Hello Cobra, couple of comments concerning your 2LOT statements.
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
First, I would like to clarify my position. I am not convinced either way whether or not evolution violates the 2LOT. However, I am convinced that the idea of an atheistic cosmos is contradictory to the 2LOT (if the universe isn't a closed system, I don't know what is!)
I think that I responded to you on this one in a different thread. There is a big problem here with your arguement that actually reflects on the entire creationist arguement using 2LOT. It has to do with reversible vs irreversible thermo. Simply put if a reaction is irreversible the delta S is always positive, however if a reaction is reversible in a thermo sense then the delta S can be positive or negative. Thermodynamics allows for the transfer of entropy (entropy is just another measurement of energy flow in the same way that enthalpy is) within a system. In other words, one area or compartment of a system may decrease in entropy while another increases in entropy allowing for the increase in entropy of the system as a whole. Entropy definitely does transfer within the universe so regions within a solar system could have a decrease in entropy without effecting the net increase in entropy in the solar system and the universe as a whole. This also happens in your body, everytime that you form a sulfer-sulfer bond in a protein the reaction results in a slight DECREASE in entropy at the site of the reaction as the delta S for the reaction is negative. The delta S for the entire system (you and yoru environment) is still positive so there is no violation. Part of what describes this is called the Clausian Inequality (at least in my thermo book and my PChem book).
quote:
I'm afraid I'm going to have to differ with your opinion here, as I don't think Creation scientists are attempting to be dishonest in their use of the Second Law.
Actually you are correct with some but incorrect with others. I have heard some of the most disingenuous claims by creationists who have had themo in their denial of reversible thermo and its effects.
quote:
Right, my understanding is that the 2LOT states that systems will tend to become increasinly disorderly.
A closed system taken as a whole, yes. However that says nothing about the distribution of entropy within that system.
quote:
"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."
I find it unfortunate that you have come to this conclusion, because I feel that you have been convinced of this by evolutionary scientists who wish to portray creation scientists as either dishonest or incompetent. Fact is, I've never seen a creationist argument about thermodynamics that didn't include the relevance of closed vs open systems.
I have, most of the ones at Answers in Genesis, ICR, and True Origens either skip the closed system or skip the reversible thermo or both. Some of them just completely bollox it up.
quote:
"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.
Actually there is a little bit of a problem here as well. The light coming from the sun is actually energy in a very ordered state. At least that used by most plants. This makes it low entropy energy. The waste energy given off from plants which used light from the sun (ie heat) is about the most dissordered energy around, ie very high in entropy. Yes, photosynthesis does convert the energy, but photosynthesis is actually a reasonably defined biochemical process, evolutionarily speaking.
[QUOTE]"Look, life is really complicated, but at heart it's just chemicals reacting with one another. When the result of these chemical reactions is an organism different from the parent then evolution has taken place."
The question is whether or not these small changes can account for all of life as we see it.[/B][/QUOTE]
[/quote]
Yes that is the debate. However, 2LOT is not a bar to the small changes accumulating.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz
™ Version 4.2