Thermodynamics

Are you sure you linked to the correct page? Mr. Sarfati does not seem averse to the argument from thermodynamics.--Percy

No need to apologize, and in fact the apology should probably be in the other direction. This discussion board has a number of long timers, and though they should know better, many find it difficult to keep from becoming frustrated as patterns like this occur: But no one ever need apologize to being new to the debate, and long timers should recognize that and hold their frustration in check. Each new member who raises an old point deserves just as much respect and patience as the first. Repetitiveness is the nature of the Creation/evolution debate. No matter how many time it is explained, there will always be those new to the debate. Of course, if you raise a point for which there's still an active thread then you'll probably be impatiently referred to that thread.Each evolutionist probably has his own favorite way of responding to the Creationist position on thermodynamics. My favorites have already been taken in this thread, so I'll respond with my 3rd or 4th favorite response, which is that physicists and chemists accept the theory of evolution. Thermodynamics lies in the realm of physics and chemistry, and if evolutionists were suggesting scenarios in violation of the laws of physics and chemistry then physicists and chemists would be the first to know. That they not only have no problem with evolution but actually embrace it speaks volumes.But the universe *is* winding down toward heat death, so what's wrong with the Creationist position on thermodynamics?The main problem is that entropy, a key concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, is not a measure of unneatness or untidyness in the way that you might think of clean and dirty rooms in a house. It is a chemical measure of disorder at the atomic and molecular level. The molecules of a sweater do not care if they're in a heap on the floor or folded neatly in a drawer, the entropy of the sweater will be about the same. The entropy of molecules of the objects in a room do not care if by human standards the objects of which they're a part are all in their proper place. In fact, if we consider a dirty room with you in it as our system, then after you're done making it spic and span the entropy in the room, the amount of thermodynamic disorder, will have increased. That's because of the energy you've burned in imposing a human (not thermodynamic) sense of order on the room. By adding food (energy) to our system and giving you a meal we can again reduce the entropy of our system.It can be difficult to think correctly about the thermodynamic behavior of a system. When considering only the transfer of heat, then one can generalize that the entropy of an object increases as you heat it. This is because the molecules of which it is made move faster and more chaotically as it get hotter. And just the opposite occurs as you cool an object. The molecular movements become slower and more ordered. A simple example is water. Molecules of steam move extremely energetically and have high entropy. As the steam condenses into water the molecules slow down, and the entropy decreases. As the water continues to cool and becomes ice the entropy decreases again as the water takes on an orderly crystaline structure.Considering only individual objects can lead to the mistaken belief that entropy can easily decrease, and that's why it's important to think instead in terms of systems with boundaries. In a closed system neither matter nor energy crosses the system's boundaries, while in an open system both matter and energy can cross system boundaries in either direction. The laws of thermodynamics apply equally well in both open and closed systems, but it is much easier to think in terms of closed systems because you don't have to keep track of all the inputs and outputs of the system.And so while we may accurately say that the entropy of just our bowl of water decreases as it freezes into ice, when you consider it as a system with the boundary at the bowl's outer surface then you realize that the heat of the water is radiating out of the bowl and off into space, and this process greatly increases entropy. Not only are the molecules outside our water bowl now moving more energetically and chaotically than before, but the heat formerly in our water is now more evenly distributed. Thus, while our frozen bowl of water now has decreased entropy, it has made a much greater contribution of increased entropy to the rest of the universe in the form of radiated heat. Overall entropy has increased.Naturally the earth is not a closed system because of the huge amount of heat we receive from the sun. In the thermodynamic debate with Creationists it is common for evolutionists to consider the earth/sun system as closed, but that's a highly inaccurate picture. Less than half a billionth of the total energy of the sun is received here on earth, most of the rest radiating off into space. While the earth/sun system itself is decreasing in entropy as the pair cool and become more organized (the sun's core is a fusion reactor creating elements with thermodynamically less entropy), the sun is making an enormous contribution to the total entropy of the rest of the universe. So while entropy here on earth gradually decreases because of cooling (probably not because of life, since the amount of life probably stays roughly constant), the heat we lose is radiated off into space and contributes to the increasing entropy of the universe.The thermodynamic processes of life are far more complex than just simple transfers of heat because extremely complex and lengthy biochemical reactions are involved. During the day the sun's energy can heat a plant to above 100^oF, thereby raising its entropy, and during the evening the plant will cool to its original temperature, and one might conclude that there has been no net change in the entropy of the plant. But that's not the case, because the sun's energy has driven photosynthesis which causes some of the sun's energy to be stored in chemical bonds. That part of the sun's energy is not reradiated out into space after nightfall - it is now part of the plant, and the plant can use that energy to grow or make seeds and so forth. The plant eventually dies and decays and the energy from the sun is finally freed as it is consumed by fungi and bacteria which themselves eventually die and return their energy to the environment.The thermodynamic argument is one of the most frustrating in the Creationist repertoir for evolutionists to face because it is so wrong and yet so effective. Even the most honest of Creationist apologists sites, Answers in Genesis, still supports the thermodynamic argument. And when simply stated it isn't even wrong, because the universe *does* tend toward disorderliness. The problem is that it's not the kind of disorderliness that we think of in everyday life, but a chemical and atomic disorderliness that has many unintuitive components.--Percy

Oh, yes, quite right! As I say further on in that paragraph, "So while entropy here on earth gradually decreases because of cooling..." My apologies if it wasn't clear that I was aware the cooling occurs because of heat radiated from the earth.--Percy

Oh, I see, you're just an open-minded dude objectively investigating the issues and merely by coincidence asking the same questions as Creationists in the same way as Creationists. Thank God! I'm so relieved you won't be advocating any of the traditional Creationist fare like a young earth, a vapor canopy, hydroplate theory, the absence of transitionals, irreducible complexity, intelligent design and the fallacy of radiometric dating. These topics just get so tiresome after a while, and it will be so much more interesting debating a novel thinker like you who thinks for himself. I don't even know what that means, so I'll withhold agreement for now. Were you thinking perhaps of heat death? As Nosy has already noted, these are other topics. I think you're referring to the Big Bang, the origin of life, and evolution of increasingly complex organisms. These are traditional Creationist issues, by the way. Are we done with thermodynamics?--Percy

Sure, it's possible that Jordo86 is just a curious person seeking answers, but he set off my dissembling alarms, so while the evidence I can cite from his short history here is slight, my instincts have proven pretty good over time. That's why I responded as I did to this from Message 45: But he isn't arguing from his own skepticism - he's mining Creationist websites, and his point of view and level of understanding is consistent with the average Creationist we see here. There's nothing wrong with this, that's what most do, but he shouldn't try to paint a different picture. I cite Behe in this regard: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then we're warranted in concluding it's a duck. If he sticks around I think he'll be revealed as a traditional YEC who adheres to Biblical inerrancy and believes the tale in Genesis is the last word on origins.Jordo86 shouldn't try to obscure where he's coming from. I have the same reaction to this feign of independent thought as I do to John Paul's pose as a Moslem and wmscott's anonymous positive review of his own (self-published) book. It's a lie and it's done only to raise false impressions in the minds of others.--Percy

Both JonF in Message 22 and myself in Message 37 explained why this is the wrong way to think about thermodynamics. The thermodynamic laws are not about the growth and aging process. The process of aging is not equivalent to accumulating increasing amounts of entropy until you die. The degree of disorderliness or entropy must be considered at the molecular level, not the living organism level.As you go through Jar's example, keep in mind that it's an analogy. Thermodynamically, there is no meaningful difference between nails in a box and nails nailed into wood. Could you be more specific? What part of the development of the original organisms violated the laws of thermodynamics? This contains a serious misconception, that the genetic code contains information which allows it to overcome the laws of thermodynamics. I think that if you try to identify some specific part of the life cycle of organisms that violates the laws of thermodynamics that you won't be able to do it. What life violates is your misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics. Once again, I don't think you'll be able to identify anything specific in life that violates the laws of thermodynamics.--Percy

I think this thread may be getting confusing because Jordo continues to engage 2LOT on an incorrect level.Two approaches are being applied in this thread. One is represented by JonF and me by insisting that the correct definition of 2LOT be discussed. The other by Jar attempts to engage Jordo at his current level of understanding by using analogies to the order and disorder of everyday objects like nails and houses. I think Crash is trying to follow a middle road, though I'm not sure.I think analogies are only useful as aids to understanding for those who accept what you're trying to say, but are having trouble with comprehension or visualization. To someone who thinks you're wrong an analogy is only for picking apart.Jordo, you've been fed an incorrect definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Here's the correct definition from Widipedia (there is more than one way to state 2LOT, but this is one of the simplest and most easily understood): The key to misunderstanding 2LOT is to look up entropy in the dictionary and see that is a measure of disorder. For example, this is definition 2 from GuruNet: But while not exactly wrong, that's a misleading definition of entropy if you're trying to understand thermodynamics. The order referred to in that definition is not the order of a neatly ironed and folded handkerchief versus a wrinkled one. It's a measure of disorder on a molecular level. A much better definition of entropy for 2LOT is definition 1 from GuruNet: It's one thing to be skeptical and openminded, but quite another to work hard at rejecting extremely well understood and accepted scientific principles. As you get older you do not accumulate increasing entropy until you die. As species evolve over time they do not gradually use up a reservoir of order that is eventually exhausted. The process of evolution is too complicated to be interpreted as a thermodynamic process anyway. You're doubting the explanations of scientists and putting your faith in those who object to evolution on religious grounds because it has implications that falsify some of their deeply held myths, and not because they've conducted any science themselves.Life is just complicated chemistry, and there is nothing in chemistry that we know of that violates 2LOT. The entire history of life on this planet has faithfully obeyed 2LOT.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-14-2005 19:36 AM

That the universe is becoming increasingly disordered is a laymen's level paraphrase of 2LOT. It is not talking about disorder on the level of everyday objects. Mixing up the letters of scrabble pieces that used to spell a word is a good analogy for increasing disorder, but it doesn't actually have anything to do with thermodynamics.You know, you don't have to take my and JonF's word for the definition of 2LOT. You *could* actually look it up yourself. Go to No webpage found at provided URL: this article on thermodynamics at Wikipedia. Or go to GuruNet and read their article on thermodynamics. Or go to Britannica Online and read their very brief article. Or go to any of many other places on the web that accurately describe thermodynamics.What you'll find is that not one of them describes 2LOT as the tendency of the universe toward disorder. That incorrect conclusion comes purely from using a misleading definition of entropy, just as I described earlier. I never said it was, and in fact if you read back in this thread you'll see where I say precisely that while describing the earth/sun system as open. I chose my words very carefully when I presented the definition of 2LOT to you - I said there's more than one way to state 2LOT, and that I was offering one of the simplest ones to understand.2LOT doesn't change depending upon whether you're talking about open or closed systems. But it's easier to walk before you run, and it's easier to understand the principles of thermodynamics by concentrating on a closed system first. There's nothing misleading about closed systems. As you can see if you follow the links I provided, reliable sources find it very convenient to express the principles of thermodynamics in terms of closed systems. They can also be expressed in terms of open systems, but that adds the additional task of keeping track of all matter and energy that crosses system boundaries.You're awfully resistent to information for someone who claims to be keeping an open mind. No one here is trying to pull a fast one on you. The correct information has been provided for you several times now, so if you don't believe we're giving you the straight story on thermodynamics then please, please help move the discussion forward by finding your own sources.--Percy

Crash is correct that the Big Bang is an issue of cosmology, but to address your question, all I can say is that I think it's been answered. From a split second after the Big Bang the evidence we have gives us a pretty clear picture, but prior to that we have only ideas. The ideas are consistent with the evidence we have, but there is insufficient evidence to choose between them, and therefore we don't know if events before the Big Bang obeyed the first law of thermodynamics or not.The first law of thermodynamics is based upon our observations of the natural universe. We created this law because it describes the way the universe behaves when we make observations or conduct experiments, and when used to predict the future results of observations or experiments it has proven uniformly successful. Creationists argue that we haven't observed everything everywhere across all time, and that there could be exceptions to this law. Scientists would agree that this possibility exists, but we have no evidence for exceptions at this time, and so the law is tentatively accepted within the scientific community. But probably many would concede that the most likely possibility of a place and time with an exception to this law would be the time before that split second after the Big Bang.--Percy

I'm not sure why you ask. I was only describing the line of argument typically employed by Creationists to justify scenarios not in accordance with currently accepted scientific principles. A closely related but much simpler form of this approach is the "Were you there?" argument used to question nearly anything that happened in pre-history. If you really believe science is anti-God or anti-religious then I can understand your reluctance to accept scientific theories. Science is actually neutral on the question of God. Science accepts theories which are supported by evidence. As has been said here many times, absence of evidence cannot be interpreted as evidence of absence. That there is no evidence of God should not be construed as evidence of his nonexistence. From a scientific perspective, all we can say at this time is that we have no evidence of God, and so hypotheses of God remain unsupported. To be atheistic science would have to argue there is no God, but it doesn't do that.--Percy

There is no evidence that proves TOE. This may sound like I'm playing some obscure semantic game, but in science theories are never proven. The thermodynamic theories, Newton's theories, Einstein's theories, gravitational theories, and evolutionary theories, too, none of them have been proven.In science you can never prove a theory true. Theories can only be supported by evidence. All you can do is add to the pile of evidence supporting a theory, thereby broadening its sphere of acceptance within the scientific community.But the power of a theory lies in more than just its supporting evidence. Just as important is its ability to make predictions. A good example is provided by contrasting geology's view of earth's history with Noah's flood.If the earth were ancient and had witnessed many successive eras of geology and life, here's what would we expect to find as we dig into earth's layers:

• The deeper you go, the more ancient the layer.
• The deeper you go, the more different the fossils will be from modern forms.

If the earth were young and most of its geology were due to Noah's flood, we would expect to find:

• Fossils would occur in a primarily random order somewhat influenced by local conditions.
• Evidence of a flood would be present everywhere.
• Since the layers formed in the same year, they should all be roughly the same age.

With these predictions of the two theories you can now dig into the ground and verify which provides the closest match. If both match equally well, there will be a big scientific debate until more evidence settles the issue. If both match poorly, scientists will have to search for a new theory. And if one matches the evidence better than the other, then that theory will tend to attract the dominant portion of scientific acceptance, though not all. Even the most strongly supported theories have their detractors.--Percy

Creationists call them polystrate fossils, while geologists commonly refer to them as fossil forests or in situ trees. Both Creationists and geologists explain them pretty much the same way: they were buried quickly in time periods ranging from less than a day (e.g., a hurricane or volcano) to decades (e.g., a river basin's flood plain).Creationists believe polystrate fossils were created during the year of Noah's flood. This hypothesis makes several predictions that can be tested:

• Polystrate fossils should date to the same age.
  ​
  Geologists have discovered that polystrate fossils date to a wide range of ages, from hundreds of millions of years ago of the Pennsylvania layer to hundreds of years for Mount St. Helen's previous erruption.
  ​
• Layers of polystrate fossils should not be found one above the other.
  ​
  There are sites where multiple soil horizons, one above the other, all include polystrate fossils.
  ​
• The distribution of types of trees should be by geographical region alone and not be correlated with traditional geologic stratigraphy and tree evolution.
  ​
  The distribution of tree types is found to correlate with geologic layers and tree evolution. For example, lycopod trees only appear in Carboniferous period layers, but not later layers, and this is true all around the globe. The type of trees of which cypress is a reprentative cannot be found until Cretaceous layers, and this is also true all around the globe.

There's a lot of information about this on the web. For example, see"Polystrate" Fossils for a fairly non-technical description, or there's"Polystrate" Tree Fossils for those already pretty familiar with the geological literature. A Google of "polystrate fossils" will return a mix of Creationist and scientific sites.--Percy

Don't worry, I have the topic well in mind. Jordo felt comfortable enough with the answers about 2LOT to move the discussion forward to consideration of 1LOT. The question became how we knew 1LOT held at and before the Big Bang, and the answer was that we didn't. This led to a couple posts describing how theory is only a reflection of observations of the natural world, which led to descriptions of how hypotheses are tested by observation using Noah's flood and polystrate fossils as examples. Once Jordo thinks he agrees, or at least thinks he understands the point even if he doesn't agree with it, then I was going to tie it back in to 1LOT and the Big Bang.I actually like where this thread has gotten to a lot. While the topic is thermodynamics, the forum is [forum=-11], which hopefully justifies a diversion into why 1LOT is still science even though we don't know if it applies at the Big Bang. The manner in which Jordo is raising these issues makes this thread somewhat epistemological, and hopefully a brief digression into how we know what we think we know will prove helpful.--Percy