Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
Who wants to break laws to support a theory!?! ME ME ME

Home // Evolution Versus Creationism



Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
InherentLogic
Newbie


Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:18 am    Post subject: Who wants to break laws to support a theory!?! ME ME ME Reply with quote
The whole notion that random change over a long period of time can
transform simple systems into ever more complex systems runs precisely
contrary to one of the most fundamental laws of nature -- the second law
of thermodynamics. The Second Law states that with time, everything in
the universe tends to undergo progressive _degradation_. With the
passing of time, things do not naturally increase in order and
complexity -- they _decrease_. Think of what spontaneous change over a
thousand years will do to an automobile, or your own body. Scientists
tell us that with enough time, this natural degradation process will
lead to the "heat death" of the whole universe when virtually everything
in nature will run down to the point that even molecular motion will
cease!



(Uh, what? Evolution is not only logically ridiculous but there is also scientific laws that make it impossible?...odd)
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:44 am    Post subject: Re: Who wants to break laws to support a theory!?! ME ME ME Reply with quote
InherentLogic wrote:
The whole notion that random change over a long period of time can
transform simple systems into ever more complex systems runs precisely
contrary to one of the most fundamental laws of nature -- the second law
of thermodynamics. The Second Law states that with time, everything in
the universe tends to undergo progressive _degradation_. With the
passing of time, things do not naturally increase in order and
complexity -- they _decrease_.


That's actually not what the second law of thermodynamics is about.

There are a lot of different ways of saying it, but the general idea is that energy spreads out.
The consequence of this is that there is less and less energy available to do useful work.
That's what "entropy" is a measure of; the amount of energy not available for being used.

Entropy is *not* synonymous with "complexity". Some people use the word "order" to describe it, but that's deceptive to people who otherwise don't know anything about thermodynamics.

The entropy (as far as we know) of the universe always increases as a whole.
In fact, it always increases in any closed system.

The planet earth is not a closed system. It receives input of energy from the sun. The entropy on earth does not, therefore, need to increase. It can decrease.

Life doesn't reverse the increase of entropy as a whole, it only reverses it locally. In the big picture, all life does is slow down the increase of entropy - it doesn't stop it or reverse it in the universe as a whole.
Back to top
InherentLogic
Newbie


Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The universe itself is still a closed system in itself, hence why we see stars dying out not starting up, the same is true of life. Also entropy is synonymous with complexity. If you have done any chemistry or know anything about it you clearly know that chemical reactions will increase in entropy, and humans/life in general are chemical reactions. Think into it a little you'll get it Wink
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
InherentLogic wrote:
The universe itself is still a closed system in itself,


There's actually no way to prove that. It's just a convenient assumption that we make.

Quote:

hence why we see stars dying out not starting up,


...no, we do see them starting up. Are you familiar with the life cycle of a star?

Quote:

the same is true of life. Also entropy is synonymous with complexity.


No, it isn't. I'd recommend that you look it up.

Quote:

If you have done any chemistry or know anything about it you clearly know that chemical reactions will increase in entropy, and humans/life in general are chemical reactions. Think into it a little you'll get it Wink


If you've done any chemistry, or know anything about it, then you know that whether a chemical reaction increases or decreases entropy depends on a number of different factors. It is incorrect to state that chemical reactions always increase entropy.
Read about it a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T....._potential

And if you know anything about thermodynamics, then it should be immediately clear that the entropy in a system can and does decrease with input of energy to that system.

Think into it a little, you'll get it Wink
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Welcome to LvC InherentLogic!!

Usually there is a muffin basket, but alas, not today.
Back to top
InherentLogic
Newbie


Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Enthalpy is heat of a reaction, kinda like gibbs free energy if you have heard of it.

im a engineer ive had more chemistry classes and labs than i'd like to remember, and in each, every system decays over time. never the reverse~ (hence the law?)
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
InherentLogic wrote:
Enthalpy is heat of a reaction, kinda like gibbs free energy if you have heard of it.

im a engineer ive had more chemistry classes and labs than i'd like to remember, and in each, every system decays over time. never the reverse~ (hence the law?)


Your credentials as an engineer who has had chemistry classes are unimpressive, there are several posters on here who have had more impressive credentials then your own. Additionally, authoritative sites are rampant, perhaps you should post a link to the one you are using.

http://www.2ndlaw.com/

a site by Frank Lambert, Professor Emeritus, Occidental College

Prof. Lambert wrote:
There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS — yes, predicts firmly — the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry precisely deals with the structure and behavior of all types of matter.

To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously.

Also, to repeat a caution: The foregoing only describes energetic relationships involving the second law. It does not mean that most complex substances can be readily synthesized just by mixing elements and treating them in some way. The second law has nothing to do with pathways or procedures of synthesis.

Most complex molecules may require the expertise of one or of many chemists to put them together in a laboratory. However, so far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, not only water but cholesterol, DNA, the anti-depressant in St. John’s Wort and millions of other complex substances contain less energy than their constituent elements. Therefore, thermodynamically, their formation from those elements would be a spontaneous process, energetically favored by the second law.


Your 2nd law creationsit argument has been soundly refuted for years now. A fact that most creationist recognize. You should check the credentials of the web sites you are getting this stuff from.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
InherentLogic wrote:
Enthalpy is heat of a reaction, kinda like gibbs free energy if you have heard of it.


Apparently you didn't bother actually reading the websites i linked to. Good job.

Quote:

im a engineer ive had more chemistry classes and labs than i'd like to remember, and in each, every system decays over time. never the reverse~ (hence the law?)


How about you actually look up the laws of thermodynamics? You keep rambling, but you apparently refuse to actually learn.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Not even a thanks?

Knew I shoulda used the giftbasket...

I know the laws of thermodynamics!
Back to top
InherentLogic
Newbie


Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Clearly all things fall to the lowest energy "cholestrol etc etc" this however is not a anything that is important in the formation of life or evolution. entropy itself is energy/heat in its relation. (order/disorder)

Although after reading your site i have also come to the conclusion that our school systems are failing since you have basic literacy issues.

"We’ll see that viewpoint is totally out of synch with normal everyday thermodynamics – even though we certainly won’t say that proteins, carbohydrates, and DNA could have been easily formed spontaneously under primitive-earth conditions. Nothing like that! " from your 2ndlaw.com

Not even the most enthusiastic evolutionist would make those claims. If you want to base a theory that breaks laws on the basis of cholestrol then go ahead. LOL'd in real life hard.


Last edited by InherentLogic on Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:05 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
our school systems are failing sense you have basic literacy issues.


Just one thing to say to that- ROFL!
Back to top
InherentLogic
Newbie


Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
Quote:
our school systems are failing sense you have basic literacy issues.


Just one thing to sey to that- ROFL!


I can edit quotes also....next..
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
C'mon bucko, quit dodging it makes you look like a troll. Come up with a refutation for:

Quote:
Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously.


If you engineering and chemistry classes are so vaunted, according to your interpretation of the 2nd law, nothing would increase order, so how is it our technological society functions if local order can not be increased.

Energy input can increase local order, with loss of energy to heat, but local order can be increased. That's what the 2nd law indicates, it states nothing to prevent abiogenesis and certainly doesn't preclude speciation due to evolution.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I didn't edit it, but I can see you edited your post, look it even has a little "Last edited" thing, and oh, whats this? My post came before your last edit? How strange!
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fellfire wrote:
C'mon bucko, quit dodging it makes you look like a troll.


He is a troll. Isn't that obvious by now?
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Evolution Versus Creationism All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics
Politics blogs Politics blogs Article Directory Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites
My Big Breasts