Originally posted by Coletti
It seems like the law of entropy should be renamed the rule of entropy since it can be overridden in some instances. At least, since there are very few closed systems, and all one seems to need to override entropy is to open the system and some added energy.
Well, I agree with you in general on how entropy works. I think the main problem is how it gets ...[text shortened]... quiry. It's just too bad that more people are not willing or are too afraid to question ToE.
Well, I agree with you in general on how entropy works. I think the main problem is how it gets over-ridden in an open system. It still seems to require some sort of life to make to make conversion from disorder to order - and this seem to be going against the general flow of nature.
It doesn't get "over-ridden in an open system." It doesn't apply to an open system. Conservation of Mass-Energy doesn't get "over-ridden in an open system" either, even though you can add or remove mass and energy from an open system.
Is life required to lessen entropy in an open system? No. Suppose energy is removed from water in the form of heat because the water is moved to the arctic due to natural processes. The water loses entropy as it solidifies into ice. Every instance in which a substance either condenses from gas to liquid or freezes from liquid to solid shows a lessening of entropy in an open system.
What we need is to find some planet on a distant star with ideal conditions to develop life - and then we can watch an see what happens.
Do you realize how extraordinarily difficult that would be if abiogenesis theory is correct? How would we apply controls to this system? Would we have people floating around this distant planet for millions of years for the sole purpose of making sure no aliens contaminate the experiment? Even then, one could always find some other possible explanation given the skepticism you're implying in your challenge to abiogenesis.
I would like to understand why people insist on viewing ToE as a indisputable fact, but I think it is mainly they are caught up in the herd, and fear going against popular opinion.
I agree with that actually, in the case of some people anyway. I think many or most creationists do the same thing.
Either way, it seem irrational to declare ToE as scientific fact.
That really depends on the definition of the word 'fact'. It's possible you don't use the word the same way scientists do.
03 Jun '05 18:26
Life from non-life?
Back to Top