Jump to content


Photo

The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics


  • Please log in to reply
446 replies to this topic

#41 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:59 AM

Here's another fact that makes it obvious how universally the laws of thermodynamics apply.

No matter what form of energy one goes to manipulate, the only way to make it flow; the only way to accomplish any work; is to provide the energy with a means of dissipating.

A good example is electricity. Electricity won't flow when the circuit is open.

Another good example is siphoning liquids. Liquid will easily flow to a higher elevation, but only if it's guaranteed a path to a lower eventual elevation.

I won't try to list all the different ways people have discovered to manipulate the different forms of energy. I hope that's enough to make my point clear. If you don't promise a path to entropy, you don't use energy.*

Of course, if certain regions enjoyed exemption, they should be very easy to detect: perpetual motion would be a breeze in such places, and plenty of other odd behaviours would be evident.

* I have read a claim regarding the efficiencies of photosynthesis. All plants are highly efficient, and I recall reading that one single step in the most efficient of the group managed a perfect 1 : 1 transfer of energy. That's the only thing I know of which might seem to contradict my statement. And if it does, well, it ain't man-made.

#42 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 06 March 2013 - 05:42 AM

Not at all. What creationists here are failing to understand is the link between energy and entropy. By adding energy to a system entropy can be decreased.....

What Evolutionists are failing to see is that adding energy from a outside source doesn't help them at all. Quite to the contrary, just adding undirected energy breaks down complexity.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#43 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:06 AM

What Evolutionists are failing to see is that adding energy from a outside source doesn't help them at all. Quite to the contrary, just adding undirected energy breaks down complexity.


A simple thought experiment can assist here :)


The sun is a source of energy into the ecosystems of the Earth

The sun's uncontrolled energy is observed to cause detriment to life: UV light kills microorganisms, skin cancer etc

Controlled use of the sun's energy has been observed to be beneficial: photosynthetic cells- plants and microorgansisms as well as solar panels which capture and thus control the energy.



Therefore we already know and observe that the evolutionist claim... 'adding energy decreases entropy'... is actually false when they discuss energy which cannot be controlled. However considering that these systems are required for control, one would ask if X source of energy was used how did these systems come about?.... (points to a designer)

#44 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 March 2013 - 03:04 PM

Hmm, how did we jump nearly three years between exchanges on this question?

Nonetheless, if there are still any skeptics around to ask: "What 'system' existed in the PRE-biotic ocean and what part of lifeless nature suddenly developed the necessity for nutrion on other lifeless chemicals of nature?" Be specific.

#45 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:50 PM

Entropy basically means that any system will tend towards some equilibrium it is predisposed to, due to natural laws. 



#46 exchemist

exchemist

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • London

Posted 17 June 2013 - 04:03 AM


A simple thought experiment can assist here smile.png


The sun is a source of energy into the ecosystems of the Earth

The sun's uncontrolled energy is observed to cause detriment to life: UV light kills microorganisms, skin cancer etc

Controlled use of the sun's energy has been observed to be beneficial: photosynthetic cells- plants and microorgansisms as well as solar panels which capture and thus control the energy.



Therefore we already know and observe that the evolutionist claim... 'adding energy decreases entropy'... is actually false when they discuss energy which cannot be controlled. .....

But the theory of evolution does not make such a daft claim, of course. 

 

Entropy obviously increases when heat is added to a system: dS = dQ/T. No competent scientist would deny it.

 

If energy from the sun were taken in and no heat were lost, then clearly we would have a continuous accumulation of both entropy and heat on Earth. We would all have fried long ago. The explanation for why we haven't is obvious, but strangely nobody on this thread has mentioned it. The Earth radiates low temperature waste heat into space, all the time.  Because dS = dQ/T, the loss of low temperature waste heat is capable of exporting  more entropy than is imported in the form of radiation from the sun. So increase in organisation in the biosphere can easily be driven by the waste heat released in the daily metabolism of organisms, with no violation of the 2nd Law of TD. 


  • Mike Summers and Megan like this

#47 PStryder

PStryder

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • DC Metro

Posted 10 July 2013 - 07:34 AM

The rule of thumb is this: If you are going to claim that evolution is in conflict with the second law, then present the entropy calculation to back it up. If you are not doing that, if instead you are just blathering about organization, randomness, chaos, or order and disorder, then the second law is not really playing any role at all in your argument. You are just presenting the argument from personal incredulity with a scientific gloss.



#48 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 July 2013 - 07:52 AM

But the theory of evolution does not make such a daft claim, of course. 

 

Entropy obviously increases when heat is added to a system: dS = dQ/T. No competent scientist would deny it.

 

If energy from the sun were taken in and no heat were lost, then clearly we would have a continuous accumulation of both entropy and heat on Earth. We would all have fried long ago. The explanation for why we haven't is obvious, but strangely nobody on this thread has mentioned it. The Earth radiates low temperature waste heat into space, all the time.  Because dS = dQ/T, the loss of low temperature waste heat is capable of exporting  more entropy than is imported in the form of radiation from the sun. So increase in organisation in the biosphere can easily be driven by the waste heat released in the daily metabolism of organisms, with no violation of the 2nd Law of TD. 

 

Many evolutionists have made that claim, and the sun is common example they give hence why I used it. You in fact do as well with your claims of "waste" energy. True, you've added the word waste so now its more like this.

 

"waste energy reduces entropy"

 

 

I've never heard of any mechanism that can utilise waste heat, doesn't such a thing defy the predictions of entropy and the "heat death" since there is no way to utilise the waste heat when it becomes waste heat, essentially the increase of waste heat is the increase in entropy; the energy that is lost in processes. If you find a way to utilise the waste heat you'll be a rich man since that will essentially be a "free energy" device. However such a thing still wouldn't support the claims that life / cells were able to do such things in order to increase their organisation.

 

I believe I have mentioned that in order for life to utilise energy at all it requires complex systems, how did such systems "evolve" when they are required for the energy of the organism to survive / to "evolve" that system in the first place. This is a "chicken and the egg" conundrum, and quite bluntly destroys claims of these systems "evolving" from nothing.

 

Perhaps rather than assuming whatever you think seems logical exists, base your claims on reality first. Find this mechanism you speak of THEN we shall discuss it. Until then no mechanism, means you're simply proposing a fairytale.

 

 

 

The rule of thumb is this: If you are going to claim that evolution is in conflict with the second law, then present the entropy calculation to back it up. If you are not doing that, if instead you are just blathering about organization, randomness, chaos, or order and disorder, then the second law is not really playing any role at all in your argument. You are just presenting the argument from personal incredulity with a scientific gloss.

 

Its an argument from logic, there are no calculations permissible to logic.

 

Most evolutionists claim

 

- the universe came from nothing

- the higher elements came from simpler ones

- life organised itself

-etc

 

They claim that these were accomplished by natural processes yet fail to realise that these events decrease entropy. Yes energy can be used from one locality to increase the order in another however the evolutionist has give no mechanisms for these claimed events, without those mechanisms they are simply spouting faith claims. Its akin to claiming "energy did it" or "evolution did it" with no knowledge of how, and thus no way to verify what they claim is true.

 

When considering that such things defy the natural prerogative of nature, which is to increase entropy, (hence there needs to be a mechanism, especially for cellular function). IF you want something to defy nature its seems a bit silly to claim that natural processes did it.

 

We already know that from nothing nothing comes. So the first point speaks for itself. (This is based on reality)

 

If higher elements could be formed then it should be able to be repeated.. (in reality). Or perhaps this is a vestige of alchemy wanting to create gold.....

 

As mentioned before in terms of life there needs to be a mechanism to harness the energy since that is what we see in all other forms of energy transformation with life... Photosynthesis etc. (Meaning I am basing my claims on reality).



#49 exchemist

exchemist

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • London

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:09 AM

Many evolutionists have made that claim, and the sun is common example they give hence why I used it. You in fact do as well with your claims of "waste" energy. True, you've added the word waste so now its more like this.

 

"waste energy reduces entropy"

 

 

I've never heard of any mechanism that can utilise waste heat, doesn't such a thing defy the predictions of entropy and the "heat death" since there is no way to utilise the waste heat when it becomes waste heat, essentially the increase of waste heat is the increase in entropy; the energy that is lost in processes. If you find a way to utilise the waste heat you'll be a rich man since that will essentially be a "free energy" device. However such a thing still wouldn't support the claims that life / cells were able to do such things in order to increase their organisation.

 

I believe I have mentioned that in order for life to utilise energy at all it requires complex systems, how did such systems "evolve" when they are required for the energy of the organism to survive / to "evolve" that system in the first place. This is a "chicken and the egg" conundrum, and quite bluntly destroys claims of these systems "evolving" from nothing.

 

Perhaps rather than assuming whatever you think seems logical exists, base your claims on reality first. Find this mechanism you speak of THEN we shall discuss it. Until then no mechanism, means you're simply proposing a fairytale.

 

 

 

 

Its an argument from logic, there are no calculations permissible to logic.

 

Most evolutionists claim

 

- the universe came from nothing

- the higher elements came from simpler ones

- life organised itself

-etc

 

They claim that these were accomplished by natural processes yet fail to realise that these events decrease entropy. Yes energy can be used from one locality to increase the order in another however the evolutionist has give no mechanisms for these claimed events, without those mechanisms they are simply spouting faith claims. Its akin to claiming "energy did it" or "evolution did it" with no knowledge of how, and thus no way to verify what they claim is true.

 

When considering that such things defy the natural prerogative of nature, which is to increase entropy, (hence there needs to be a mechanism, especially for cellular function). IF you want something to defy nature its seems a bit silly to claim that natural processes did it.

 

We already know that from nothing nothing comes. So the first point speaks for itself. (This is based on reality)

 

If higher elements could be formed then it should be able to be repeated.. (in reality). Or perhaps this is a vestige of alchemy wanting to create gold.....

 

As mentioned before in terms of life there needs to be a mechanism to harness the energy since that is what we see in all other forms of energy transformation with life... Photosynthesis etc. (Meaning I am basing my claims on reality).

Where do you get "waste energy reduces entropy" from. From all I've said that's obviously rubbish.  What I said was waste heat exports entropy from the Earth.

 

It doesn't reduce it, obviously.

 

It exports it.

 

Into space.

 

Do you understand this?

 

P.S. are you really studying for a science degree of some kind?



#50 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 10 July 2013 - 04:42 PM

Where do you get "waste energy reduces entropy" from. From all I've said that's obviously rubbish.  What I said was waste heat exports entropy from the Earth.

 

It doesn't reduce it, obviously.

 

It exports it.

 

Into space.

 

Do you understand this?

 

P.S. are you really studying for a science degree of some kind?

 

 

He understands your point.  Yes within a living system entropy is accounted for.  But I do not think you understand his point.  You need a mechanism on how:

 

1.  Amino Acids are formed and remain statble;

2. Homochirality- Sterioisomers want to move to racemic mixture (50/50 L/R handness)

3. Long chained AA's in a specified order

4. Large molicules

 

All these are thermodynamically unstable.  How are these molecules stable in life without a mechanism to keep them stable?


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#51 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:12 PM

Where do you get "waste energy reduces entropy" from. From all I've said that's obviously rubbish.  What I said was waste heat exports entropy from the Earth.
 
It doesn't reduce it, obviously.
 
It exports it.
 
Into space.
 
Do you understand this?
 
P.S. are you really studying for a science degree of some kind?

And? How does this have anything to do with anything?

I assumed that the loss of heat to space was pretty obvious and didnt need to be said. The loss of heat doesnt create complexity, in fact it supports my claims that the natural prerogative of the universe is to exist in a high entropy state.

You were claiming a fetus uses the waste heat from its mother's body on the other thread.



Thanks Bruce!

#52 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 11 July 2013 - 07:40 AM

He understands your point.  Yes within a living system entropy is accounted for.  But I do not think you understand his point.  You need a mechanism on how:

 

1.  Amino Acids are formed and remain statble;

2. Homochirality- Sterioisomers want to move to racemic mixture (50/50 L/R handness)

3. Long chained AA's in a specified order

4. Large molicules

 

All these are thermodynamically unstable.  How are these molecules stable in life without a mechanism to keep them stable?

We do know how life sustains itself and how entropy is accounted for because life has a metabolism/photosynthesis where it can process external energy and create directed energy (food) which life uses in biological processes.  But that leaves evolutionist a problem.  They can not explain how the biological equipment was exists by materialism (chemistry/physics).  The biological equipment looks designed (ATP synthase for example).  I believe it was designed and that would be an interesting discussion.

 

The other point is the evolution takes OOL as a given, and happened by chance without God.  Do you realize what a monumental assumption that is?  Look at all the biological equipment needed for life that is just assumed to be created by naturalistic means.

 

1. Assume OOL

2. Assume all the biological equipment needed to convert energy

3 state categorically that the second law is not an issue in the OOL.

4. Claim widely that creationists are IDiots by simply assuming away their arguments.



#53 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 July 2013 - 08:57 AM

The other point is the evolution takes OOL as a given, and happened by chance without God.  Do you realize what a monumental assumption that is?  Look at all the biological equipment needed for life that is just assumed to be created by naturalistic means.

 

1. Assume OOL

2. Assume all the biological equipment needed to convert energy

3 state categorically that the second law is not an issue in the OOL.

4. Claim widely that creationists are IDiots by simply assuming away their arguments.

 

That is the "evolution did it" assumption, no need to think about the details of how, "evolution did it" that is all you need to know.

 

I assume that exchemists irrelevant claims about heat loss into space was simply a giant red herring, since such things do nothing for the evolutionist claims.



#54 exchemist

exchemist

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • London

Posted 11 July 2013 - 10:30 AM

And? How does this have anything to do with anything?

I assumed that the loss of heat to space was pretty obvious and didnt need to be said. The loss of heat doesnt create complexity, in fact it supports my claims that the natural prerogative of the universe is to exist in a high entropy state.

You were claiming a fetus uses the waste heat from its mother's body on the other thread.



Thanks Bruce!

Radiating low temp heat into space exports entropy, not just heat. So entropy can decrease, locally in systems on the Earth, without violating the 2nd Law of TD.

 

I don't understand why you think I'm saying there are "mechanism[s] that can utilise waste heat. I'm not suggesting anything of the kind.      

 

Re the foetus, I didn't say it uses waste heat from its mother, either. It doesn't. But I'll reply at more length on the other thread.  



#55 exchemist

exchemist

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • London

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:32 AM

We do know how life sustains itself and how entropy is accounted for because life has a metabolism/photosynthesis where it can process external energy and create directed energy (food) which life uses in biological processes.  But that leaves evolutionist a problem.  They can not explain how the biological equipment was exists by materialism (chemistry/physics).  The biological equipment looks designed (ATP synthase for example).  I believe it was designed and that would be an interesting discussion.

 

The other point is the evolution takes OOL as a given, and happened by chance without God.  Do you realize what a monumental assumption that is?  Look at all the biological equipment needed for life that is just assumed to be created by naturalistic means.

 

1. Assume OOL

2. Assume all the biological equipment needed to convert energy

3 state categorically that the second law is not an issue in the OOL.

4. Claim widely that creationists are IDiots by simply assuming away their arguments.

Bruce, do I take it from these two post of yours that you think the thermodynamic violation is in the process of abiogenesis, rather than in the subsequent process of evolution, i.e. once stable replication was established? 

 

If so, then I think we are boiling the problem down quite productively.

 

Yes, I agree evolution takes abiogenesis as a given, but it is silent about how it occurred. Actually, I think it is perfectly possible, logically, to accept evolution AND believe that the initial creation of life required supernatural intervention. In fact I think this is one of the positions take by some ID people, is it not? To think like this is not a scientific way of thinking (due to the supernatural element), but I don't see it as logically incompatible with evolution. 



#56 exchemist

exchemist

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • London

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:35 AM

He understands your point.  Yes within a living system entropy is accounted for.  But I do not think you understand his point.  You need a mechanism on how:

 

1.  Amino Acids are formed and remain statble;

2. Homochirality- Sterioisomers want to move to racemic mixture (50/50 L/R handness)

3. Long chained AA's in a specified order

4. Large molicules

 

All these are thermodynamically unstable.  How are these molecules stable in life without a mechanism to keep them stable?

I don't think he does. Why does he keep asserting that I am saying waste heat is "used"?  



#57 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 11 July 2013 - 01:58 PM

I don't think he does. Why does he keep asserting that I am saying waste heat is "used"?  

Believing that OOL was a supernatural event and then believing in evolution form than point forward is very consistent with theist evolution.  That God could use any mechanism He wanted, he just chose to use evolution as the mechanism to create the diversity of life.

 

Yes,  I am saying that there is a thermodynamic violation on OOL in creating long chain organized molecules,  which was the topic of the other thread,



#58 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 July 2013 - 07:32 PM

Radiating low temp heat into space exports entropy, not just heat. So entropy can decrease, locally in systems on the Earth, without violating the 2nd Law of TD.

 

I don't understand why you think I'm saying there are "mechanism[s] that can utilise waste heat. I'm not suggesting anything of the kind.      

 

Re the foetus, I didn't say it uses waste heat from its mother, either. It doesn't. But I'll reply at more length on the other thread.  

 

No its exporting heat, does exporting heat allow for the increase of order? No... Perhaps consider if there was no order at all how do you suppose that moving energy around creates order...

 

All you are doing is attempting to use the established order as a % and then claim that if entropy is removed then that means the order increases as if entropy and order were on a scale.

 

 

Then why are we discussing waste heat as a means of creating order? You should know that moving it away doesn't create order



#59 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 September 2013 - 02:12 PM

I'm glad to see that the entropy of this thread hasn't reached equilibrium yet! :-D

#60 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 September 2013 - 04:16 PM

Here's another fact that makes it obvious how universally the laws of thermodynamics apply.

No matter what form of energy one goes to manipulate, the only way to make it flow; the only way to accomplish any work; is to provide the energy with a means of dissipating.

A good example is electricity. Electricity won't flow when the circuit is open.

Another good example is siphoning liquids. Liquid will easily flow to a higher elevation, but only if it's guaranteed a path to a lower eventual elevation.

I won't try to list all the different ways people have discovered to manipulate the different forms of energy. I hope that's enough to make my point clear. If you don't promise a path to entropy, you don't use energy.*

Of course, if certain regions enjoyed exemption, they should be very easy to detect: perpetual motion would be a breeze in such places, and plenty of other odd behaviours would be evident.

* I have read a claim regarding the efficiencies of photosynthesis. All plants are highly efficient, and I recall reading that one single step in the most efficient of the group managed a perfect 1 : 1 transfer of energy. That's the only thing I know of which might seem to contradict my statement. And if it does, well, it ain't man-made.

CTD,

I live in Texas, where one can see all too clearly that the sun is destructive.  Here it will burn the tires off your tractor, eventually.  It will also burn the asphalt shingles off your roof, eventually.  Now if I put some sun panels on the roof to capture the heat of the sun, I still have entropy, eventually.  But if I connect wires to the panels with a computer program to direct the captured energy of the sun to do work (heat water, generate electricity, etc.), now I am in business.  What I'm getting at here is that the sun's rays will not  create the panels or the mechanism to use the sun's heat.  An intelligent mind must do that.  So my question, did the sun create the first mechanism for plants to capture the sun's rays and grow.  I think not.

 

TeeJay






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users