What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[pitabread]

Therefore, the entropy in a specific system can decrease as long as the total entropy of the Universe does not.

So evolution of life on Earth doesn't necessarily violate thermodynamics then.

 

[Al Touthentop]

So evolution of life on Earth doesn't violate thermodynamics then.

If you had any understanding of entropy you wouldn't say this. You posted a response mere seconds after I posted it. You don't even understand what it means made obvious by the blog post which you implied was from a scientist in support of your nonsense claim that photosynthesis is evidence of a decrease in entropy. Were photosynthesis evidence of this, plants would never die and would never decay. The default state of the universe is maximum entropy. It's always decaying. Even orbits decay over time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine let's discuss entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics a bit. Creationists are all to often guilty of Black And White and also Hasty Generalization fallacies. They often try to apply the simplest application of the Second Law to all examples.

So first off we need to understand the three types of systems.

The simplest is the Isolated System. That is one where neither energy nor matter can enter and leave the system. The entropy of an Isolated System always increases.

The second is a Closed System. In a Closed System energy can enter and leave the system but matter can not. For all practical purposes the Earth is a Closed System. Energy from the Sun enters and leaves all of the time, but very little matter does so. And on the Earth entropy can go down due to various processes since energy is always entering and leaving. But if one looks at the Earth from the outside and only looks at the energy going in and the energy coming out one will see that the total entropy has gone up.

The third is an Open System both matter and energy enter and leave the system. An automobile engine is an excellent example of this.

All three follow the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but it is applied differently in all three. Creationists far to often apply the methodology of applying the Second Law to a Isolateed System and try to apply it to a Closed System.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

[GodsGrace101]

I can't speak for everyone else on this forum. I will say that in my experience there are polite people of various faiths (and non-faiths) and also impolite people of various faiths (and non-faiths). I don't think people's personal philosophies necessarily define character in that way.

Also, FWIW, I've lost count of the number of times I've had Christians on this forum threaten me with entenal hellfire. Yet, oddly no atheists have done the same.

LOL
Of course atheists do not threaten you with hell fire.
They don't believe in hell !
And,,,they agree with you.
Some Christians might be of the type that threaten hell....I haven't seen any on this thread; that doesn't mean they don't exist...but I do know that they should study their faith a bit more and come to the understanding that they are not behaving as Christians should and are taught to behave. But, it takes all kinds, I guess. I leave this to God.

I'm not in the field of science; I just have an active interest in it.

I have an active interest in theology and apologetics.
Wonder what would happen if we spoke about that?

And I know that science cannot deal with the supernatural. That much is a given.

The problem with not being able to scientifically test the nature of God or its existence, how can then one demonstrate whether such claims are correct?

There are ways, but they're not accepted by the scientifically minded that need to have everything "proven" to them.

You know what they say:
To a believer
no proof is necessary.
To a non-believer
no amount of proof is enough.

Basically, you cannot accept what a Christian believes because you have not experienced it. There are basically two ways one could come to God....
1. By intellect alone. One could come to believe that God must surely exist because of the things he sees around himself: Nature, birth, the Earth. God has made it evident that He exists because Earth is perfectly suited to humans...you know this as fine tuning...we understand it as earth being our temporary home which God has prepared for us.

2. The other way is through some type of personal experience where one believes he has had an encounter with God. Either way is valid.

All over the globe and from the beginning of time, man has known that there must be a superior power.
You may attribute this to ignorance...man saw thunder and didn't know what it was so he made up a god. But what would be the excuse today when we know why there's thunder? Man looks for his maker...man wonders where he comes from and why he's here...man desires perfection...how could man know perfection exists unless there's something that is perfect....this thing man looks for is God. Fortunate is he that finds it and stops looking.

We know God exists because He tells us things that are true and that work in our lives. We believe that Jesus truly resurrected which would make Him the Christ,,,the Messiah,,,God incarnate. If you like to read about this stuff, you might want to read Who Moved the Stone by Frank Morrison. C.S. Lewis was Christian and wrote a great book called Mere Christianity. A great explanation of what Christianity is.

Faith has to be based on something...my faith is a reasonable faith...it is NOT based on a feeling but on facts. It's based on persons I could trust...the Apostles. Actually faith is based on the Apostles,,,not Jesus. I wonder if you know why -- I'm sure others have tried to explain this.

Anyway, if you're looking for solid scientific evidence for God...you'll miss Him altogether. Your O.P. is interesting and creates many posts,,,but I know that you know that what you ask is impossible.

 

[pitabread]

If you had any understanding of entropy you wouldn't say this.

One of us doesn't understand entropy, that's for sure.

You posted a response mere seconds after I posted it. You don't even understand what it means made obvious by the blog post which you implied was from a scientist in support of your nonsense claim that photosynthesis is evidence of a decrease in entropy. Were photosynthesis evidence of this, plants would never die and would never decay. The default state of the universe is maximum entropy. It's always decaying. Even orbits decay over time.

I'm not sure if you read your own Wikipedia copy-paste then. Because what you quoted again says, "Therefore, the entropy in a specific system can decrease as long as the total entropy of the Universe does not."

If this is true (again, this is what you copy-pasted from Wikipedia), then there is no reason to assume that evolution of life on Earth is in violation of thermodynamics.

If you want to actually try to explain how you think evolution violates thermodynamics, by all means have a go. Thus far you have been remiss to do so.

 

[HitchSlap]

If you had any understanding of entropy you wouldn't say this. You posted a response mere seconds after I posted it. You don't even understand what it means made obvious by the blog post which you implied was from a scientist in support of your nonsense claim that photosynthesis is evidence of a decrease in entropy. Were photosynthesis evidence of this, plants would never die and would never decay. The default state of the universe is maximum entropy. It's always decaying. Even orbits decay over time.

According to you, plants should never grow.

 

[HitchSlap]

It's based on persons I could trust...the Apostles. Actually faith is based on the Apostles,,,not Jesus. I wonder if you know why -- I'm sure others have tried to explain this.

Have you ever met the apostles?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you had any understanding of entropy you wouldn't say this. You posted a response mere seconds after I posted it. You don't even understand what it means made obvious by the blog post which you implied was from a scientist in support of your nonsense claim that photosynthesis is evidence of a decrease in entropy. Were photosynthesis evidence of this, plants would never die and would never decay. The default state of the universe is maximum entropy. It's always decaying. Even orbits decay over time.

I am sorry, but you have this backwards.

Entropy is only a measure of energy available for work. A decrease in energy available for work is an increase in entropy.

With energy coming in we have a closed system and do not rely on the overly simplified version of the Second Law that creationists use. Your version of entropy is odd to say the least. Trees storing energy lowers the entropy locally since that is energy available for work.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The simplest is the Isolated System. That is one where neither energy nor matter can enter and leave the system. The entropy of an Isolated System always increases.


All three follow the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but it is applied differently in all three. Creationists far to often apply the methodology of applying the Second Law to a Isolateed System and try to apply it to a Closed System.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

You just applauded a poster (liked his post) for quoting a solar panel salesman as if he was making a scientific statement.

Secondly, your post is full of errors of both spelling and logic. An organism is an isolated system. In spite of the earth being a closed system, the things inside it's atmosphere are subject to the law of entropy. Complex machines, biological or otherwise do not spring up out of basic elements. Matter cannot organize itself into a working machine of any kind.

 

[pitabread]

An organism is an isolated system.

...

How is an organism an isolated system?

(I mean this is clearly utterly wrong, but I'm really curious to see how you'll defend this statement.)

 

[HitchSlap]

You just applauded a poster (liked his post) for quoting a solar panel salesman as if he was making a scientific statement.

Secondly, your post is full of errors of both spelling and logic. An organism is an isolated system. In spite of the earth being a closed system, the things inside it's atmosphere are subject to the law of entropy. Complex machines, biological or otherwise do not spring up out of basic elements. Matter cannot organize itself into a working machine of any kind.

Nothing you've said here remotely resembles reality. You literally seem like a whelp chasing her tail, then not understanding what happened once you've caught it.

Take care.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I am sorry, but you have this backwards.

Entropy is only a measure of energy available for work. A decrease in energy available for work is an increase in entropy.

So far, that seems about right.

With energy coming in we have a closed system and do not rely on the overly simplified version of the Second Law that creationists use. Your version of entropy is odd to say the least. Trees storing energy lowers the entropy locally since that is energy available for work.

And then you go totally off the rails.......

You can't decrease entropy by storing energy. The issue is in the amount of energy it requires to maintain the "engine" so to speak. It's always decaying and you have to spend some of the energy repairing it. That energy is now lost and unavailable for the purpose of running the engine. It "leaked."

Nobody has ever been able to create a perpetual motion machine because the law of entropy applies. If there was the magical possibility to decrease entropy, there would be no decay in those things you applied your magic to. Alas, everything decays and there's no way around it. Nothing just spontaneously jumps out of your compost pile to vacuum your carpet or do your laundry.

 

[Al Touthentop]

...

How is an organism an isolated system?

(I mean this is clearly utterly wrong, but I'm really curious to see how you'll defend this statement.)

Mistyped. non-isolated.

 

[Al Touthentop]

According to you, plants should never grow.

I've said nothing like that.

 

[MIDutch]

...

How is an organism an isolated system?

(I mean this is clearly utterly wrong, but I'm really curious to see how you'll defend this statement.)

Because organisms never eat silly. Or are exposed to sunlight, oxygen, carbon dioxide, heat, water, etc..

Organisms are about as isolated as you can get.

[/massive sarcasm]

 

[HitchSlap]

I've said nothing like that.

Do plants require energy or entropy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just applauded a poster (liked his post) for quoting a solar panel salesman as if he was making a scientific statement.

Secondly, your post is full of errors of both spelling and logic. An organism is an isolated system. In spite of the earth being a closed system, the things inside it's atmosphere are subject to the law of entropy. Complex machines, biological or otherwise do not spring up out of basic elements. Matter cannot organize itself into a working machine of any kind.

Really, find an error of either sort and I will acknowledge it. What I really loved was in one of your replies to me and you misapplied the notation <sic>, doubly.

So far, that seems about right.


And then you go totally off the rails.......

You can't decrease entropy by storing energy. The issue is in the amount of energy it requires to maintain the "engine" so to speak. It's always decaying and you have to spend some of the energy repairing it. That energy is now lost and unavailable for the purpose of running the engine. It "leaked."

Nobody has ever been able to create a perpetual motion machine because the law of entropy applies. If there was the magical possibility to decrease entropy, there would be no decay in those things you applied your magic to. Alas, everything decays and there's no way around it. Nothing just spontaneously jumps out of your compost pile to vacuum your carpet or do your laundry.

You really have no clue as to what entropy is. Or what anyone is claiming. You are making false claims based upon your ignorance of entropy. I am trying to find a simple source for you but I doubt if you would understand it. Entropy is not about decay. Decay can be part of it but it is incorrect to only think in terms of that. It is much more correct to simply think of it as energy available for work. Energy can be stored locally, at a cost of even more energy, that is a local decrease in energy because there is energy available for work. It is that simple. You keep stating that wood is an impossibility.

Do you think that you can understand this:

EDIT:
Well that did not work.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

I tried to copy and paste from that article and the scientific symbols would not paste. Let me look for a simpler article for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to you, plants should never grow.

Air conditioners cannot work either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay here is a simpler article:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo2.html

And an illustration:

As you can see an increase in entropy would be a normal transfer of heat from a hot object to a cold object. If we have a heat pump of some sort (air conditioners are heat pumps) we could pump heat from the cold source to the hot source. That takes energy, but the entropy of our simple hot container and cold container would have decreased. If one steps back and looks at the entropy of this local system and the entropy from the heat pump we would still see a total increase in entropy. But locally there is a decrease. This is possible with a closed system where energy (in this case the energy that powered the heat pump) flows through the system.

In nature photosynthesis produces sugars. That is like the heat pump putting heat into the "hot" container. That is a local drop in entropy. It indicates that we have stored energy.

That energy can be released later by burning wood for example. That would be a loss of energy available for work and therefore an increase in entropy.

I don't think that it can be simplified any further.

EDIT: Rats. You can see the image if you hit the "Reply" button.

 

[pitabread]

Mistyped. non-isolated.

Awww, that was too easy.