The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Christians are fond of using the argument from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to argue the impossibility (or to be exact, the near impossibility) of evolution occurring naturally.
Over and over again we see evolutionists correcting us by saying that the law only applies to closed systems. Earth is not a closed system because we have energy constantly being applied to the system in the form of sunlight. Earth, therefore, is an open system which isn't subjected to the 2nd law.
The problem is that our intuition SCREAMS at us that order doesn't come from chaos, even if you apply energy from an outside source. So are we simply idiots for continuing to argue from the 2nd law? I don't think so. And neither does this mathematician from Texas A&M.
See Here.
posted by Jeff at 10:36 AM
4 Comments:
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Spend 10 years trying to get a PhD in Physics from schools like MIT or Cal Tech
Then talk about entropy.
Besides. What does the second law of thermodynamics have to do with evolution? Evolution is basically natural selection. The second law of thermodymaics deals more with the transition of energy.
And woohoo. I just can't wait till the big fizzle happens. Though everything would be void and we wouldn't be able to argue things. . .
Yeah. Second law of thermodynamics deals more with physics. I don't make the connection between energy transfer and evolution.
Roger, Hmmm. So I have to get a PhD in Physics from a respected school before I have the right to comment on entropy?
So, tell me where did you get your PhD in Physics from?
Now, moving on...I see you did NOT read the article that I linked to. That article explains to you exactly how and why the 2nd law applies to evolution.
Give it a read and tell me what exactly you dispute.
Oh, and I'm glad to have you visiting my blog.
No. I didn't get a degree in physics either. Nor do I plan too, math is way too hard. But before you start critisizing the second law of thermodynamics (and why it isn't on earth), I'd suggest you take some physics class. Like how I refute the, "Why do we teach Big Bang instead of ID," argument. I just show them a foot long equation, and if they can't explain it, they are in no position to say anything about it.
Moving on...
Yeah. I've read it.
And Michael Behe said that the Flagella could be a product of Evolution.
As for the pre-cambrian biological big bang, it is possible that there was a drastic change of the enviornment that recently happened. For example, many organisms could have died during the magnetic flip of the Earth's, "force field." The added radiation of it, could also have changed the genetic code of several animal, which may explain the sudden jump.
One of his examples on the CRT moniter appearing out of nowhere. I believe this is him saying evolution cannot explain the start of life. Well, evolution isn't necessairly the start of life. Unless I'm missing the entire point, he's saying that SOMETHING had to of happen for organisms to occur. Now, evolution doesn't actually explain the start of life...more so everything after the start. Yes. ID and evolution CAN go hand in hand. ID merely being the starting point, and Evolution taking over afterwards.
Doesn't mean I like ID. Just stating a point.
I also think his example of Entropy is wrong. He says that by the second law of thermo dynamics, a bunch of scrap metal can assemble into something and the two computers through an open door just collapses into junk.
That is usually an anology people use. The one that I am familiar with is,
"You clean your room. Everything outside is a mess. What law is this?"
I believe it deals more with physics and energy, rather than if I make something, something else breaks.
I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you! The side effects of the drug zocor Evista hormone replacement www ebargainsoftware com zyban teeth whitening A medication history Excel tutorials accounting handheld electronic game craps
Post a Comment
<< Home