# Thread: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...

1. Entropy-

Does this law help prove or disprove that
princes came from frogs, namely, macroevolution?

2.

3. i didn't know a law dealing with heat energy or the measure of usefull energy in a system had anything to do with evolution.

or religon for that matter.

4. Cheakrisna, depsite your earlier claim to be open minded and in search of the truth, your recent postings all bear the hallmarks of a card carrying creationist. Are you posting these trite items out of the mistaken belief that they have some intrinsic value, or for some other reason that has escaped me?

Wallaby, the creationists make much of the fact that the second law of thermodynamics calls for the order of a system in any reaction to either remain the same or decrease. On this basis they say 'how can complex, ordered life develop without divine intervention?'. They conveniently ignore that the above law only holds in a closed system. A potential bioshpere like the Earth is not a closed system, since it is receiving energy input from the sun.

5. Originally Posted by cheakrisna
Entropy-

Does this law help prove or disprove that
princes came from frogs, namely, macroevolution?
What do you believe? Some BELIEVE in differen ways that humans are here it is up to you to find what your heart tells you to BELIEVE. You will then have a life that you will enjoy for your BELIEF will be there to help you through it.

6. No, the second law of thermodynamic and entropy don’t have much to do with evolution one way or the other. You often hear the 2nd law stated as “disorder is always increasing” or something similar in extremely low-level science textbooks, and some people unfortunately take it to mean that evolution couldn’t happen since evolution would involve an increase in order. Unfortunately the popular, simple explanation for entropy/the second law isn’t really accurate. Entropy has to do with the amount of usable energy in a system and how the system I configured. You can't just think of it as "the amount of disorder."

Consider this: from an thermodynamic standpoint, it is entropicly favorable for a pile of crystals to spontaneously arrange themselves into a living human, since the entropy of a human (who is made mostly of warm water) is higher than the entropy of a pile of crystals. Of course that doesn’t mean it would happen, but if it were to happen it wouldn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics.

7. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
They conveniently ignore that the above law only holds in a closed system. A potential bioshpere like the Earth is not a closed system, since it is receiving energy input from the sun.
You are completely correct that the earth isn’t a closed system and that the 2nd law therefore doesn’t apply. The thing is, it still doesn’t matter one way or the other with respect to evolution. The argument that evolution would violate the second law of thermodynamics is based on the mistaken belief that entropy is a “measure of disorder”. That’s not really accurate; entropy is actually the –log of the number of possible microstates in a system. When the number of microstates is small entropy is low and when there are lots of possible microstates entropy is high. You could sort of think of this as having to do with the amount of “disorder” in the system, but it doesn’t really relate to order or disorder in the way that we normally think about the terms. For example, most people would agree that a 5 gram microchip is more “ordered” than 5 grams of ice. But the ice would have a lower entropy.

8. so would gas contained within a bottle have less microstates than the same amount of gas floating freely amongst the air?

9. Originally Posted by wallaby
so would gas contained within a bottle have less microstates than the same amount of gas floating freely amongst the air?
Yes, assuming the temperature stays the same.

10. i understand now!

11. Hoping this thread is still open.

Cannot speak for other religious people, but I think there is a common reason among us for "invading" what perport to be science forums.

Whether others are actually familiar with the term, I think the common bond among us is that we are getting fed up of a constant stream of scientism which is pervading the public comment area.

As a Christian, I have no argument with real science, do not fear it, do not dislike it, fully embrace it.

However, there has come to the fore in recent years, a philosophical branch of pseudoscience which has been quantified, categorized, identified and labeled as scientism.

Scientism is, generally, made up of atheistic oriented people who are seldom actually involved in any scientific endeavor. It has as its main theses:

1. If it isn't science (according to their definitions of it) it is not truth.

2. If it cannot be quantified and qualified by physical data, it is irrelevant to human existence.

3. Science (according to their definitions of it) is the only source of knowledge.

That is just three characteristics which are easily discernable in any discussion involving an advocate of scientism, sometimes termed scientifics (not to be confused with scientists) or scientismites.

Not all atheists are scientifics and not all scientifics are atheists, but generally speaking, the two mostly walk hand in hand.

Scientists, that is real scientists, do not generally belong to this philosophy of science although I am certain some do.

The main objection to scientism is that it attempts to ignore any form of intellectual input other than what it has defined as science.

Unfortunately, most religious people are not even prepared to do battle on this front and end up looking very silly when they get into forum that are not science forums but actually scientism forums.

If you are a person who wants to intelligently and intellectually combat this illegitimate form of science, I beg you to google "scientism" and read some of the information available -- both from scientistic viewpoints and anti-scientistic view points.

It is not that difficult to turn their intellectual arguments back on them, because they are often internally self contradicting.

I was recently banned from a different forum where the theological rules prohibted used of Bible verses but did not also bar the use of other religious writings. I can deduced that someone was probably improperly or overusing Bible verses, but you can see right there what you are up against with these people. As a rule, it is really better not to use Bible or religious thoughts, anyway. There are enough flaws within scientism to expose its errors.

12. ooops, freshman mistake; wrong thread, sorry

13. Originally Posted by wallaby
i didn't know a law dealing with heat energy or the measure of usefull energy in a system had anything to do with evolution.

or religon for that matter.
But if they want to use it, throw it right back at them. Once there were much fewer species, and now there is much greater biodiversity. Ecosystems go from order (few species) to disorder (more species) through the process of evolution. You have to use their logic because if you actually use any real science they are not going listen anyway.

14. [quote=Benzene.
Once there were much fewer species, and now there is much greater biodiversity. [/quote]

Depends on what time period you are looking at. Today, science is very concerned about an observed rapid decline of biodiversity.

15. Depends on what time period you are looking at. Today, science is very concerned about an observed rapid decline of biodiversity.[/quote]

I just have a problem with people who hear dribs and drabs from Church or Bible study group about someone elses second hand information regarding evolution and then attempt to engage in debate with someone else who has an idea. It happens in my family. They think they know something about scientific theory and process because they are disputing it. I can't discuss it with them because they don't know what they are talking about to begin with and then they think they've accomplished something because they haven't allowed me to answer their loaded, rehearsed questions (same ones every time BTW).

16. same thing happens when the religious tell you that your wrong simnply because a book written 2000 years ago, written by people who still thought the Earth was flat and could not even begin to comprehend the universe like we can, says so. rather silly realy.

17. "But if they want to use it, throw it right back at them. Once there were much fewer species, and now there is much greater biodiversity. Ecosystems go from order (few species) to disorder (more species) through the process of evolution. You have to use their logic because if you actually use any real science they are not going listen anyway.
I suppose you’re right that this is an easy way to argue with them, but I really hate arguing on that sort of “dumbed down” level. The number of species in an ecosystem wouldn’t really have any meaningful relationship with the entropy of the ecosystem, so trying to use that sort of argument is almost as dishonest as their attempt to argue that the “increasing complexity” of species violates the second law of thermodynamics.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement