PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Second Law of Thermodynamics

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
admin

|      |       Report Post



Administrator
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does evolution break the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/creation_thermodynamics.HTM
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 4:14 PM on April 30, 2002 | IP
Mad_dog

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The administration has suspended this post pending review. Check back later for updates.
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 01:19 AM on May 7, 2002 | IP
Day_Am_STR8

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Have you noticed how bad society is falling apart all over the world?

It looks like a figurative meltdown to me!

Extensive deterioration of social values could apply to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.



-------
Pro 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 6:36 PM on August 19, 2002 | IP
Jigokusabre

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Except that morality is not a science, much less a funtion of physics. . .


-------
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 8:42 PM on August 19, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Have you noticed how bad society is falling apart all over the world?


No, I haven't.   Of course, I live in the United States.  Crime rates, and particularly, violent crime rates are way down from the amoral 80s.

More people are going to church and reporting that God is a major part of their lives.

Sexual abstinence outside of marriage is back in style for more of us than in a long time.

We no longer have laws institutionalizing abuse of people because of their race, sex, or religion, and those who do are increasingly marginalized as sick or evil people.

And accordingly, more people among minorities are getting educations, finding good jobs, and becoming productiive citizens.

No, I don't see any of that as a bad thing.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:49 PM on September 15, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have no clue, but i think it does.  They are seperate ideas.


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 09:03 AM on September 25, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

everything in nature breaks down. it is a law of nature (hence the second LAW of thermodynamics). therefore, evolution is impossible.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:47 AM on November 20, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

huh? ok, i am not a science genius, but i figure 2nd law is like about entropy right?
why is that not compatible with evolution, which is just the observed phenomenon of natural selection and change through survival of organisms? One is physics and one is biology. Can someone smarter than me please explain in detail, using empiricism, why one invalidates the other. And don't use vague, sweeping statements. Explain.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:00 AM on November 20, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we would reach the beginning point, where available energy equaled total energy. Time could go back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must have come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."

Here is an interesting paragraph from this site:

If you want to read the whole thing, click here.

The reason entropy is not compatable with evolution is the fact that they are the exact opposite. Oh, and one of them is a scientific law. Evolution requires organisms to become more complex over time, entropy states organisms become less complicated over time. Evolution is in direct opposition of entropy, and entropy is the second law of thermodynamics.

Most evolutionist simply ignore this. But some say that entropy does not affect evolution, because it mst occur in an isolated system. But that is not true, because there simply is no such thing as a truly closed system!

If you want to go more in-depth, I'll try and do so.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 11:15 AM on November 20, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that sounded like the most outrageously obvious propaganda I have ever seen!!!
I love how the author jumps logically from his point that energy cannot be ex nihilo to heaven: "Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
how is heaven derived from 2nd law of thermodynamics???
I did some research today (which for us "evolutionists" means looking at several different kinds of sources, not just the ones blatantly trying to defend a pre-determined point of view...), and here's what made sense to me (the higher math eludes me): the creationist point makes sense only if you are talking about life on earth as a closed system. but it is an open system, fueled by energy elsewhere in the universe (e.g. the sun), which is itself the ultimately closed system. (i don't know where you heard evolutionists' argument is based on the assumption that there is a closed system; in fact, it is seeing the earth as an OPEN system that helps our argument) now, you said, "Evolution requires organisms to become more complex over time, entropy states organisms become less complicated over time." that's just plain not true. check out sources besides just religious ones. entropy refers to the GENERAL flow of the UNIVERSE to disorder, but in this system not every component has to constantly demonstrate a flow towards disorder. now if we trace that energy back to a time, that might be the big bang, which could be one transition in a cycle of infinite universes through infinite time. energy building and disassembling forever. I ask, how is that less plausible than an eternal entity?


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:02 AM on November 21, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"now if we trace that energy back to a time, that might be the big bang, which could be one transition in a cycle of infinite universes through infinite time. energy building and disassembling forever. I ask, how is that less plausible than an eternal entity?"

Your thought defies the first and second laws of physics. There would be no reason for any of this to happen spontaniously, and it could not 'accidentally' create the laws of gravity, ect.

You are asking two completely different questions. You are aking me to believe that matter has streched back in time infinitly. That is impossible, it must have had a beggining. God is not matter, nor can you put him on our timescale.

"(i don't know where you heard evolutionists' argument is based on the assumption that there is a closed system; in fact, it is seeing the earth as an OPEN system that helps our argument)"

You must not have read my post closely. Yes, the earth is an open system, I never said it wasn't. But open systems undergo as much, or more, entropy than closed systems (which don't really exist anyway).

"but in this system not every component has to constantly demonstrate a flow towards disorder. "

This is true, I was making a generalization. But what have you seen, in the long run, that is more complex than when it started?


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 10:08 AM on November 21, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This debate has been over for ages. Notice the overwhelming majority of real scientists (about 93%) are fine with both evolution and entropy. If entropy literally meant that nothing could get more complex, nothing would grow. No one would have children, trees would not get taller, etc. It is obvious that there can be some growth towards the more complex. Entropy means that on the WHOLE, the universe is getting more disorderly. While life on this planet slowly evolves (which does not actually mean it has to get more complex), stars are dying and other massive things are going on in this enormous universe.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:44 AM on November 22, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But what have you seen, in the long run, that is more complex than when it started?

"No one would have children, trees would not get taller, etc."

That's why I put 'in the long run' in my sentence.  Macroevolution happens in the long run.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 08:04 AM on November 22, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you agree that children grow and that the human population is growing, then you are agreeing that entropy decreases over the entire period of human growth.
It is also worth noting that micro and macroevolution are not real scientific terms. Creationists created the concepts because evolution smacked them in the faces and they had to come up wisome theory that would allow it to exist but still not exist.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 12:44 PM on November 22, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"It is also worth noting that micro and macroevolution are not real scientific terms."

Even if they aren't, they are useful words to clarify with. Here are their definitions:

Macroevolution

Microevolution


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 2:25 PM on November 22, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I understand their defenition. My point was that the words are only spoken byt hose trying to disprove evolution.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:07 PM on November 22, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hey fallingupwards84, thats the debate.  We are tryin to figure out if thermodynamics is a law of nature.  U havent proven that everything in nature breaks down, thats just what u think.  Try not to make ultimatums like that on a DEBATE page.

Evolution does not work on all levels of life.  For instance punctuated equilibrium seems to defy evolution.  Also who said that, if evolution were a perfectly correct theory, that it is necessarily building upward towards order? The creatures who have survived the longest and have the greatest probability to continue this trend are single cells.  All "evolutionary development" shows is change.  On a large scale does this pattern we have observed in organisms and have named evolution improve an organism's ability to sruvive? None of us will really know.  Couldnt our developments be temporary assets but in the long term be our downfalls?  So basically evolution is neither a process towards or away from chaos it is merely a theory which explains observations in a series of gradual steps with no conclusion.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy disperses.  That means that the universe is expanding.  If this is so than in the extremly distant future we will be too far from any energy source (such as the sun) to sustain us (we could develop forms of artificial light but we would eventually run out of fuel sources).  We will eventually be wiped out.  Thats not Judgement Day by the way cause we may not even make it till that far in the future.  So personally I dont understand why u care so much about whether or not god created the universe because he doesnt care enough about u and ur beliefs to sustain them.  Then again, the law of thermodynamics is also faulty on the account that on a very small scale in this world, molecules can, for short periods of time, travel through particles and create order around them.  Although it does disapear, if thermodynamics is correct then this shouldnt happen.

To compare the two, from one perspective, evolution supports thermodynamics because it deversifies life, dispersing energy.  From a more scientific point of view evolution says nothin about thermodynamics for evolution as a method of change can exist with a law supporting entropy. Neither does it completely hinder the universe's movements towards chaos or come close to being a theory against chaos.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:12 AM on January 3, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

since I can't say it better than this site can I'll just give you a quote from:

http://www.finalfrontier.org.uk/creation.htm


"The Spontaneous Generation theory contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics

This law is often thought of as the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the sum of kinetic energy, potential energy, and thermal energy in a closed system remains constant.
Matter, or its energy equivalent, cannot be created nor destroyed under natural circumstances.
To explain the origin of matter in the atheistic Spontaneous Generation model, it is simply assumed that matter arose from nothing.
This is in direct contravention of the First Law of Thermodynamics!
The First Law of Thermodynamics demands that matter cannot create itself.
There must therefore have been an "Outside Agency", Who the Bible describes as God, Who created everything."


so doesn't the law of thermodynamics directly contradict the theory of evolution??


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:11 PM on January 3, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"spontaneous generation was finally laid to rest in 1859 by the young French chemist, Louis Pasteur. The French Academy of Sciences sponsored a contest for the best experiment either proving or disproving spontaneous generation. Pasteur's winning experiment was a variation of the methods of Needham and Spallanzani. He boiled meat broth in a flask, heated the neck of the flask in a flame until it became pliable, and bent it into the shape of an S. Air could enter the flask, but airborne microorganisms could not - they would settle by gravity in the neck. As Pasteur had expected, no microorganisms grew. When Pasteur tilted the flask so that the broth reached the lowest point in the neck, where any airborne particles would have settled, the broth rapidly became cloudy with life. Pasteur had both refuted the theory of spontaneous generation and convincingly demonstrated that microorganisms are everywhere - even in the air. "
Spontaneous generation theory is old stuff.  Nobody thinks about it and it has nothing to do with Thermodynamics nor is it an accepted theory and it is definetly not thought of as "The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy." So, your wrong.
Now let me tell u about God.  God is an explanation supported by a book written by some people a long long time ago in the middleeast where they believed that the earth was flat and that Noah took two of ever animal into an arc, sailed around for a while, and from that continued life on this earth(ridiculous).  Now if u are just talking about the entity, the idea, and not the christian God, thats more interesting.  As u said the 1st law of thermodynamics states that matter can not create itself.  What if it was never created and it has always existed.  Dont say there has to be a begenning because you dont know that.  Talking about an enternal entity, there are many things we couldn't comprehend at this point and maybe the human mind will never be able to comprehend.  At least we can say however, that the bible contradicts itself.  For instance, the gospel of Tom is left out of the generic bible for he stated that God is within you.  That contradicts much of the focus of the bible and many Churches for it doesnt create a necessity for a papal heirarchy.  Thats not the only contradiction but just to prove a point, the King James Bible was once printed with the words "Thou Shalt Commit Adultery."  Did God come down and strike the sinners with his wrath for distorting the word of God?  No, they just reprinted it, but the Bible is the words of man or at least words selected by man over time to suit their interests.  The Bible as it is now printed, isnt really a good source of truth.  Now if u think that there was a begenning and there is an "outside force" which created energy and matter, let me ask you, how was this being made?  If we believe in a conciously created universe than what made it?  And what made the thing that made that? and so on.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:16 PM on January 3, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you ask what made the thing that made the earth and so on. i cannot explain it to you. God has been here forever (thats what I believe anway...), and as u said the human mind may not ever be able to comprehend somethings. this is one of them. God is forever in the past, and forever in the future.
you say the Bible has many falshoods that many christians over look. You say its been written over and over again. This is true. It has been translated and rewritten many times. You give an example about the King James Bible being reprinted inaccurately, and that no one was striked down with lightning. have you ever considered that IT WAS AN ACCIDENT??? Those people that printed that Bible were fined they're life's wages. Those Bibles were destroyed and fewer than 10 still exsist. Now, I believe that our God is a good and merciful one. Do you really think he'd strike down a couple of mere human beings for making a mistake that they were already paying they're life's wages for??? i highly doubt it!
Archeologists even find old clay tablets and writtings that match some of the stories given to us in the Bible.
so maybe the bible has been rewritten, but i don't see any history of intentional distortion. and everything in it makes sense, and fits together. therefore I still believe in it.
Oh and also, they story of Noah is not as ridiculous as u claim it to be. but we'll save that for another decusion
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:01 PM on January 3, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you took what I said about "striking down" too seriously.  It merely shows that it is written and passed on by man.  The Vatican has a library of books which has forbidden people outside of the highest reaches its hiearchy to view.   THere are many, many gospels which have been left out of the bible by the church. Intentional distortion IS modern christianity.  THe huge diversity of sects for example.  The structure of the Church isnt even Christian because Jesus never wanted that.  Its emphasis on materialism is disgusting and anti-christian.  They are nothing like Jesus and Jesus preached that to follow him, one had to shed themselves of all earthly possesions and desires. Christian Scientests believe that Christ heals everything and if you get sick u cant take medicine because Jesus will save you.  The Pope's words are seen as sacred and holy.  There is no mediator between God and man in the bible except for the prophets and patriarchs.  Throughout the majorit of European history, the clergy were at the head of the social hierarchy.
Thomas Verse 113 His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" Jesus said, "It will not come be looking for it. Nor will it do"to say, 'Behold over here!' or 'Behold, over there!'. Rather, the kingdom of the Father is spread out on the earth, but people do not see it."
In Mark 6: 8-9, we are told that Jesus commanded his disciples not to bring anything for their journey except for a staff:

And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.

Yet in Matthew 10: 9-10, we are told that in the very same account of the preparation for their journey Jesus did not allow anything, not even a staff, to be brought:

Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

In Matthew 2:14, we are told that Joseph took Mary and Jesus to Egypt
"When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt."
Yet in Luke 2:39, they went to Nazareth after Jesus' birth:
"And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

These are just a few insignificant examples, but they still prove my point.  THAT is intentional distortion of the bible. About the God thing, I was asking you if you knew where it started and where it began and if you agree you cant comprehend it then why do you have faith in it?  What is the basis for your faith? Somebody else came up with that idea, not you.  And then its a bad idea because what use is it to anyone?
Q:Why does this happen why does that happen?
R: Oh its GOd.  Gods everywhere.  God knows everything.
How do u know that? Thats just encompassing a whole lot of questions with one answer.  Its a rather un-intellectual way of thinking of the world.  U think there is a God and he created everything?  I respect thats what u believe but to me thats the easy way out for a person scared to make their own decisions about the world. Now just so you know Im not an aethiest.  Im an agnostic.  I dont say there is a God because I dont know, and I dont say there isnt one because I dont know that either.  You dont know there is a God so why do say there is.  Its all good intention but those are the oposite of good.  Oh and anyways, You obviously admit you were wrong about Evolution versus Thermodynamcis.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:50 AM on January 4, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ic the things you've shown are inaccurate about the Bible and ur right, they are insignificant.
why do i believe in God? Let me tell you a little about why. I look around me seeing this earth, this prosperous earth, with everything moving, everything has a task. and how it all fits together amazes me. the complex designs of nature (that scientists are just now starting to see) the suspension of the earth in it's orbit, the moon/moon dust, the earth's core, even how all snow flakes are different... then i look at us, as humans, our mind. the way we think, feel, smell, the way our brain works is truely fascinating to me. we have our initial thoughts, and our physchological ones. we are all different. we look different, talk different, and think different from each other. to me this whole earth, this whole universe is a design. a meraculous,  ingenius, design. and where there is a design...there is a designer.

this universe and the way it functions is no accident
(at least thats what i think)

but your right, i dont have 100% proof there is a God. i wasn't there when the earth was created. but somethings there is no way you can KNOW with your mind. somethings you just know from your heart. and that is what has happened with me, the eyes of my heart saw God. Jesus is my savior and i can feel him. you will never understand where i'm coming from unless you experience it as well.

(oh, and i am pretty physcologically inclined to knowing why i do the things i do. i know that some people see certain things because they want to see certain things. i know because i've done it. but this isn't a physcological thing, this is something real. again, u wouldn't understand.)
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:06 PM on January 4, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.