1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeCan you say that the second law of thermodynamics is "little more than" an empirical observation? If empirical observation counts for nothing, then the scientific method counts for nothing as that is a fundamental component of the method.
the theory of evolution is not in conflict with the 'law' of thermo dynamics. I would point out that the 'law' of thermodynamics is little more than an empirical observation, there is no 'force' of nature involved, just statistics, as such even if there were a contradiction this would not be an issue for evolution.[/b]
Is there some way to build or gain knowledge other than through observation?
True that it just boils down to a collection of statistics, but these statitics indicate that when left to themselves, closed systems dirft to a state of increased entropy. This is what is seen. It has been seen so often and verified through so much expirmentation that it has been promoted from theory to law.
If you wish to propose that thermodynamics doesn't apply to biology... you may be right. I don't know if there are any limits to the domain of this assertion.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by stevenv76The earth is not a closed system.
Can you say that the second law of thermodynamics is "little more than" an empirical observation? If empirical observation counts for nothing, then the scientific method counts for nothing as that is a fundamental component of the method.
Is there some way to build or gain knowledge other than through observation?
True that it just boils down to a ...[text shortened]... ... you may be right. I don't know if there are any limits to the domain of this assertion.
1 edit
Originally posted by stevenv76The Earth is not a closed system. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics does not apply.
Can you say that the second law of thermodynamics is "little more than" an empirical observation? If empirical observation counts for nothing, then the scientific method counts for nothing as that is a fundamental component of the method.
Is there some way to build or gain knowledge other than through observation?
True that it just boils down to a ... you may be right. I don't know if there are any limits to the domain of this assertion.
Humble yourself for a moment and consider. If the theory of evolution stood in such blatant opposition to the second law of thermodynamics, wouldn't every physicist (religious or not) be screaming it from the rooftops? Wouldn't every biologist be racing to write up the great paper which would immediately be published in one of the top bio journals? That's a lot of people passing up tenure and endowed chairs.
Now either your objection does not actually apply (and it does not), or you have to buy into the great conspiracy theory in which all scientists are cooperating to keep this fatal contradiction under wraps (for what reason?) even though it is clearly not in their best interest to do so. That is unless you think that you understand the second law of thermodynamics better than physicists?
Hrm.... no it isn't. But the universe is. Unless you can point to evidence of something acting on the universe from without? Just because it is large, it doesn't mean it isn't closed.
We are talking about the big picture here aren't we? I think so, unless you say that evolution applies only to the earth and is invalid anywhere else at all.
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
The Second Law applies to open or closed; but in an open system as input of energy increases and so does entropy, you can't escape this universal law.
I don't know why people insist on resisting this point, it has been proven time and again in Science, perhaps its because they refuse to acknowledge the truth of science for the lie of evolution. Evolution is terminally ill.
Originally posted by stevenv76No, I would accept that the universe is a closed system. However, look at the definition you gave in your post. The "total entropy" has to be increasing. This does not say that entropy has to be increasing at every point within the system. Must total entropy be increasing in the universe? According to the second law of thermodynamics, yes. Must total entropy be increasing on Earth, or other non-closed systems? Not necessarily.
Hrm.... no it isn't. But the universe is. Unless you can point to evidence of something acting on the universe from without? Just because it is large, it doesn't mean it isn't closed.
We are talking about the big picture here aren't we? I think so, unless you say that evolution applies only to the earth and is invalid anywhere else at all.
Now there would be a problem if we thought that evolution was occuring nearly everywhere in the universe, but we can be pretty sure this is not the case. The fraction of space inhospitable to life is
(n-1)/n where n is very large. Even with evolution occuring in a ferw tiny areas of the universe, there is plenty of room available in the universe such that total entropy is increasing.
Originally posted by LangtreeSo you buy into the great science conspiracy. Everyone is working hard to keep the truth of your particular religous belief a secret from the masses. To hell with fame and tenure and what not.
The Second Law applies to open or closed; but in an open system as input of energy increases and so does entropy, you can't escape this universal law.
I don't know why people insist on resisting this point, it has been proven time and again in Science, perhaps its because they refuse to acknowledge the truth of science for the lie of evolution. Evolution is terminally ill.
I remember your background, Lang. If you have the cajones, why not show up at a local accredited university and challenge the biology and physics departments to a little debate on the subject? They could teach you a lot if you're willing to listen.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by KellyJayI would think that my body is an open system, because I eat food and get useful biochemical energy from it (energy from plants and animals that ultimately get their energy from the sun).
Is your body a closed system according to you?
Kelly
I am always gettin this useful energy from the sun and this is why (I would think) I am an open system not closed.
The waste products that are made from the chemical reactions are of course excreted.
Originally posted by telerionOk, so entropy is increasing in (n-1)/n of the universe while it is stable or even decreasing in 1/n of the universe.
[b
Now there would be a problem if we thought that evolution was occuring nearly everywhere in the universe, but we can be pretty sure this is not the case. The fraction of space inhospitable to life is
(n-1)/n where n is very large. Even with evolution occuring in a ferw tiny areas of the universe, there is plenty of room available in the universe such that total entropy is increasing.[/b]
I don't know, it seems difficult to accept that such a disproportioantely large part of a system would leave the rest of the system unaffected. Especially before the emergence of human intelligence. We do a lot to organize the world around us, but even with our intelligence can we resist this "almost" universal phenomena?
Originally posted by stevenv76The increase of Entropy is not like the force of Gravity.
Ok, so entropy is increasing in (n-1)/n of the universe while it is stable or even decreasing in 1/n of the universe.
I don't know, it seems difficult to accept that such a disproportioantely large part of a system would leave the rest of the system unaffected. Especially before the emergence of human intelligence. We do a lot to organize the world around us, but even with our intelligence can we resist this "almost" universal phenomena?
Originally posted by stevenv76Thermodynamics deals with closed systems. The universe, but not the planet, is a closed system. Also the 2nd law ony states what will happen to the entire system, not the component parts. Any decrease in entropy here on earth is more than made up for by the massive increase in entropy in the sun which powers life along.
I am a creationist. I support creation on religious/faith reasons. I have abandoned evolution (I used to be an evolutionist) based on scientific reasons.
The biggest problems I see with evolution:
1. It doesn't explain how life sprang out of non-life.
2. The THEORY of evolution is in direct contradiction 2nd LAW of thermodynamics: The total ...[text shortened]... is a state more organized than total chaos.
Forgive me if these issues have been addressed.
By your example, water could not be pumped uphill, and it'd never rain.
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
Originally posted by telerionIf you are attempting to taunt me, you are only bringing discredit to yourself. You are not participating in an argument, you are only attacking my position with irrational rhetoric. This is not unlike most of your kind. One can't reason with someone who is unwilling to listen to scientific facts. So why don't just leave the intellectual discussions to the intelligent, ok? Grow up. I think you come here to look for a fight, not intelligent discussions.
So you buy into the great science conspiracy. Everyone is working hard to keep the truth of your particular religous belief a secret from the masses. To hell with fame and tenure and what not.
I remember your background, Lang. If you have the cajones, why not show up at a local accredited university and challenge the biology and physics departments to a little debate on the subject? They could teach you a lot if you're willing to listen.
Originally posted by stevenv76WRONG!!!!!! Tricksey, false!!! You cannot promote something from a theory to a law. A theory is an explanation, normally of a complex set of events or systems. A law is a (normally mathematical) description of a simple process.
Can you say that the second law of thermodynamics is "little more than" an empirical observation? If empirical observation counts for nothing, then the scientific method counts for nothing as that is a fundamental component of the method.
Is there some way to build or gain knowledge other than through observation?
True that it just boils down to a ...[text shortened]... ... you may be right. I don't know if there are any limits to the domain of this assertion.
They are not in any way related.