Evolution

[orogenicman]

[Whateverist]

Yes, the sun is losing energy. It goes through 100s of tonnes of fuel a second, so that has to release some energy. What's so ridiculous about that?

So let me get this straight. According to evolutionists, species on earth have been taking energy from the sun for millions of years, and as a result, the sun has lost energy in a result of this transfer. But random energy never produces organization. The laws of physics proves that it speeds up the process of entropy. Entropy proves the universe is losing organization and is heading towards chaos, like "the heat death of the universe", so why is the universe full of species that add more and more organized, complex systems?

---

I'm not sure what you mean by the "random energy" of the sun. The energy put out by the sun is pretty inevitable given its mass and age. Everything within range of receiving that energy (like the earth) can make use of that energy.

Even if the universe is stone cold in a few mega million years, what does that have to do with the potential for life and evolution now? Seemingly not much. Here we are.

[libalchris]

So let me get this straight. According to evolutionists, species on earth have been taking energy from the sun for millions of years, and as a result, the sun has lost energy in a result of this transfer. But random energy never produces organization. The laws of physics proves that it speeds up the process of entropy. Entropy proves the universe is losing organization and is heading towards chaos, like "the heat death of the universe", so why is the universe full of species that add more and more organized, complex systems?

Your understanding of thermodynamics is so warped and convoluted I don't know it will ever be possible for you to understand.

I'll state this as simply as possible, the second law of thermodynamics, dealing with the spontaneous change in entropy, ONLY APPLIES IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. If the system is no longer closed (say, adding energy to the earth due to the sun) the whole law no longer applies, and can have nothing to say on changes in entropy.

---

Also, sciencelovesgod, your ramble on how "random energy" never produces organization can be shown to be bs from pure observation. If it were true, then a lot of other things shouldn't be occurring because there are a lot of cases where random processes increase organization.

[ScienceLovesGod]

Here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html


Come back when you've learned something.

Do you seriously think you are the first to show up here spouting this particular line of drivel?

Here's a quote from the site you gave me: "Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics. "

Then, gives an example of an energy conversion mechanism to explain thermodynamics: "If we unplug a refrigerator..."

Here's the clearest definition of entropy I found via Internet: "Entropy is a thermodynamic property that can be used to determine the energy not available for work in a thermodynamic process, such as in energy conversion devices, engines, or machines."

The site also claims the real reason why creationists use entropy against evolution is because they don't understand entropy and how it should be applied. I'd say whoever wrote it changes the definition himself. Let's see what the evolutionists have to say about the second law and evolution: “The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that ... biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.” -C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)

Now if they are just as confused as we are about entropy and how it applies to evolution, doesn't that say something? We have not changed the definition, nor have done anything wrong by applying it universally.

Remember one of the smartest men alive was a creationist: Isaac Newton, discoverer of the many laws of science, and inventor of calculus.

In all that misleading, contradicting, biased, and error-ridden content you sent me to, it still does not explain my question. Good luck.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Why do Atheist believe evolution cancels out creationism?

I would like to point out that entropy, involving the second law of thermodynamics, goes against evolution.

One of the more stupid long-debunked claims of the creotard community. How funny that idiots still try to bring it up...

[ScienceLovesGod]

So let me get this straight. According to evolutionists, species on earth have been taking energy from the sun for millions of years, and as a result, the sun has lost energy in a result of this transfer. But random energy never produces organization. The laws of physics proves that it speeds up the process of entropy. Entropy proves the universe is losing organization and is heading towards chaos, like "the heat death of the universe", so why is the universe full of species that add more and more organized, complex systems?

Your understanding of thermodynamics is so warped and convoluted I don't know it will ever be possible for you to understand.

I'll state this as simply as possible, the second law of thermodynamics, dealing with the spontaneous change in entropy, ONLY APPLIES IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. If the system is no longer closed (say, adding energy to the earth due to the sun) the whole law no longer applies, and can have nothing to say on changes in entropy.

---

Also, sciencelovesgod, your ramble on how "random energy" never produces organization can be shown to be bs from pure observation. If it were true, then a lot of other things shouldn't be occurring because there are a lot of cases where random processes increase organization.

why would you assume the universe is an open system?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

He must be a product of some school that teaches "creationism." I knew that was a bad idea.

No, I never went to such school. I went to a mindless public school where they teach evolution.

It's funny how I ask a question, and don't get an answer. I simply applied a poor, misguided, creotard misunderstanding of physics to a poor, misguided, creotard misunderstanding of evolution. I am beginning to wonder if anyone can even answer will even bother to dignify this perfectly insane and illogical observation with a response.

fify.

[Cyberman]

---

Your understanding of thermodynamics is so warped and convoluted I don't know it will ever be possible for you to understand.

I'll state this as simply as possible, the second law of thermodynamics, dealing with the spontaneous change in entropy, ONLY APPLIES IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. If the system is no longer closed (say, adding energy to the earth due to the sun) the whole law no longer applies, and can have nothing to say on changes in entropy.

---

Also, sciencelovesgod, your ramble on how "random energy" never produces organization can be shown to be bs from pure observation. If it were true, then a lot of other things shouldn't be occurring because there are a lot of cases where random processes increase organization.

---

why would you assume the universe is an open system?

He didn't say the Universe is an open system. Perhaps you misread it but he made the context quite clear.

(EDIT: What once was closed is now open. My bad. Hey, it's late and I'm tired.)

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Fuckin creotards...

http://www.weirdcrap.com/scholarly/debunk.html

Common Creationist Claims: DEBUNKED!
This document is intended as a sort of FAQ (Frequently Asked Question) resource. Those who have argued with creationists know that there is a small body of quotes that keep getting repeated (primarily because there are a few prominent creationist figures who are quoted over and over again by creationist publications) over, and over, and over again. I have compiled a bunch of them together in an attempt to respond to them. Because of time constraints, I probably won't be able to add more than a couple at a time. However, anyone who wants to contribute to the list may EMAIL me with some. Just fill the Subject field of your Email with "Creationist Claims Submission" so I can rush it in. I even encourage Creationists to submit questions and claims for me to answer. It's a free net, right? (1) "The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible"
This is the most common creationist claim about science and evolution. The people who make this claim, often do not know what the Laws of Thermodynamics are about, much less how to apply them. Just to be fair, I thought I'd get a verbatum description of these laws from a commonly available source, an encyclopedia. Here it is:

Thermodynamics as taken from The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright c 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved

thermodynamics, branch of science concerned with the nature of HEAT and its conversion into other forms of ENERGY. Heat is a form of energy associated with the positions and motion of the molecules of a body. The total energy that a body contains as a result of the positions and the motions of its molecules is called its internal energy.

The first law of thermodynamics states that in any process the change in a system's internal energy is equal to the heat absorbed from the environment minus the WORK done on the environment. This law is a general form of the law of conservation of energy.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a system the ENTROPY cannot decrease for any spontaneous process. A consequence of this law is that an engine can deliver work only when heat is transferred from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir or heat sink.

The third law of thermodynamics states that all bodies at absolute zero would have the same entropy; this state is defined as having zero entropy.

Now, given this description, let me say that these laws can be loosely applied to nature, specifically to the life of any organism, or to an entire ecosystem. As it relates to a biological organism, we can substitute "heat" or "Energy" with "Food", "Air", and "water". Essentially, a creature that does not get enough energy in the forms of food, water, and oxygen, will decay and die, due to entropy. As it relates to a whole ecosystem, heat can be left unsubstituted, as heat from the Sun is the cheif driving force behind all life on earth. We know that the environment rarely decays and dies -- it merely changes it's state.

Now evolution is not a mechanical system, nor is it an ecosystem -- evolution is not driven by heat exchange. To say that the second law applies to evolution is like saying that the second law applies to the act of thinking or to genetic variation. It doesn't and cannot.

Creationists are using a scientific principle of physical systems in a PHILOSOPHICAL manner, which is a misapplication of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Would we not be foolish if we applied the rules of football to baseball?

Go away.

---

Remember one of the smartest men alive was a creationist: Isaac Newton, discoverer of the many laws of science, and inventor of calculus.

Oh, well that just makes creationism true, doesn't it? As well as alchemy, astrology, and other idiotic nonsense he was also into.

[ScienceLovesGod]

[quote='Taqiyya Mockingbird' pid='291198' dateline='1338167872']
Fuckin creotards...

[quote]
http://www.weirdcrap.com/scholarly/debunk.html

Common Creationist Claims: DEBUNKED!
This document is intended as a sort of FAQ (Frequently Asked Question) resource. Those who have argued with creationists know that there is a small body of quotes that keep getting repeated (primarily because there are a few prominent creationist figures who are quoted over and over again by creationist publications) over, and over, and over again. I have compiled a bunch of them together in an attempt to respond to them. Because of time constraints, I probably won't be able to add more than a couple at a time. However, anyone who wants to contribute to the list may EMAIL me with some. Just fill the Subject field of your Email with "Creationist Claims Submission" so I can rush it in. I even encourage Creationists to submit questions and claims for me to answer. It's a free net, right? (1) "The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible"
This is the most common creationist claim about science and evolution. The people who make this claim, often do not know what the Laws of Thermodynamics are about, much less how to apply them. Just to be fair, I thought I'd get a verbatum description of these laws from a commonly available source, an encyclopedia. Here it is:

Thermodynamics as taken from The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright c 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved

thermodynamics, branch of science concerned with the nature of HEAT and its conversion into other forms of ENERGY. Heat is a form of energy associated with the positions and motion of the molecules of a body. The total energy that a body contains as a result of the positions and the motions of its molecules is called its internal energy.

The first law of thermodynamics states that in any process the change in a system's internal energy is equal to the heat absorbed from the environment minus the WORK done on the environment. This law is a general form of the law of conservation of energy.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a system the ENTROPY cannot decrease for any spontaneous process. A consequence of this law is that an engine can deliver work only when heat is transferred from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir or heat sink.

The third law of thermodynamics states that all bodies at absolute zero would have the same entropy; this state is defined as having zero entropy.

Now, given this description, let me say that these laws can be loosely applied to nature, specifically to the life of any organism, or to an entire ecosystem. As it relates to a biological organism, we can substitute "heat" or "Energy" with "Food", "Air", and "water". Essentially, a creature that does not get enough energy in the forms of food, water, and oxygen, will decay and die, due to entropy. As it relates to a whole ecosystem, heat can be left unsubstituted, as heat from the Sun is the cheif driving force behind all life on earth. We know that the environment rarely decays and dies -- it merely changes it's state.

Now evolution is not a mechanical system, nor is it an ecosystem -- evolution is not driven by heat exchange. To say that the second law applies to evolution is like saying that the second law applies to the act of thinking or to genetic variation. It doesn't and cannot.

Creationists are using a scientific principle of physical systems in a PHILOSOPHICAL manner, which is a misapplication of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Would we not be foolish if we applied the rules of football to baseball? [/quote]

Go away.

---

"Now evolution is not a mechanical system, nor is it an ecosystem -- evolution is not driven by heat exchange." Ah, but it is driven by heat exchange, or energy exchange. If the mutation of DNA requires energy in order for the DNA to physically mutate, then energy has taken place on a molecular level. So you see, the second law of thermodynamics must be applied.