quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Right, my understanding is that the 2LOT states that systems will tend to become increasinly disorderly.
"While there is more than one way that 2LOT can be expressed, the form most relevant for this discussion says that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Sometimes Creationists will even express it along these lines, saying that entropy cannot decrease, but they'll always leave out the part about a closed system."
"But evolution does not take place in a closed system because the earth is not a closed system."
Oh believe me, I've heard this quite a bit in the literature I've read, so I know.
"It receives enormous amounts of energy from the sun everyday, and that energy is the engine driving almost all (I have to say almost because geothermal is another source of energy) life activity on earth, including evolution."
Yes, and creation scientists always take this into account when discussing the 2LOT. However, they point out that the raw energy from the sun is like a bull in a china shop- it does work, but constructs nothing. Thus, creationists argue that there must be a mechanism to convert this raw energy from the sun into productive energy in order to allow evolution to take place.
Life, at a fundamental level, is enabled by chemical reactions.
Given the approriate raw materials (i.e. chemicals), the bull-like
heat/radiant energy from the sun can be quite effective in prviding
energy to help promote chemical reactions.
As for a mechanism to convert this raw solar energy ... well I'm guessing that photosynthesis fits, and must have developed very early in the history of life on earth.
... but it's all rather redundant ... if a law in physics is
said to be invalid under particular circumstances ... like
in a open system rather than a closed ... then the law is invalid
and cannot be used to make predictions about that situation.
Newton's laws of motion are valid within a single inertial reference
frame ... outside of such constraints they do not produce the
correct predictions ... it would be wrong to reference them is
a discussion outside of their remit.
™ Version 4.2