Negentropy?????

It is going to take awhile before someone who really understands this is going to show up.You could try some googles and/or TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution ControversyYou could also ask some very specific questions. The link you supplied does explain the situation but it may need a little more detail for you. I will try if you ask and promise to take anything I say with a big grain of salt.

It seems there are two major approachs taken to using the 2nd law by creationists:1) They don't seem to get (either through ignornace or deliberately) the difference between a closed and open system. Since the earth is not closed the second law, while still applying, allows local decreases in entropy by using the input of energy from the sun.2) The "negentropy" site linked to above is discussing another, more complex, argument. They try to make up their own defintion of a 2nd law. It is dishonest to call this the 2nd law of thermodynamics but they do. They can make this sound so darn technical that it takes a real physicist to point out the errors. However, even when these are pointed out they ignore that which to me is dishonest.and perhaps a third way:
After moving from thermodynamics to discussing information they move from evolution, where we can show increases in information (however that is defined) to abiogenesis where there are both thermodynamic and complexity and information issues. This move is in to a 'gap' where they wish to put their god for safekeeping (until someone shines light into it too). The constant jumping around between the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution is a trick used to be pretending to argue against evolution when not actually dealing with it but just dealing with other areas. Abiogenesis they like because we certainly don't know everything about that at all. The big bang they like because no one of their audience (nor they) understand it at all. And it is, of course, dammed hard to understand. Therefore it is easy to convince someone that it is just bafflegab. Especially someone completely unversed in the basic concepts of science to say nothing of the weirdness of quantum physics.

Answers in Genesis (a creationist site) is one which has recognized that the 2nd law arguments are wrong. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

As noted in the very first link of the topic the term negentropy isn't necessary. Thermodynamics always as talked about entropy both increasing and decreasing. We don't need the new term.Yes, the water flowing up hill strikes me as a good analogy. It is also pointing out that even in a closed system there can be local decreases in entropy even if the total entropy must increase. Who knows what creationists are claiming? They change a lot. However, if creationists try to say that the 2nd law forbids evolution then they are, in fact, saying that local decreases in entropy are not possible or that entropy can't decrease in an open system.They are, in affect, saying that the water can not swirl uphill in the steam analogy.What you link to aig does is manage to confuse some things. For one thing they correctly point out that even if evolution is shown to be correct and to not violate any thermodynamic considerations that doesn't tell us about the origin of life. I agree with that. However, since they don't agree with evolution why would they muddle up the two here?Then they get onto the "information" issue. That has been thrashed out here a few times. They are focussing on mutations and forgetting about selection yet again. One thing that never seems to be "gotten" is that to argue with an idea, especially one as broadly supported and as detailed as the ToE, you have to understand it very well indeed. They don't.

Yes. You are.In Ken's recent link to AIG on this topic they manage to conflat evolutionary issues of the 2nd law with abiogensis and energy and information.By the time they have it all tangled up like that they have succeeded in what they are trying to do. That is, pull the wool over the eyes of someone like Ken.Putting aside, for a moment, the abiogenesis issue. The are claiming that you can't have decreases in entropy without a "machine" of some sort.For example their conclusion starts with:

quote:

---

Let us state clearly that the origin and/or development of life was definitely an 'uphill' process. However, many people are confused on the issue. We talk about thermodynamics which is to do with energy; we did an energy balance in the case of the hydraulic ram, and looked at the energy situation with respect to forcing a chemical reaction to proceed 'uphill'. And the trap people fall into is thinking that all that is required for evolution to occur is the input of energy into the system. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vital component is for INFORMATION (i.e. organization) to be added to the system.

---

Notice how they jump from the origin of life to evolution without noting that evolutionary processes can and do produce new "information" (however you want to define that word). That is,it is clear that once replication with error and a selection process is in place we have the "machine" needed to take advantage of free energy.In fact, we might note that when scientists separate abiogenesis and the ToE, they are deliberately pointing out that they understand that there is a separate challenge to explain abiogenesis. We know how evolution can work but that doesn't explain life arising when there is no evolutionary process in place.AIG is trying to pretend that the challenge of abiogenesis somehow makes evolution stop. Unlike those who drop in here who haven't had any chance to educate themselves on the topic the folks are AIG have had plenty of time to understand their errors. To continue as they are is a clear sign of dishonesty in my mind.

I haven't checked but there probably isn't much on abiogenesis at talkorigins. You could try some googles for current research in the area.
self-replication (self-replicator), abiogenesis, origin of life, RNA world, are some keywords that might produce appropriate hits.There is a fair amount of research going on it seems but it is a difficult problem. Personally, I think that "I dunno" is the best available answer to the question of abiogenesis. The creationist mind set is not comfortable with "I dunno" and the creationist organizations try to play "god of the gaps" with any question that doesn't have a firm answer. How dumb is that theology?We really could use another sample of life. That is why Europa or Mars could be so potentially interesting. Working from a sample of one it is very hard to know what conclusions can be drawn.