Reply With Quote
As in?
It's hard to accept, I know - I, too, had a hard time believing scientists could have deceived me so long. Take a deep breath now that you know evolution's "proof" is often deeply rooted in circular reasonings, like the Geological Column.
I will bet you $1 right now, I will pm paypal account you can send it to, that entropy is one of the reasons the necessary ingredients for the first cell could not have formed.
As in?
It's hard to accept, I know - I, too, had a hard time believing scientists could have deceived me so long. Take a deep breath now that you know evolution's "proof" is often deeply rooted in circular reasonings, like the Geological Column.
If they have been jumbled up so many times then the layers would indeed appear to be in random order.
They are not in random order according to just about every excavation humankind has done.
You cannot keep claiming that without doing your own digs and showing that everyone else is lying when they report seeing the same layers in the same order consistantly world wide.
For starters.The Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) clearly goes against evolutionary "policy" concerning the origin of life
That is verifyably false, and easily so.
So you're betting that $1?
"Whenever an adequate amount of energy flows through a system of objects, it tends to scatter them." This is essentially what the second law dictates, which means in order for abiogenesis in the "RNA World" to occur, the ingredients for the first cell must have been in a near-exact sort of order within a cell membrane in an unreasonably short amount of time, before the very energy needed to create the cell destroyed it. This is a proven error with the RNA World theory, because more heat speeds up entropy.
Sure.
Go for it.
Let's get a few things down as what would cons uted winning this bet:
1) state clearly the 2nd law of thermodynamics, sourced from at least 2 neutral websites.
2) state clearly how this applies to the theory of evolution, using sound, non- fallacious logic.
You will, I have no doubt, attempt to weasel your way out of this, but I have stated that you have not done any independent verification of the creationist claim that evolution somehow violates this law.
All I have to do to prove that you have not, is to win this bet, because this is one of the easiest creationist lies to debunk, and took me all of 2 seconds using google to find, even though I already know the answer.
Anybody who had truly and honestly subjected creationist claims to ANY scrutiny could have found how the creationists were lying about this in short order.
I do not accept your definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Please give me a proper defintion from at least two independent websites.
I will accept any website from a physics or chemistry tutoring-type website.
RandomGuy > z0sa
find your own research and prove me wrong. You owe me $1.
BTW, that statement in quotes is from an article I read and are the words of Professor Frank Lambert, you know from http://www.secondlaw.com/ the OFFICIAL Second Law site.
Here's some more proof you owe me $1 from the official site of Second Law:
Look at the direction that energy flows in any happening or process or event. That is the first step to understanding what the second law of thermodynamics is and what it applies to.
Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place
to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out.
(Later we'll come back to those two tricky words "spontaneously" and "tends".) That's it, the big idea. The perfect illustration is: A hot frying pan cools down when it is taken off the kitchen stove. Its thermal energy ("heat") flows out to the cooler room air. The opposite never happens.The big deal is that all types of energy spread out like the energy in that hot pan does (unless somehow they're hindered from doing so) They don't tend to stay concentrated in a small space; they flow toward becoming dispersed if they can -- like electricity in a battery or a power line or lightning, wind from a high pressure weather system or air compressed in a tire, all heated objects, loud sounds, water or boulders that are high up on a mountain, your car's kinetic energy when you take your foot off the gas. All these different kinds of energy spread out if there's a way they can do so.
Last edited by z0sa; 02-20-2009 at 06:14 PM.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...on&btnG=Search
BTW, that statement in quotes is from an article I read and are the words of Professor Frank Lambert, you know from http://www.secondlaw.com/ the OFFICIAL Second Law site.
Here's some more proof you owe me $1 from the official site of Second Law (as soon as Im off the phone)
http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html
Many fundamentalist Christians see the theory of evolution as a threat to their faith, evidently because it is not explicitly included in Genesis. (They also misunderstand the scientific application of the word "theory" that the chemist uses in discussing atomic theory or the kinetic molecular theory of gases, ideas as unquestioned by all chemists as evolution is by professional biologists.) This is tragic because it cuts off sincere individuals who are not scientists from understanding the powerful relevance of one of the most important concepts in all of science.
Most disquieting to chemists who are interested in thermodynamics are the misleading statements about the second law and chemistry that creationist spokespeople have made. A few emphases from previous pages in the present Web site and from www.secondlaw.com that bear on this unfortunate situation are developed below. At the end of this page are superior links to presentations of the second law of thermodynamics and its irrelevance to creationists’ arguments against evolution.
http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.htmlTo summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalac es, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamicsThe second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...seclaw.html#c4
Second Law: Entropy
Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.
Entropy: a state variable whose change is defined for a reversible process at T where Q is the heat absorbed.
Entropy: a measure of the amount of energy which is unavailable to do work.
Entropy: a measure of the disorder of a system.
Entropy: a measure of the multiplicity of a system.
Since entropy gives information about the evolution of an isolated system with time, it is said to give us the direction of "time's arrow" . If snapshots of a system at two different times shows one state which is more disordered, then it could be implied that this state came later in time. For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ntropy.html#c1
Goes on to show that the earth is not an isolated system.
It is constantly getting new energy input into it by the sun.
-------------------------------------
Energy and Order in Biological Systems
The concept of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics suggests that systems naturally progress from order to disorder. If so, how do biological systems develop and maintain such a high degree of order? Is this a violation of the second law of thermodynamics?
Order can be produced with an expenditure of energy, and the order associated with life on the earth is produced with the aid of energy from the sun.
For example, plants use energy from the sun in tiny energy factories called chloroplasts. Using chlorophyll in the process called photosynthesis, they convert the sun's energy into storable form in ordered sugar molecules. In this way, carbon and water in a more disordered state are combined to form the more ordered sugar molecules.
In animal systems there are also small structures within the cells called mitochondria which use the energy stored in sugar molecules from food to form more highly ordered structures.
Results 1 - 10 of about 224,000 for 2nd law of thermodynamics evolution. (0.19 seconds)
A couple seconds to type in the search, less than a second to get the results and 5 minutes to show exactly how creationists are lying.
I posted enough infrormation here from independent websites that have nothing to do with "evolution".
Sorry, kid.
You did nothing but show me exactly how you are lying when you say you subjected creationist claims to any scrutiny whatsoever.
Cells are isolated systems.
Try again.
All 5 of those posts, debunked by four words ^
You have yet to prove one single thing I said is nonfactual.
So far I've stated:
A: scientists use circular logic to support evolution, especially the Geostratographical Column, which is used to date and classify species and evolutionary forms as seen fit by the original theory.
B: scientists have never been able to recreate first life in the lab despite a purpose, an intent, and the tools/elements to do so, contrary to nature which has no purpose nor intent, and uses only the tools/elements available.
C: the Second Law demonstrates synthesis of many different compounds into a surviving independent cell capable of replication is not supported by nature's orderly mannerism.
Last edited by z0sa; 02-20-2009 at 06:47 PM.
RandomGuy = another intellectual who loves to prove people wrong and make them feel stupid.
You should see you can be wrong, too, in this discussion, like I have believed this entire time. You've simply done nothing to convince me differently of my current beliefs.
This is an argument against your theory, not for it.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ntropy.html#c1
Goes on to show that the earth is not an isolated system.
It is constantly getting new energy input into it by the sun.
A cell on earth is not an isolated system.
You don't understand evolution at all. You don't understand the second law at all. You grossly misrepresent both. You're the religious equivalent of a truther.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
