Go back
The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Spirituality

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead

Here is your claim: abiogenesis, the process whereby life arises from non-life, contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

If you have evidence then please present it. If not please admit that you don't.

This is totally independent of any other theory such as evolution, the big bang etc. If God made the world yesterday, and we put the right mix ...[text shortened]... and stirred and life appeared would the second law of thermodynamics have been violated an why?
DJ- Please just answer the quoted post, enough side arguments.

And stop trying to apply the term "run down" to everything as evidence that it violates the second law. Please try to use a more formal definition of the 2nd law, perceived order is not what it is talking about, but energy and entropy. "Run down" does not mean anything as far as I'm concerned.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
DJ- Please just answer the quoted post, enough side arguments.

And stop trying to apply the term "run down" to everything as evidence that it violates the second law. Please try to use a more formal definition of the 2nd law, perceived order is not what it is talking about, but energy and entropy. "Run down" does not mean anything as far as I'm concerned.
Good point. If you're a senior double majoring in Chemistry and Physics you should be using the technical terms.

Vote Up
Vote Down

So, DJ, can I take it that you simply don't have any evidence for your claim but are not honest enough to admit it?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, DJ, can I take it that you simply don't have any evidence for your claim but are not honest enough to admit it?
I had to hand in 60 odd assignments this week, so I'm kinda busy... I'll get back to the forums as soon as I get the chance.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dj2becker
I had to hand in 60 odd assignments this week, so I'm kinda busy...
Gee whiz, that's the first time I've heard that excuse from you!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dj2becker
I had to hand in 60 odd assignments this week, so I'm kinda busy... I'll get back to the forums as soon as I get the chance.
I will be waiting. I've been busy too this week.
I just want a proper conclusion to the thread so I can refer back to it whenever someone brings up the topic again.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
I will be waiting. I've been busy too this week.
I just want a proper conclusion to the thread so I can refer back to it whenever someone brings up the topic again.
I wouldn't bother, I'm still waiting for a thesis on creationism since a year last November. dj runs when he's wrong instead of doing what any real christian would do and accept his error and atone for his lies.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Evolutionary theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dj2becker
Evolutionary theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began.
High school scientific definitions in this thread!

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
High school scientific definitions in this thread!
I guess you must be the type that coames their hair before they go to sleep.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dj2becker
Evolutionary theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began.
Firstly evolution itself is not a close system so on its own is not subject to the second law. (and therefore cannot be said to violate it).
Secondly, you are wrong about your interpretation of the second law and simply lying about empirical observation.

You say things tend towards 'simplicity' and 'disorganization'. But these are two conflicting terms. A disorganized system is more complex than a well ordered one.

Things do not 'tend towards randomness'. Things simply are random. They cannot get more or less random. Probability theory and that inherent randomness results in the Second Law.

The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about what has happened 'since the universe began' but only about what has happened here on earth since life began.

I notice you are still shying away from your claim about abiogenesis.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dj2becker
I guess you must be the type that coames their hair before they go to sleep.
I don't coame my anything.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I don't coame my anything.
Didn't you coame your nose just last week?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dj2becker
Evolutionary theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began.
Why do you avoid technical terms? What kind of science major are you?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why do you avoid technical terms? What kind of science major are you?
Imaginary Science, methinks!

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.