated system increases overtime.
Since Earth is not a totally isolated system because of the massive influx of energy provided by the sun, this guy both lost the argument and his credibility for repeating the oldest and worst trick in the book.
It´s right that there is no ideally closed system, but to do the math it´s enough to define a system as closed, like adiabatic thermodynamic machines (hope that´s the correct translation) or chemical reactions, although they are not ideally closed. And the law applies to ideally closed systems and irreversible processes for which the entropy always increases (there are a lot of mechanisms to decrease the entropy, but they all need the influx of energy = not closed system). The earth is definitely not a closed system.shinbits said:There is no such thing as a totally isolated system in the entire universe. So this can't be what u say it's about.
The universe itself, theoretically, might be an isolated system; but inside the universe, such a thing doesn't exist.
It doesn't matter. The second law describes a tendency. A closed system can undergo local or momentary reductions in entropy, but given an arbitrarily large amount of time, entropy will reach a maximum.shinbits said:There is no such thing as a totally isolated system in the entire universe. So this can't be what u say it's about.
The universe itself, theoretically, might be an isolated system; but inside the universe, such a thing doesn't exist.
Why doesn't this "tendency" apply to open systems?TeddyKGB said:It doesn't matter. The second law describes a tendency. A closed system can undergo local or momentary reductions in entropy, but given an arbitrarily large amount of time, entropy will reach a maximum.
An open system is really just an area of local entropy decrease within a larger closed system. We can call the Earth's surface an "open system" but what we really mean is that the Earth's surface is capable of entropy decrease because of the energy input, and corresponding entropy increase, provided by the sun. Thus, Earth + Sol is, for all intents and purposes, a closed system in which total entropy is moving toward a maximum.shinbits said:Why doesn't this "tendency" apply to open systems?
I agree with the two previous replies. To say it in other words: To have an open system means you exchange energy with the surroundings. If you release energy, the local system alsways increases it´s entropy, otherwise you have a perpetuum mobile. Our sun-earth system is such an open system. If you receive energy from the surroundings, the energy must go somewhere and performs work in the system (like entropy decrease, chemical reactions etc.). Ilya Prigogine received 1977 the nobel price for chemistry for his work on "dissipative structures" in which he described the far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics in such structures (like the earth).shinbits said:Why doesn't this "tendency" apply to open systems?
I agree your posts, and everyone else's.just another skeptic said:I agree with the two previous replies. To say it in other words: To have an open system means you exchange energy with the surroundings. If you release energy, the local system alsways increases it´s entropy, otherwise you have a perpetuum mobile. Our sun-earth system is such an open system. If you receive energy from the surroundings, the energy must go somewhere and performs work in the system (like entropy decrease, chemical reactions etc.). Ilya Prigogine received 1977 the nobel price for chemistry for his work on "dissipative structures" in which he described the far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics in such structures (like the earth).
The "disorder" implicit in the second law is not what we classically consider disorder. The disorder that is involved is actually the dispersal of energy. The classical second law stated in a simple a form as I can manage says that there is a quantity called entropy which can be defined. The change in entropy in a reversible transition between equilibrium states can be calculated by integrating the change in heat divided by the temperature. If a system is taken through a cycle to return to its initial state through totally reversible processes the total entropy change of the system and its surroundings is 0. In irreversible transitions the total entropy change is greater than zero. Since all transitions are irreversible to some extent the entropy of the system and its surrounding must increase in all real processes. This does not mean that order can not occur spontaneously in systems that are not at equilibrium. A well known example is the Benard instability where ordered hexagonal columns of flow arise in polymer systems under a temparature gradient.shinbits said:I agree your posts, and everyone else's.
But I guess what I was trying to ask, is why the "tendency toward disorder" doesn't apply to open to open systems.
Because in open systems you have an energy exchange with the surroundings.shinbits said:I agree your posts, and everyone else's.
But I guess what I was trying to ask, is why the "tendency toward disorder" doesn't apply to open to open systems.
Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been. An "open system" receives energy from an external source sufficient to overcome local entropy.shinbits said:But I guess what I was trying to ask, is why the "tendency toward disorder" doesn't apply to open to open systems.
This alone answers my question completely, even though I did read the rest of your post.Frumious Bandersnatch said:The "disorder" implicit in the second law is not what we classically consider disorder. The disorder that is involved is actually the dispersal of energy.
wiccan_child said:Is there any evidence that the Universe was created by a divine entity? is there any evidence that this is the same Divinity as a particular terrestrial monotheism, namely Christianity?
wiccan_child said:As a side not, I read in another thread that 'The BigBang and Evolution hypotheses fail terribly" in terms of evidence. Where do either fail? We have doppler shift, background microwave radiation, the fossil record, paeleogeographical and geological dating evidences, etc etc.
shinbits said:As far as dating, we know thatwith carbon dating, it can only date back in thousands of years, not millions. Even in this case, there are still assumptions that must be made, like the atmosphere was always the same, which isn't a logical assumption if one believes the earth evolved over time into what it is today.
Excuse me? C-14 dating is only reliable for things up to 60,000 years old. And that's only if the assumptions made are correct.notto said:This is completely untrue and shows you lack of knowledge about how these things are actually done.
The first is outright false; there's a wealth of transitionals in the hominin lineage alone. The second is false, contradictory, and ridiculous; one of the creationist staples is that the Cambrian Explosion - the "sudden appearance" of complex organisms - can't be explained by gradualistic evolution!shinbits said:Biological evolution fails in three ways: it's lack of transitionals, and the fact the most "transitionals" found don't show a pattern from a simple to complex being. At best, there is only a "smaller" to a "bigger" creature.
Says who, you? How many Archaeopteryx fossils exist? How many A. afarensis fossils?Third, "transitionals" are extremely unuseful in showing that an entire population had evolved. We know that organisms, especially humans, can be born with deformities, or simply an unusual build for it's type of population that it a one time occurance and doesn't get passed on.
"Transitionals" found are usually just individual fossils, and often, not always, are not accompanied by more discoveries of fossils like it.
Nothing need be "explained away." Your assertions are simply false.While any one of these may be able to be explained away, the combination of these things together make evolution hard to believe.
No one assumes the "atmosphere was always the same."As far as dating, we know thatwith carbon dating, it can only date back in thousands of years, not millions. Even in this case, there are still assumptions that must be made, like the atmosphere was always the same, which isn't a logical assumption if one believes the earth evolved over time into what it is today.
Elements are pure by definition.Radio-metric dating relies on a ratio of an element to the ratio of what it decays to. This is unreliable, because we have to make assumptions, like the "parent" element which decays was pure.
Water doesn't selectively wash radioactive elements out of rocks.We also have to assume that things like water didn't wash similar elements into or out of the rocks. This factor would greatly mess up the "correct" age.
Multiple methods exist to correct possible contaminations. No contaimination in any case will cause a 4000-year-old rock to appear 500-million-years-old.There's also the factor that some rocks may naturally contain either the initial element, or the element that it decays into. This would also make radio-metric dating unreliable.
His point, which you predictably missed, is that ancient carbon levels can be determined by examining much older sediments calibrated by other dating methods.shinbits said:Excuse me? C-14 dating is only reliable for things up to 60,000 years old. And that's only if the assumptions made are correct.
U don't know this by now?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?