The Earth is an open system

[andregross]

Hi Guys

I've been struggling with the concept of the earth being an open system for a while now no matter how many times I try and look at the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics it just does not make sense to me.

When I look at the data of the observable universe and also at the data at a cellular level I see cause and effect. I also understand the mathematical precision of both systems. In my mind the earth is part of the universe so those rules would then also apply don't they? I honestly believe that chance and random theories about our origins here on earth directly contradicts what we can observe out there, or inside if we look at the sum of all the parts of both the universe and at a cellular level.

So how do we say that thing are random or by chance when everything else says otherwise?

Regards

Andre

[Silvertusk]

Welcome to the board Andre

Silvertusk.

[andregross]

Hi There

Thank you!

[CallMeDave]

Hi Guys

I've been struggling with the concept of the earth being an open system for a while now no matter how many times I try and look at the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics it just does not make sense to me.

When I look at the data of the observable universe and also at the data at a cellular level I see cause and effect. I also understand the mathematical precision of both systems. In my mind the earth is part of the universe so those rules would then also apply don't they? I honestly believe that chance and random theories about our origins here on earth directly contradicts what we can observe out there, or inside if we look at the sum of all the parts of both the universe and at a cellular level.

So how do we say that thing are random or by chance when everything else says otherwise?

Regards

Andre

Hi. The Earth is an open system only from the standpoint that we recieve energy outside of the Earth from our Sun, for example.

You are totally correct in your observation that random natural causes could never account for the scientifically confirmed specified complexities we see in the largest of things and the smallest of things...particularly when they involve informational messages to accomplish a specific outcome , goal ,or process . An example would be ., if youre at the beach and you see the words 'Drink Coke' written in the sky ... you would immediately without any need for futher contemplation conclude that it came about by some sort of intelligent cause who wanted that to exist and to get a message across -- you would never assume the wind was blowing from the east and met up with some clouds which created that message. In fact, SETI looking for distant messages in outer space to confirm there is intelligence out there, is based on the same principle : an observable informational message being delivered which can be recognized as an intelligent cause. The most simplest of cells has been described as astonishingly busy equivalent to that of a cities infrastructure with enough information in it to fill 1,000 complete volumes of encyclopedias. Yet the pride and arrogance of most Scientists today , would try to blow that off as 'random natural causes' devoid of any intelligent input. Ergo, the apriori-commitment to naturalism regardless of obvious desperation. Indeed, there are no excuses left for jettisoning our incredible personal theistic Creator who has been overwhelming at trying to get us to notice his deliberate handiwork. The Heavens (and everything within it) declares the glory and majesty of God .

[RickD]

CallmeDave wrote:

Yet the pride and arrogance of most Scientists today , would try to blow that off as 'random natural causes' devoid of any intelligent input.

How can you make that statement, unless you personally know the heart, and motivations of "most" scientists? This sounds more like one of those "most scientists have an anti-God agenda" rants that some YECs like Ken Ham like to rail about. That's a pretty big assumption, IMO.

[sandy_mcd]

I've been struggling with the concept of the earth being an open system for a while now no matter how many times I try and look at the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics it just does not make sense to me.

Could you be more specific about your struggles with open systems?

From Wikipedia,

In open systems, matter may flow in and out of the system boundaries.
...
In a closed system, no mass may be transferred in or out of the system boundaries. The system will always contain the same amount of matter, but heat and work can be exchanged across the boundary of the system. Whether a system can exchange heat, work, or both is dependent on the property of its boundary.
Adiabatic boundary – not allowing any heat exchange
Rigid boundary – not allowing exchange of work
...
An isolated system is more restrictive than a closed system as it does not interact with its surroundings in any way. Mass and energy remains constant within the system, and no energy or mass transfer takes place across the boundary. As time passes in an isolated system, internal differences in the system tend to even out and pressures and temperatures tend to equalize, as do density differences. A system in which all equalizing processes have gone practically to completion is considered to be in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

As the linked article discusses, for practical purposes the earth can be considered a closed system. [Unless you are a lifeform extincted by an asteroid.] There just isn't much matter transfer between the earth and the rest of the universe.

http://jesse.usra.edu/archive/jesse03-4 ... final.html

This review article synthesizes research from several disciplines by conceiving of the Earth as an open system significantly influenced by inputs of matter from outer space. It surveys the topics of mass extinctions, transpermia, interplanetary dust and micrometeorites, delivery of complex pre-biotic organics molecules from space, ice ages, small comets and panspermia. The evidence, if verified by continuing investigations, shows that the Earth was an open system just after planet formation. Since then, the Earth has been significantly influenced by inputs of extraterrestrial matter, but the inputs are not critical to the sustained functioning of the system.

I honestly believe that chance and random theories about our origins here on earth directly contradicts what we can observe out there, or inside if we look at the sum of all the parts of both the universe and at a cellular level.

Why do you believe this? Have you considered why many people disagree? Unless you take the Dave approach, you might want to investigate a bit more.

[CallMeDave]

CallmeDave wrote:

Yet the pride and arrogance of most Scientists today , would try to blow that off as 'random natural causes' devoid of any intelligent input.

How can you make that statement, unless you personally know the heart, and motivations of "most" scientists? This sounds more like one of those "most scientists have an anti-God agenda" rants that some YECs like Ken Ham like to rail about. That's a pretty big assumption, IMO.

Actually, its not 'a big assumption' ,as the Bible itself makes specific references to my assertion regarding those we consider wise and educated among us , who choose to jettison God. Ill provide some scripture references upon request although im sure youre familiar with them. Scientists are held in the highest of esteem today , yet they still occupy pride , personal biases, apriori-commitments , and even ulterior motives being sinful and fallable Human Beings. The Monkey Men hoaxes are a good example of how they tried to fool the masses . IF that isnt enough, consider this quote from a prominent Evolutionist which lends credence to my claim :

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it. :

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door".

[RickD]

CallmeDave wrote:

Yet the pride and arrogance of most Scientists today , would try to blow that off as 'random natural causes' devoid of any intelligent input.

How can you make that statement, unless you personally know the heart, and motivations of "most" scientists? This sounds more like one of those "most scientists have an anti-God agenda" rants that some YECs like Ken Ham like to rail about. That's a pretty big assumption, IMO.

Actually, its not 'a big assumption' ,as the Bible itself makes specific references to my assertion regarding those we consider wise and educated among us , who choose to jettison God. Ill provide some scripture references upon request although im sure youre familiar with them. Scientists are held in the highest of esteem today , yet they still occupy pride , personal biases, apriori-commitments , and even ulterior motives being sinful and fallable Human Beings. The Monkey Men hoaxes are a good example of how they tried to fool the masses . IF that isnt enough, consider this quote from a prominent Evolutionist which lends credence to my claim :

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it. :

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door".

Dave, some scientists, that don't want to admit there's a God, is quite different than your saying "most" scientists. I still can't see how you could claim that you know what most of any group that large has as an agenda.

[andregross]

As the linked article discusses, for practical purposes the earth can be considered a closed system. [Unless you are a lifeform extincted by an asteroid.] There just isn't much matter transfer between the earth and the rest of the universe.

Cool This is exactly how I see it too as a closed system; why then are so many people still considering it as open though just because of the energy exchange?

Why do you believe this? Have you considered why many people disagree? Unless you take the Dave approach, you might want to investigate a bit more.

I Believe this because for the life of me, I can almost never find anything random! Even the most obvious flaws in biological terms have some sort of purpose or use. I viewed it from the otherside but became sceptical because of what I've been observing in regards to the mathematical prescion of everything. How long does random take to become precise?

[CallMeDave]

CallmeDave wrote:

Yet the pride and arrogance of most Scientists today , would try to blow that off as 'random natural causes' devoid of any intelligent input.

How can you make that statement, unless you personally know the heart, and motivations of "most" scientists? This sounds more like one of those "most scientists have an anti-God agenda" rants that some YECs like Ken Ham like to rail about. That's a pretty big assumption, IMO.

Actually, its not 'a big assumption' ,as the Bible itself makes specific references to my assertion regarding those we consider wise and educated among us , who choose to jettison God. Ill provide some scripture references upon request although im sure youre familiar with them. Scientists are held in the highest of esteem today , yet they still occupy pride , personal biases, apriori-commitments , and even ulterior motives being sinful and fallable Human Beings. The Monkey Men hoaxes are a good example of how they tried to fool the masses . IF that isnt enough, consider this quote from a prominent Evolutionist which lends credence to my claim :

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it. :

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door".

Dave, some scientists, that don't want to admit there's a God, is quite different than your saying "most" scientists. I still can't see how you could claim that you know what most of any group that large has as an agenda.

I believe that most scientists today are still secular and if that be the case, then 'most' applies . These secular scientists are pre-committed to naturalism/materialism for causes and automatically rule out intelligent causes despite the irrationality and illogic behind doing so.

[Ivellious]

I think you seriously need to re-evaluate your view of science, CallMeDave. There is no giant conspiracy to eradicate Christianity. Yes, some scientists do push an atheist/agnostic agenda. Most are far more concerned about their work, their careers, and their passion for science than religious squabbles. And for the record, being a non-Christian scientist is not automatically indicative of an agenda against Christianity...that would be like me saying that because some Christians hate science and want to eradicate scientists from the Earth, I should generalize all Christians as being part of a global anti-science plot.

I think it's a little insulting for you to simply generalize everything in science as a big evil cult or something.

[CallMeDave]

I think you seriously need to re-evaluate your view of science, CallMeDave. There is no giant conspiracy to eradicate Christianity. Yes, some scientists do push an atheist/agnostic agenda. Most are far more concerned about their work, their careers, and their passion for science than religious squabbles. And for the record, being a non-Christian scientist is not automatically indicative of an agenda against Christianity...that would be like me saying that because some Christians hate science and want to eradicate scientists from the Earth, I should generalize all Christians as being part of a global anti-science plot.

I think it's a little insulting for you to simply generalize everything in science as a big evil cult or something.

I find it a little insulting that you create a strawman . I never said a thing about 'a conspiracy' against Christianity. There is more than ample evidence that secular Scientists, Darwinists in particular, have gone to great lenghts to divy up their findings to which theyve been exposed on. There are sound reasons why Darwinist Scientists hold fast to naturalism as a worldview ; are you aware of some of these ?

[Ivellious]

What do you mean "divy up their findings"? I mean, scientists share information all the time....

[CallMeDave]

What do you mean "divy up their findings"? I mean, scientists share information all the time....

Im surprised you arent familiar with some of the more common ones : http://conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evol ... peculation

[sandy_mcd]

What do you mean "divy up their findings"? I mean, scientists share information all the time....

Im surprised you arent familiar with some of the more common ones : http://conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evol ... peculation

Am I the only one having trouble interpreting this? I assume "divy up" is for "divvy up" meaning divide into smaller portions. What this has to do with a few cases of scientific fraud I cannot imagine.