Same old debate: creation x evolution

22 questions from creationists to those who believe in Evolution:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

🙂

22 answers from the bad astronomer...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/06/religion_and_science_answering_creationists_questions.html

i see the second law of thermodynamics is used a lot by people who have no idea about science. and they are right in a way.


the second law of thermodynamics would disprove evolution IF AND ONLY IF the planet were a closed system. which is not.

awesome, several people cling to the term "theory" not realizing that in science it is a different concept 😀

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i see the second law of thermodynamics is used a lot by people who have no idea about science. and they are right in a way.


the second law of thermodynamics would disprove evolution IF AND ONLY IF the planet were a closed system. which is not.

Not even then, even inside the closed Earth system* it's only overall entropy that must rise,
you can still locally lower it by increasing it elsewhere.
And thus life could still potentially exist and evolve.
In fact if the conditions make life possible, then they inevitably must make evolution possible.


*in this Hypothetical

Originally posted by googlefudge
Not even then, even inside the closed Earth system* it's only overall entropy that must rise,
you can still locally lower it by increasing it elsewhere.
And thus life could still potentially exist and evolve.
In fact if the conditions make life possible, then they inevitably must make evolution possible.


*in this Hypothetical

that mostly is used as an argument: someone(god) must have influenced the system.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that mostly is used as an argument: someone(god) must have influenced the system.

Sorry, what is used as an argument?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sorry, what is used as an argument?

"second law says that entropy never decreases.
evolution supposedly does the opposite
therefore evolution is wrong."

there are several issues:
1. second law only applies to closed systems.
2. even in a closed system it wouldn't disprove evolution because religious zealots have god interfere in it. therefore, even then it wouldn't mean evolution is wrong, just that there is someone triggering it from outside
3. you cannot apply this law to living organisms anyway.

it is just an attempt by religious ignorant people to sound sciencey to other religious ignorant people. when kent hovind mentions the second law of thermodynamics, bubba the redneck creationist marvels at how smart kent is.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"second law says that entropy never decreases.
evolution supposedly does the opposite
therefore evolution is wrong."

there are several issues:
1. second law only applies to closed systems.
2. even in a closed system it wouldn't disprove evolution because religious zealots have god interfere in it. therefore, even then it wouldn't mean evolution is w ...[text shortened]... ns the second law of thermodynamics, bubba the redneck creationist marvels at how smart kent is.

Ah, ok I'm with you.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that mostly is used as an argument: someone(god) must have influenced the system.

To echo googlefudge, even if you had once cubic metre of material in a totally closed system, the second law does not rule out the possibility of life arising. Evolution is an inevitable consequence of life, so that is not ruled out either.
The only requirement is that the material in the system is not yet at its maximum entropy.

There are life forms currently on earth that live on deep sea vents and are thus not dependant on sunlight.

And although googlefudge implied it, he did not spell out: abiogenesis is not distinct from life in general when discussing the second law ie if there is enough usable energy to sustain life, then abiogenesis can also take place.

Originally posted by twhitehead
To echo googlefudge, even if you had once cubic metre of material in a totally closed system, the second law does not rule out the possibility of life arising. Evolution is an inevitable consequence of life, so that is not ruled out either.
The only requirement is that the material in the system is not yet at its maximum entropy.

There are life forms ...[text shortened]... d law ie if there is enough usable energy to sustain life, then abiogenesis can also take place.

There are life forms currently on earth that live on deep sea vents and are thus not dependant on sunlight.

they get thermic energy from deep sea vents.


"if there is enough usable energy to sustain life, then abiogenesis can also take place."
it will die out eventually if new energy isn't introduced into the system.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
There are life forms currently on earth that live on deep sea vents and are thus not dependant on sunlight.

they get thermic energy from deep sea vents.


"if there is enough usable energy to sustain life, then abiogenesis can also take place."
it will die out eventually if new energy isn't introduced into the system.

Yes, as life will die out eventually as the universe heads towards heat death.
All it does is change the scale.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i see the second law of thermodynamics is used a lot by people who have no idea about science. and they are right in a way.


the second law of thermodynamics would disprove evolution IF AND ONLY IF the planet were a closed system. which is not.

Not quite even then. If the second LOT and biological evolution theory were in conflict, neither would have priority over the other excepting for those scientists who have an interest in preserving one over the other (such as physicists). So personal preferences would exist, but the playing field would be level in terms of the investigation. It is like the apparent incompatibility of relativity and quantum mechanics in the effort to develop a single model. Neither is the default.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
3. you cannot apply this law to living organisms anyway.

Why not? Why all the talk of closed systems vs open systems if it is irrelevant to life anyway?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
they get thermic energy from deep sea vents.

Exactly my point. So if the earth was sitting in empty space, they would still survive (the thermal energy is moslty from radioactive decay in the earths core.

it will die out eventually if new energy isn't introduced into the system.
True, but until entropy reaches its maximum, life is still possible without violating the second law.
My point is that a cubic metre of material with a nuclear energy source could be sealed and sent out on a space ship, and it could sustain life for a very long time (millions of years potentially).