Educate your YEC 3: The second law of thermodynamics doesn't contradict evolution

Originally posted by RJHinds
An internal combustion engine could be considered an open system as long as someone is adding gasoline and replacing parts that are deteriorating. But if it is left to itself it should be considered a closed system. That is the same reasoning for the earth, which has the sun to provide energy.

Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and a ...[text shortened]... designed and placed in the plant and its seed by a purposeful creator in the original creations.

But if it is left to itself it should be considered a closed system
it still exchanges energy with the outside.

"That is the same reasoning for the earth, which has the sun to provide energy."
and had the sun for the entirety of its history, and had the sun for as long as evolution took place.

"However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite."
IF THE SYSTEM IS CLOSED. WHICH EARTH ISN'T

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
But if it is left to itself it should be considered a closed system
it still exchanges energy with the outside.

"That is the same reasoning for the earth, which has the sun to provide energy."
and had the sun for the entirety of its history, and had the sun for as long as evolution took place.

"However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite."
IF THE SYSTEM IS CLOSED. WHICH EARTH ISN'T

I don't know how to make it more simple. It does not matter if you wish to consider the earth, the sun, or the universe a closed or open system, the result is eventually the same. It all will eventually fall apart and deteriorate which conforms to the Second law of Thermodynamics.

This thread is mainly concerned with biological evolution and that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is in contradiction to that idea. I used the dead plant and the live plant as examples, but apparently you did not get it. Even the live plant will eventually die and decay no matter how much sun energy is added to it, in fact, it makes the decay process even faster.

I don't get how you could not understand that simple idea. The Law of Thermodynamics in deterioration and decay action is seen in biology regardless if you consider a plant or animal an open or closed system.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't know how to make it more simple. It does not matter if you wish to consider the earth, the sun, or the universe a closed or open system, the result is eventually the same. It all will eventually fall apart and deteriorate which conforms to the Second law of Thermodynamics.

This thread is mainly concerned with biological evolution and that the Se ...[text shortened]... action is seen in biology regardless if you consider a plant or animal an open or closed system.

As far as life on Earth goes, it is not a closed system, it is open for as long as the sun shines and that is all we need to know. The sun has been shining for billions of years and will continue to do so in the distant future, billions of years from now, the sun will still be providing energy to Earth. Those billions of years are what count. Life wasn't here on Earth 4 billion years ago, it only started about 500 million years later and so it has been and so it will be. All your poo pooing won't change a thing, except make you look blindfolded and self lobotomized.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't know how to make it more simple. It does not matter if you wish to consider the earth, the sun, or the universe a closed or open system, the result is eventually the same. It all will eventually fall apart and deteriorate which conforms to the Second law of Thermodynamics.

Yes, eventually, which is why the second law is not a good argument if you wish to prove evolution false. As long as the sun keeps shining, and species keeps reproducing, evolution works. It doesn't matter that everything eventually runs down. As long as we have energy input from the sun, new forms can evolve, building on earlier forms - complexity as you creationists call it, can increase. The second law is not relevant to the evolution that has occured, is occuring and will occur for a long, long time still.

Originally posted by C Hess
Yes, eventually, which is why the second law is not a good argument if you wish to prove evolution false. As long as the sun keeps shining, and species keeps reproducing, evolution works. It doesn't matter that everything eventually runs down. As long as we have energy input from the sun, new forms can evolve, building on earlier forms - complexity as ...[text shortened]... evant to the evolution that has occured, is occuring and will occur for a long, long time still.

I answered this argument about how evolution can not increase complexity in my post to you on the previous page and how that is related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The truth is Evolution does not happen and even the idea is too stupid to ever have happened in the past.

Originally posted by sonhouse
As far as life on Earth goes, it is not a closed system, it is open for as long as the sun shines and that is all we need to know. The sun has been shining for billions of years and will continue to do so in the distant future, billions of years from now, the sun will still be providing energy to Earth. Those billions of years are what count. Life wasn't h ...[text shortened]... All your poo pooing won't change a thing, except make you look blindfolded and self lobotomized.

I bet nobody will ever discover life like we have in this closed system on Earth on any other planet. For that and other reason, I say that the Earth can be considered a closed system, as far as the life on Earth goes.

Life on Earth only started about 6,000 years ago when God introduced it to be able to survive only on the closed system He provided for Earth. All your nonsense will not change the stupidity of the theory of evolution.

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
I answered this argument about how evolution can not increase complexity in my post to you on the previous page and how that is related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The truth is Evolution does not happen and even the idea is too stupid to ever have happened in the past.

No, you think you did, but you merely threw out an assertion that the open system of earth is closed, that it will eventually break down, that life is constantly deteriorating, and that evolution therefore could not, is not and will not happen.

We keep reminding you that earth is an open system, and that because life constantly renews itself and have learned to use the energy from the sun, evolution can, are and will take place for quite some time to come.

Nature tells a different story than your bible. Nature can be examined and experienced directly. Therefore, nature is the authority on the subject of... well, nature.

Originally posted by C Hess
No, you think you did, but you merely threw out an assertion that the open system of earth is closed, that it will eventually break down, that life is constantly deteriorating, and that evolution therefore could not, is not and will not happen.

We keep reminding you that earth is an open system, and that because life constantly renews itself and have lear ...[text shortened]... and experienced directly. Therefore, nature is the authority on the subject of... well, nature.

I will repeat my post in case you missed it. It does not seem as if you are making any reasonable argument againt it, so please read it carefully this time before responding.

An internal combustion engine could be considered an open system as long as someone is adding gasoline and replacing parts that are deteriorating. But if it is left to itself it should be considered a closed system. That is the same reasoning for the earth, which has the sun to provide energy.

Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder.

No experimental evidence disproves it, say physicists G.N. Hatspoulous and E.P. Gyftopoulos:

"There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries…"

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

"It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. While the utterances in some fields (such as astronomy) seem to change almost daily, the science of thermodynamics has been noteworthy for its stability. In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted." (Emmett Williams, Ph.D)

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

Creation of living things involves the process of having design and purpose. Evolution is a directionless process having no design purpose. But the design and purpose of living things is stored by instruction information within its genes. Only by the addition of this directional information can these living things use energy and matter to produce order and complexity. Creationists believe this information could not have gotten there by an evolution accident, but must have been designed and placed in the plant and its seed by a purposeful creator in the original creations.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I will repeat my post in case you missed it. It does not seem as if you are making any reasonable argument againt it, so please read it carefully this time before responding.

An internal combustion engine could be considered an open system as long as someone is adding gasoline and replacing parts that are deteriorating. But if it is left to itself it sho ...[text shortened]... designed and placed in the plant and its seed by a purposeful creator in the original creations.

I honestly don't understand how this can be so hard to understand. I've acknowledged that indeed the universe is running down, heading for maximum entropy. What you don't seem to get is that while it's doing so, energy is constantly moving, changing form. One way this happens is when the sun shines down on earth. This sunlight produces many effects, one of which is to fuel the photosynthesis in living plants. This in turn results in fuel for other forms of life, that depend on oxygen and/or the very plants for their survival.

Now, as long as that sun is shining, even though the entire universe is heading for maximum entropy, it provides fuel to the "engine" of evolution. It doesn't build complexity directly, of course. It gives living cells the energy required to form new intracellular and extracellular relationships, all the while building on earlier results that were successful. That's how complexity is "built".

The second law of thermodynamics have no effect on evolution, as long as the sun provides enough, not too much, energy.

Originally posted by C Hess
I honestly don't understand how this can be so hard to understand. I've acknowledged that indeed the universe is running down, heading for maximum entropy. What you don't seem to get is that while it's doing so, energy is constantly moving, changing form. One way this happens is when the sun shines down on earth. This sunlight produces many effects, one of wh ...[text shortened]... odynamics have no effect on evolution, as long as the sun provides enough, not too much, energy.

You don't seem to get that evolution is a directionless process having no design purpose. Only by the addition of this directional information can these living things use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't seem to get that evolution is a directionless process having no design purpose. Only by the addition of this directional information can these living things use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.

Actually, no. There are two ways to think about this. Either evolution is a guided process, in which case it has a direction, albeit not detectable until after the fact. Or it's a blind process, that constantly builds on earlier successful forms (which is, of course, what I believe).

Either way, the second law is not a problem for evolution.

Originally posted by C Hess
Actually, no. There are two ways to think about this. Either evolution is a guided process, in which case it has a direction, albeit not detectable until after the fact. Or it's a blind process, that constantly builds on earlier successful forms (which is, of course, what I believe).

Either way, the second law is not a problem for evolution.

You apparently did not read this:

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life."

(Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

Originally posted by RJHinds
You apparently did not read this:

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone suffici ...[text shortened]... f life."

(Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

Again, that's an argument against abiogenesis. That he finds it absurd how life can begin to exist in the first place, has no bearing on evolution. This thread is about how the second law of thermodynamics doesn't have an impact on evolution, which it clearly doesn't since every attempt at arguing from it seems to be targeted at the formation of life, rather than the continuous running of life.

You shoot blanks.

Originally posted by C Hess
Again, that's an argument against abiogenesis. That he finds it absurd how life can begin to exist in the first place, has no bearing on evolution. This thread is about how the second law of thermodynamics doesn't have an impact on evolution, which it clearly doesn't since every attempt at arguing from it seems to be targeted at the formation of life, rather than the continuous running of life.

You shoot blanks.

The theory of evolution is attempted to be used to explain all branches of science from the so-called "Big Bang" that is supposed to evolved energy and matter into stars and planets and the earth to the so-called "abiogenesis" that is supposed to evolve rocks into living things that are supposed to evolve into more complex living things.

The fact that none of that actually happened or is happening today makes no difference to those like you that are willingly ignorant of the true facts because you guys are content to just make up your own false facts.

It is clear to any reasonable persons that living things becoming more complex is in opposition to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is thus a hinderance to the theory of evolution. That is just one reason evolution does not happen and has never happened. And don't try to tell me variation in species is evolution because it is not.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The theory of evolution is attempted to be used to explain all branches of science from the so-called "Big Bang"...

No.