Second Law of Thermodynamics

Iblis said:The second law is a generalization, it's talking about the overall tendencyBut 2nd law is a generalzation based upon evedenced found here on earth. So the geral tendency is that ewe have less nad less energy of time. we have to be using up more energy now than the first spec of life did all by itself.btw....how do I quote ppl?
and does anyone now how to contact the moderators??

Ask and we tend to show up somewhere or other...Did you have a particular question for the admin team?If you use the Peek button on the lower right of THIS post you can see how I formated the quotebox.Also when you reply to a message, on the left of the text box are links to html and dBcode help.Welcome to EvC.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Just couldn't resist could you?

Yes, we are using up the available free energy.If you want to know how it is that there is a lot available I suggest reading "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. He spends many 10's of pages explaining it in very clear words. (but it is still not intellectually simple.)

I think i get what you're saying....taht we may be using up more energy, and the ammount is going down, but we havn't run out yet so why shouldn't we use up more??? lol if I'm wrong in what you're saying correct me! lol

The second law of thermodynamics is like a toy wind-up car. You wind it up, adding energy to the car, and then it goes for while before running down. So you wind it up again and it goes some more.In the same way, life on earth would quickly run down if not for the sun continually winding it up with new energy. If the sun were to go out, most life on earth would die.The sun won't shine forever. It is radiating its energy off into space, of which we receive a small portion, and eventually it will run out of energy and shine no more, consistent with the physical laws of the universe which of course include the second law of thermodynamics.--Percy

WK, I don't really get where your post is refuting what I wrote. Maybe I am missing something, but I laid out where physical principles in the universe govern over the direction of evolution, imo, in all areas. So the idea of "directionless in respect to" still doesn't work.Btw, even the claim of furthering adaptibility is a directional claim.

It's not my fault that you guys continually assert vague, unfounded claims such as "directionless" or random, but cannot substantiate the claims, nor often even define your claims. Evolution claims to be science, but more often than not, is governed by vague, imprecise philosophical assertions.Btw, if the laws of physics guaranteed evolution, then the Creator of those laws most likely planned for evolution, and evolution, as such, is guided and is a form of ID.

This is discussing the SLOT pretty specifically. Please do not continue your harangues here.

this isn't whether or not the claim is true, it's what the claim itself is. the problem is that the argument is a strawman: it's supposing that evolution makes a claim that it does not. the claim that it's not making is that life becomes more ordered.the unfounded claim here is that evolutionists make this claim. they do not. we don't have to prove whether or not it's false in the context of this debate, just that the person making the strawman has misunderstood the claim. the fact that the representation of the claim is inaccurate means the argument is worthless. you're arguing against something nobody's defending. you're pitting a gross misunderstanding of a law of heat-transfer against a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.that's about as quixotic as it comes. would-be-knights tilting at windmills and such.

---

אָרַח

Just as creationists have complained about the lack of an energy converter blueprint in the process of translation and space and form making biologically, one would have had to have said something at least implicitly, about, the efficiency or optimization of energy utilization morphogenetically. Just because life is larger today than supposed in an evolutionary past time-frame, does not mean that life in the past was just as; efficient. Perhaps one might think about procaryotes not as symbionts but simply as becoming more efficient over time?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-26-2006 11:25 AM

we don't have evidence of that though.

Hi again Piano,You will find it much easier to keep track of conversations if you use the little green arrow reply button on the bottom right side of each particular post you are trying to reply to.This is how we get the "This message is a reply to:" and the "Replies to this message:" links on each post. This option sends an email to members that have that function turned on telling them there is a reply to one of their posts.It helps others to follow a particular conversation within a thread.Myself and a few other admins are in chat right now if you would like to get to know us or ask questions about the forum. To access chat there is a link in the top menu, just below the logo.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

thx! ;D

*blushes* sorry. =)