The Truth About Evolution and Religion

Couldn't resist leaving lurkerdom for this... Untrue. Does all of the sun's energy reach the Earth? Let's assume that this is so, or at least that the 2nd Law can be applied here (which it can, with caveats). In this case, the 2nd Law says:entropy change of sun + entropy change of earth >= 0Given that the first term is large and positive, why cannot the second term be small and negative? Is it still "highly improbable" when a large temperature difference is maintained across the container?On the website you reference in message 321, you say you have a BS and a PhD in Physics. For the record, so do I. But given the way you're making a pig's dinner out of first year thermo, I can only confirm that you have a lot of BS in your physics.

dk,
In my post I am not addressing your overall argument, just two statements you made in your post no. 324. These statements presumably have something to do with your overall argument (otherwise, why did you make them?), so it makes sense to examine them in some detail before proceeding to the argument in its entirety.I can summarise the conclusions of my post in the following two statements:- the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not inconsistent with a local decrease of entropy, given an interaction with an external system;and:- the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not inconsistent with a local evolution (in the physical sense) from a probabilistically more likely situation to a less likely one, again given an interaction with an external system;If you disagree, please post your rebuttal of my post no.328; if you agree, please say so and we will go on from there.

Fail. You didn't even understand the question. What would happen to the gas in the container if one end is kept hotter than the other (an external system is obviously required to do this).dk, you seem to be unable to answer the simple yes/no questions I put in my previous posts, questions covered in any elementary course in thermodynamics. You obviously think you know enough physics to challenge Dawkins' application of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So what's keeping you?

Hi dk,
I'm not defending Dawkins, nor do I espouse his militantly atheistic views, so it's no use your quoting him at me. What I am challenging is your statement in post 322: where, whatever the rest of his arguments may be, he is completely correct. Being a physicist myself, I dislike the misuse of physics in support of agendas, regardless of how valid those agendas may be - and when this misuse comes from someone purporting know what he is talking about, it is doubly reprehensible.What I have been trying to do is split up the problem into two parts:(1) is it possible for entropy to locally decrease? I have been trying to get you to say "yes" to this and for some reason you have so far refused to do so. Your statement in message 350 seems to indicate you know that this is so, once the evident typo is corrected - at least, I hope it is a typo (see what happens when one points out the motes in other people's eyes?)(2) Once it is agreed that entropy can locally decrease, we can go on to examine if it can do so by a sufficient quantity to give us the results we observe. But it is pointless to do so until point (1) is established.Just to get this straight, I want to have your confirmation of this. Once we are agreed that the problem is solely one of magnitude, we can proceed.Edited by fizz57102, : Fixed typo inj (2)Edited by fizz57102, : sh*t, I can't fix the typo in my comment about fixing a typo

Nope, it's a typo. Mea culpa and all that.