2nd law of thermodynamics: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » 2nd law of thermodynamics » 2nd law of thermodynamics

2nd law of thermodynamics
please explain the creationist attack in detail

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2nd law of thermodynamics

eski
<default rank title>

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 27, 2007
Location: Under the Sea
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 115

Posted 06/04/07 - 08:40 AM: Subject: 2nd law of thermodynamics	#1
I’m rather confused what exactly the Creationist are going off about and, perhaps, what the theory actually is. What I don’t understand is: If entropy works in isolated systems how does this relate to the universe? To be more specific, how do the Creationist think it disproves evolution? Is it in the big bang or the creation of complex organisms themselves or both? To go into further detail, what is the isolated system which they are referring? Isn’t an isolated system, theoretical? Is it possible that the laws were the same during creation? If not, how does this attack hold water? Though this is of lesser importance, why is it sometimes called a law of heating and cooling if it deals with organisms? Just wondering, because my friend from Germany, previously a staunch atheist, converted to creationism because of the second law of thermodynamics and I thought since he is into science he might know what he’s talking about whereas I have no idea what he’s on about.
gnostiagnostiagnostic- I know that I don't know but I don't know that.

Alayth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 15, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 101

Posted 06/04/07 - 08:49 AM:	#2
I've heard creationists claim that complex life couldn't have evolved because this would mean things becoming more ordered (life), which means a decrease in entropy. Of course - as you have eluded to - the Earth is not a closed system, so the creationists who claim this simply don't have a good grasp of science. If your friend is into science, I doubt this is what led to his conversion. I have no idea what he might mean, you might need to get him to elaborate.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Sacramentoish
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11794

Last Blog: Blog welcomes giant check in Happy Dry Spot

Posted 06/04/07 - 09:14 AM:	#3
The universe is an isolated system, basically by definition. If we look at the evolution of the universe, it began as something very simple -- shortly after the big bang it was virtually uniform, then even later there was only hydrogen and helium, if I recall. Over time the universe has spread out and become chaotic and complex. Stars were born and died, supernovas introduced the heavier elements. What was once simple is now an unfathomable mess of stars, planets, black holes, galaxies, quasars, dark matter, etc. It's the natural way of things to become disordered. A classic example is ice melting -- see wikipedia. There's also Brownian motion, the random movement you see on the microscopic scale. With the universe becoming so increasingly disordered, the suggestion that something as complex as a human being somehow gets constructed by chance over time is absurd. Time will tear things apart -- let a beautiful painting sit out for centuries and the elements will wear it down, but time can never create the painting.

Alayth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 15, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 101

Posted 06/04/07 - 12:19 PM:	#4
Paul wrote: the suggestion that something as complex as a human being somehow gets constructed by chance over time is absurd. I think you mean "the suggestion that something as complex as a human being slowly was constructed through a process of natural selection over a huge amount of time with much outside energy sources has been proven, with heaps of evidence, to have happened."

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Exeter University
Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 1025

Posted 06/04/07 - 12:56 PM:	#5
Alayth wrote: I think you mean "the suggestion that something as complex as a human being slowly was constructed through a process of natural selection over a huge amount of time with much outside energy sources has been proven, with heaps of evidence, to have happened." Have you ever asked yourself why rocks don't evolve? Why stars don't evolve? Why glass doesn't evolve? Why water doesn't evolve? Only some things evolve. Why should these things evolve if not everything? Because that which evolves is unique. It is life. Why does life evolve but not everything else? Because life needs to evolve so that it survives. But why must life survive? Because it has been designed to evolve. If it was a simple case of adapting, then everything should be adapting. But this is not the case.
I both love and hate language with a passion.

Sepiraph
Arayashiki

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2004
Location: In the vastness of the Net
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 490

Posted 06/04/07 - 03:33 PM:	#6
First of all, I find it fairly ironic that Creationist would be using scientific ideas to disprove evolution. But nevertheless, the argument is that the 2nd law dictates that entropy of a closed system (universe in this case) tends to increase, and can never decrease. Then what they try to argue is that somehow the more evolved lifeform tends to decrease entropy, or that given a choice between a life and non-living, somehow the latter has a lower entropy. AFAIK I don't see how this is the case and this has never been proven. I mean, I can understand the argument that the information from DNA is passed on, and that life has the ability to organize matter in a specific way. So in some way it does decrease the configurational space of the arrangement of matter, but this pertains to the entropy in the informational sense, and not in the thermodynamical sense. Hence I don't see how one can make the argument that the entropy from thermodynamics is decreased by evolution. Therefore, I think the argument itself is incorrect, and worse yet not a lot of people would understand the rather subtle differences between the two concepts of entropy from thermodynamics and information theory. Here is an interesting article that explains the idea in greater detail: http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm eski wrote: I’m rather confused what exactly the Creationist are going off about and, perhaps, what the theory actually is. What I don’t understand is: If entropy works in isolated systems how does this relate to the universe? To be more specific, how do the Creationist think it disproves evolution? Is it in the big bang or the creation of complex organisms themselves or both? To go into further detail, what is the isolated system which they are referring? Isn’t an isolated system, theoretical? Is it possible that the laws were the same during creation? If not, how does this attack hold water? Though this is of lesser importance, why is it sometimes called a law of heating and cooling if it deals with organisms? Just wondering, because my friend from Germany, previously a staunch atheist, converted to creationism because of the second law of thermodynamics and I thought since he is into science he might know what he’s talking about whereas I have no idea what he’s on about.
"... But as pioneers, they can become entities that will enlighten those who remained in the lower structure and make them continually aware of the higher structure, in the same way man felt respect and terror towards spiritual entities in antiquity." - Hideo Kuze

Alayth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 15, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 101

Posted 06/06/07 - 07:18 AM:	#7
Yahadreas wrote: Have you ever asked yourself why rocks don't evolve? No I haven't, but I know one major reason why they don't: they don't replicate. Replication is obviously needed for natural selection, which leads to evolution (due to imperfect replication). Yahadreas wrote: Why stars don't evolve? They don't replicate. Yahadreas wrote: Why glass doesn't evolve? Doesn't replicate. Yahadreas wrote: Why water doesn't evolve? Doesn't replicate. Yahadreas wrote: Only some things evolve. Why should these things evolve if not everything? Because they don't replicate. Why would we expect these items to just magically get better, without going through generations of natural selection? Yahadreas wrote: Because that which evolves is unique. It is life. Why does life evolve but not everything else? Because life needs to evolve so that it survives. But why must life survive? Because it has been designed to evolve. Yea - designed by evolution. Yahadreas wrote: If it was a simple case of adapting, then everything should be adapting. I am not sure what you mean by this - Do you understand the theory of evolution? It doesn't happen through adaptation. Adaptation was something which had to evolve.

frankquietly
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 25

Posted 06/07/07 - 01:49 PM: Subject: It all evolves	#8
I'm not happy with any distinction between animate and inanimate evolution. For sure, the evolution of living organisms is dynamic, the selection pressures and replication obvious and forceful. But water is formed from hydrogen and oxygen and this is not by magic, it is by an evolution. A replication and a selection. Cars reproduce in that they are reproduced, they evolve. Evolution is not a two tier world of the are and the are nots, it is a continuum between the active respirers and the inactive inert.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

Posted 06/09/07 - 05:03 AM:	#9
Selection follows interaction. Interaction presupposes a dynamic universe. The dynamics of matter in motion provide for a great deal of interaction of inanimate matter. Chemical and physical laws of interaction of bits of matter provide an opportunity to select the more stable combinations and select against the transitory. Animate selection will also involve replication. In that sense, we can claim evolution for both animate and inanimate matter, but the word "evolution" denotes something different in each case. Speaking in generalities usually leads to misunderstanding.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

avivsworld
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 10, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 06/10/07 - 07:16 PM:	#10
Yahadreas wrote: Have you ever asked yourself why rocks don't evolve? Why stars don't evolve? Why glass doesn't evolve? Why water doesn't evolve? Only some things evolve. Why should these things evolve if not everything? Because that which evolves is unique. It is life. Why does life evolve but not everything else? Because life needs to evolve so that it survives. But why must life survive? Because it has been designed to evolve. If it was a simple case of adapting, then everything should be adapting. But this is not the case. I'm assuming that you believe in ID. Just so you know, under certain conditions (e.g. high temp, high voltage (lightning), etc.) Amino acids have formed from different subsances - these form proteins, and are the building blocks of life. This shows how random events can occur that would support life, even if they are unlikely. Life has had millions, if not billions, of years to evolve, and just because it is complex doesn't mean that something else must have created it. If we had been created by something else, wouldn't we already be perfect?
Blessed be the mind too small for doubt.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.