The second law of Thermodynamics

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Please...make sense. Ranting isn't easy to understand

I imagine a lot of ranting on these fora is a result of frustration caused by disagreements on basic issues.

So by what avenue of logic can you come to the conclusion that natural selection can do that which no other force in the universe CAN do-break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

I am frustrated by people who repeatedly post the same misunderstanding of elementary thermodynamics.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=3122

Sorry the general interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is false. The law only is true of energy. The law is only true if the original and scientific interpretation is used! Obviously enough.

Energy always progresses towards entropy. In the process matter can become ordered.

In other words.
High energy -> Low energy and work does not violate the second law

High energy -> Low energy + order in matter does not violate the second law

By stating that evolution violates the second law, you are admiting to us all that you do not understand this law.

You are admitting that you are ignoring something which rises every morning!

The Earth's main source of energy is the SUN.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Funny, this is the usual excuse, but it doesn't hold. Didn't even read my source

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Funny, this is the usual excuse, but it doesn't hold. Didn't even read my source

Sorry the scrap metal analogy does not work, as the processes of life are chemical reactions. A better analogy would be if a room which contained scrap metal and no oxygen were put into contact with oxygen rusting would resume.

Think about it everyday a cell divides in your body, I suppose that is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics!

Wow, why do we still uphold this theory then?

Are any of the chemical processes of life a violation of the 2nd law?
No.

Is this paper an argument about the probability of something occuring, only using the 2nd law of thermodynamics to thinly disguise it as scientific?

YES.

Is probability science?

NO.

If I head to casino anywhere in the world and watch a roulette table what are the chances that the numbers would appear in the exact sequence found on the diplay? Very low. Is this a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Not at all.

[sandy_mcd]

Funny, this is the usual excuse, but it doesn't hold. Didn't even read my source

I've read your source. Here's one from a Christian perspective (see homepage). http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt7.html

[Brigham]

great source sandy!

[sandy_mcd]

More on thermodynamics

What's your point ?
The link provides further links, which contain contradictory information.
Some of the links (e.g., http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt7.html) seem very well done. Others (e.g., http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... amics.html Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law (maintenance, painting, medical bills, etc.). ... It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.) are utter rubbish.

[aa118816]

Is probability science?

NO.


This is either a naive statement or completely ignorant (not the negative sense, just the uniformed sense). Mathematics is a science and in fact, it is impossible to have chemistry, physics, biology or any other science without mathematics. Physics is based upon probability. Chemistry is based upon probability-the probability that certain reactions may occur. NeoDarwinism is based on the probability of all the "speciation factors" like random mutuation, natural selection, environmental pressures...I can not believe that you said something so ignorant?

Dan

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Is probability science?

NO.


This is either a naive statement or completely ignorant (not the negative sense, just the uniformed sense). Mathematics is a science and in fact, it is impossible to have chemistry, physics, biology or any other science without mathematics. Physics is based upon probability. Chemistry is based upon probability-the probability that certain reactions may occur. NeoDarwinism is based on the probability of all the "speciation factors" like random mutuation, natural selection, environmental pressures...I can not believe that you said something so ignorant?

Dan

Probability is mathmatics. A tool of logic used by science.
Mathmatics is not science in itself.

We use logical inferences in science, is logic science?
You seem to equate being used by science as being science, this is simply not the case.

Probability being used in the science is observed probability. In other words in chemistry the probability is not solved on paper. The probabilities were worked out through experimentation and observation. That is the science.

Yes, I know that now we can work out probabilities for a reaction occuring however this ability is possible only because of the experimentation carried out before us.

In other words I take a series of trials and observe the different possible outcomes. Then I do a series of tests to see what the chances of each outcome occurring are.

Math has its foundations in the physical world, but it can be an abstraction as well.

[Jbuza]

http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt7.html) seem very well done.

I love Lambert's writings. I agree Kmart. This universe, this earth is tending toward disorder. I think it applies just fine to the absurdity of evolution. The sun and the earth existed from the start, and the system is not randomly improving to higher froms. Extinction not speciation.

[Jac3510]

Last year, I would blast people for using the second law against evolution, but recently I read In Six Day, and I have to say that I find it to be a much better position than I had thought. The book itself is a compilation of 50 essays written by various people in various fields. BGood would object and say they aren't scientists because they are actually engineers, but I think that's where the strong poijnt actually rests (for the record, there are a few true research scientists who contribute as well!).

Anyway, several of the contributors major on the second law and discuss the common objections that are being used in this thread. I'd suggest picking up a copy. If I have time, I'll lay out an argument later as an example.

[sandy_mcd]

Mathematics is a science and in fact, it is impossible to have chemistry, physics, biology or any other science without mathematics. .. I can not believe that you said something so ignorant?

Mathematics is essential for (almost?) all sciences. But it is not a science by the definition used by most (at least academics). Science is the study of the natural world by building and testing models. Mathematics is the study of a system of logic. You do not need to test things in the real world in order to do mathematics.
Hmm, what about people who happen to have a B.A. (not B.S.) in mathematics? Should they try to get a tuition refund?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt7.html) seem very well done.

I love Lambert's writings. I agree Kmart. This universe, this earth is tending toward disorder. I think it applies just fine to the absurdity of evolution. The sun and the earth existed from the start, and the system is not randomly improving to higher froms. Extinction not speciation.

So your saying that complexity is counter to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

Lets apply this logic to technology.

A. We cannot violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
B. Mans technology is becomming more complex each passing year.
C. The process of technological advance is counter to the direction towards disorder.
conclusion: Therefore man is violating the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

B therefore C therefore conclusion != A

Somehow this doesn't work out.
One of these statements must be false.
Is it A, B or C?

[Jbuza]

http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt7.html) seem very well done.

I love Lambert's writings. I agree Kmart. This universe, this earth is tending toward disorder. I think it applies just fine to the absurdity of evolution. The sun and the earth existed from the start, and the system is not randomly improving to higher froms. Extinction not speciation.

So your saying that complexity is counter to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

Lets apply this logic to technology.

A. We cannot violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
B. Mans technology is becomming more complex each passing year.
C. The process of technological advance is counter to the direction towards disorder.
conclusion: Therefore man is violating the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

B therefore C therefore conclusion != A

Somehow this doesn't work out.
One of these statements must be false.
Is it A, B or C?

No that isn't what I am saying. I am not saying that complexity is contrary to the LAw at all. What I am saying is that the system is not becoming more complex. The systems would need an outside input of design to contradict the natural tendency. That has been done with technology. For example machines have not become more complex sitting in the sun, but have needed directed design in order to become more complex.

Evolution did not happen, it is not possible.

[sandy_mcd]

The systems would need an outside input of design to contradict the natural tendency.

This may be true, but how do you know it? It is not part of standard thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is a quantitative science. Can you provide any formulas for your assertion? Can you tell us what physical units design is measured in?

[Jbuza]

The systems would need an outside input of design to contradict the natural tendency.

This may be true, but how do you know it? It is not part of standard thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is a quantitative science. Can you provide any formulas for your assertion? Can you tell us what physical units design is measured in?

Sure units of entropy.