Originally posted by dj2beckerRead your own quotes again. It clearly states that "Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law".
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; c ...[text shortened]... nd the Development of Order (5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, Georgia 30092, 1981), p. 18.[/i]
Thus there is an equal and opposite counteracting effect and empirical observation should see that too and observe that things in general do not "tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization." as your claim stated.
Your quote only gives as examples man made things and not things in general as your claim stated.
What? Gravity causes an increase in entropy. Jump down a cliff and you will surely find it out the hard way. Your body will be less ordered than it was before gravity took effect.
Giving examples does not prove a generality. I can guarantee that if you jump down a cliff there will be at least one part of your body which will experience a decrease in entropy.
Read my statement again. I said "localised", or did you miss that.
As scotishinnz said, if your claim was true it would be impossible to pump water up hill. A water wheel is a good example of gravity pumping water uphill. If you want an even simpler example drop a glass full of water and it is possible for at least one drop to splash higher than the initial hight of the water contained in that drop - a local decrease in entropy. Where is the intelligent sorting mechanism?
My reference to an intelligent mechanism still stands. Any utilization of energy to form order from chaos requires some intelligent sorting mechanism.
I gave this example right near the beginning of the thread. Place dirty water in a jar and shake. Allow to stand. Gravity will sort it without any intelligent input. This happens with all mixtures of fluids and gases in the presence of gravity.
When a water molecule is broken up there is a decrease in order.
But there is a decrease in entropy, so how do you explain that?
Combustion requires an input of energy. Carbon and oxygen don't just randomly collide to form CO2.
No it does not. You are wrong. The molecules must be hot enough (moving fast enough) but when they are then yes they "just randomly collide to form CO2". There is a net out put of energy.
The reason they must be hot is because the O2 molecule must be broken up in the process which does require an input of energy.
However if you put single oxygen atoms and single carbon atoms together you would not need any input of energy.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadRead your own quotes again. It clearly states that "Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law".
Read your own quotes again. It clearly states that "Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law".
Thus there is an equal and opposite counteracting effect and empirical observation should see that too and observe that things in general do [b]not "tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization." e oxygen atoms and single carbon atoms together you would not need any input of energy.[/b]
Thus there is an equal and opposite counteracting effect and empirical observation should see that too and observe that things in general do [b]not "tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization." as your claim stated. [/b]
If things in general did not tend towards disorder, why does money have to be spent on renovation?
Your quote only gives as examples man made things and not things in general as your claim stated.
Man made things are made from molecular substances are they not?
Giving examples does not prove a generality. I can guarantee that if you jump down a cliff there will be at least one part of your body which will experience a decrease in entropy.
Any decrease in entropy does not last forever since all things naturally move towards a state of higher entropy according to the 2nd law. while you are traveling through the air you might experience a temporal increase in entropy caused by the increase of kinetic energy caused by the force of gravity, but the moment you strike the ground the entropy of your body will increase again.
Read my statement again. I said "localised", or did you miss that.
As scotishinnz said, if your claim was true it would be impossible to pump water up hill. A water wheel is a good example of gravity pumping water uphill.
Naturally the addition of energy can cause a temporal decrease in entropy. Of course water can be pumped up a hill, but once the water is on top of the hill it will naturally tend to flow down the hill again.
If you want an even simpler example drop a glass full of water and it is possible for at least one drop to splash higher than the initial hight of the water contained in that drop - a local decrease in entropy.
And guess what? The drop of water will naturally tend to fall down again and the entropy of the drop will increase again.
I gave this example right near the beginning of the thread. Place dirty water in a jar and shake. Allow to stand. Gravity will sort it without any intelligent input. This happens with all mixtures of fluids and gases in the presence of gravity.
Take a vast array of coins and pack them neatly in a jar according to their types and you will have order in the jar. Shake the jar and leave it and you will find disorder in the jar.
Also, what makes you think that Gravity has no intelligent input?
When a water molecule is broken up there is a decrease in order.
But there is a decrease in entropy, so how do you explain that?
Energy is required to break up a water molecule. What's the problem?
No it does not. You are wrong. The molecules must be hot enough (moving fast enough) but when they are then yes they "just randomly collide to form CO2". There is a net out put of energy.
I am afraid you are the one that is wrong. Temperature is the measure of average kinetic energy. Thus enough energy is required for CO2 to form.
The reason they must be hot is because the O2 molecule must be broken up in the process which does require an input of energy.
However if you put single oxygen atoms and single carbon atoms together you would not need any input of energy.
The fact that they are hot means there has been a temperature increase which means there has been an input of kinetic energy. Energy is required to break the initial 02 bonds so that a new C02 molecule can form.
EDIT: I SERIOUSLY SUGGEST THAT YOU GO AND READ A GRADE 10 CHEMISTRY TEXTBOOK BEFORE WE CONTINUE WITH THIS DISCUSSION.
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo the things being renovated are no-longer things during renovation? You claimed that all things tend towards disorder not just those not being renovated.
If things in general did not tend towards disorder, why does money have to be spent on renovation?
Man made things are made from molecular substances are they not?
They are. And your point is?
My point was that if your rule only applies to a subset of things then say so.
Any decrease in entropy does not last forever since all things naturally move towards a state of higher entropy according to the 2nd law. while you are traveling through the air you might experience a temporal increase in entropy caused by the increase of kinetic energy caused by the force of gravity, but the moment you strike the ground the entropy of your body will increase again.
So you admit that your claim:
"A localised decrease in enthropy still requires a complex intelligent mechanism."
is either false or gravity is a "complex intelligent mechanism"?
Take a vast array of coins and pack them neatly in a jar according to their types and you will have order in the jar. Shake the jar and leave it and you will find disorder in the jar.
An example doesn't prove a generality. It does disprove one.
Also, what makes you think that Gravity has no intelligent input?
If you wish to call gravity a "complex intelligent mechanism" then fine, but then your definition of the word "intelligent" must be so vague as to be rather meaningless and certainly nowhere close to the general usage of the word in English.
Energy is required to break up a water molecule. What's the problem?
The problem is that you claimed that all molecules will break up over time if "left to themselves" so where does this extra energy come from?
I am afraid you are the one that is wrong. Temperature is the measure of average kinetic energy. Thus enough energy is required for CO2 to form.
Yes, but not necessarily "addition of energy" if the average kinetic energy is already sufficient. Remember that your statement did imply that the molecules were moving relative to each other so don't now claim that they were not.
The fact that they are hot means there has been a temperature increase which means there has been an input of kinetic energy. Energy is required to break the initial 02 bonds so that a new C02 molecule can form.
Do you agree that single oxygen atoms and single carbon atoms if placed in a closed system at absolute zero kelvins will be attracted to each other by the influence of gravity and will at some point form molecules (possibly including CO2 or O2 depending on the initial locations of the molecules.)?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are just arguing in circles. The bottom line is this:
So the things being renovated are no-longer things during renovation? You claimed that all things tend towards disorder not just those not being renovated.
Man made things are made from molecular substances are they not?
They are. And your point is?
My point was that if your rule only applies to a subset of things then say so.
Any decrea ssibly including CO2 or O2 depending on the initial locations of the molecules.)?
The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:
- that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)
-usable energy is running out
-information tends to get scrambled
-order tends towards disorder
-a random jumble won’t organize itself
It also depends on the type of system:
An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down.
A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.
An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 40;
Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.
The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.
It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.
To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo do you accept that your claims 2 - 5 were false? If not then lets deal with them first before going off into other claims.
You are just arguing in circles. The bottom line is this:
The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:
- that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)
-usable energy is running out
-information tends to get scrambled
-order tends towards disorder
...[text shortened]... way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy claims were made within the context of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and thus I believe they were true. Unless of course you can prove that my statements defy the 2nd law.
So do you accept that your claims 2 - 5 were false? If not then lets deal with them first before going off into other claims.
My previous post clarifies this.
So the important question is really this: do you believe that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is false? And if so, why?
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerClaims are claims whatever the context. Your previous post does not clarify it but rather seems to muddy the waters by rambling off about evolution etc.
My claims were made within the context of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and thus I believe they were true.
My previous post clarifies this.
Since you seem to have difficulty dealing with them all at once, let us tackle them one at a time:
5.
Originally posted by dj2becker
Carbon dioxide is never formed by the random collision of Carbon and Oxygen, as you would want to have it.
If a randomly moving carbon atom collides at sufficient speed with a randomly moving oxygen molecule (O2) is it possible for CO2 to form.
If not, please explain why. If it is, then admit your statement is false.
Hint: making vague references to the Second Law is not an answer.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI do not believe that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is false. I do however believe that:
So the important question is really this: do you believe that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is false? And if so, why?
1. Your interpretation of it is wrong.
2. The claims 2-5 that you made do not follow from it.
3. It does not apply to the universe as a whole. The expansion of spacetime results in an increase in potential energy.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI have already shown this for:
Unless of course you can prove that my statements defy the 2nd law.
4.
Originally posted by dj2becker
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
as the breaking apart of many molecules is an endothermic reaction and thus defies the second law as well as the law of conservation of energy.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadAtmospheric carbon dioxide derives from multiple natural sources including volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms; man-made sources of carbon dioxide come mainly from the burning of various fossil fuels for heating, power generation and transport use. It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration. Plants convert carbon dioxide to oxygen during a process called photosynthesis, using both the carbon and part of the oxygen to construct carbohydrates. The resulting gas, oxygen, is released into the atmosphere by plants, which is subsequently used for respiration by heterotrophic organisms, forming a cycle.
Claims are claims whatever the context. Your previous post does not clarify it but rather seems to muddy the waters by rambling off about evolution etc.
Since you seem to have difficulty dealing with them all at once, let us tackle them one at a time:
5.
Originally posted by dj2becker
Carbon dioxide is never formed by the random collision of Ca it your statement is false.
Hint: making vague references to the Second Law is not an answer.
None of these processes of CO2 production according to my knowledge forms due to the simple random collision of a carbon atom and an oxygen molecule.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead1. Your interpretation of it is wrong.
I do not believe that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is false. I do however believe that:
1. Your interpretation of it is wrong.
2. The claims 2-5 that you made do not follow from it.
3. It does not apply to the universe as a whole. The expansion of spacetime results in an increase in potential energy.
But you will not demonstrate why it is wrong? And I should listen you with your 3rd world Zambian Math degree rather than Dr. Isaac Asimov, who was a Professor of Biochemistry?
The claims 2-5 that you made do not follow from it.
And this too you will not demonstrate?
It does not apply to the universe as a whole. The expansion of spacetime results in an increase in potential energy.
Do you mean to say that the 2nd Law is not a universal law of physics?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm done, you've beaten the science out of me, I conceed, you're right, I'm wrong.
dj2becker asked what my qualifications were and I told him. I think his intention was to claim that he is better qualified and therefore correct, which is a sign that he really doesn't understand how science works.
[b]Ever play Jenga? A molecule is like a Jenga puzzle game tower with a couple of blocks removed. It wants to fall down(or be redu ...[text shortened]... t. Any closed system has an element of gravity and the matter will tend to cluster in a bunch.
Do you have any reference to back up your claim that all elements are radioactive?
Nuclear, atomic, nucleous, atom, neutrons, protons, nuclei, electrons, radioactive decay and thermonuclear weapons (I threw that one in for free)? Do these ring a bell? Just what did you think atoms were made up of? Little bits of fluffy lint perhaps?
Congratulations, you really have an extraordinary talent for being obtuse.
Cluster in a bunch? Suh-weet Jesus! Try to grasp the concept of infinite time and what that might do to an object, system, black hole, galaxy, universe or a Twinkie.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateI am afraid studying Math at the university of Zambia will eventually take it's toll, and the 2nd law backs me up on this one...
I'm done, you've beaten the science out of me, I conceed, you're right, I'm wrong.
[b]Do you have any reference to back up your claim that all elements are radioactive?
Nuclear, atomic, nucleous, atom, neutrons, protons, nuclei, electrons, radioactive decay and thermonuclear weapons (I threw that one in for free)? Do these ring a bell? Jus ...[text shortened]... time and what that might do to an object, system, black hole, galaxy, universe or a Twinkie.[/b]