English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

-If the Earth is not a closed system, why would the 2nd law trump evolution?

-On a cosmological level, how does the 2nd law prove God is real?

I've read the arguments for both and am wondering if anyone has more to offer. So far I've been disappointed.

2007-04-14 17:24:32 · 18 answers · asked by Dog 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

The question is for those familiar with the argument and the 2nd law.

2007-04-14 17:33:43 · update #1

18 answers

no.

The Earth is an open system. Massive amounts of energy are constantly flowing in from the Sun. Its precisely this energy that gives rise to complex molecules such as amino acids (the building blocks of life).

How does the Law of Entropy prove God is real? Entropy is NOT disorder. The Second Law doesn't state: systems in nature move from a state of order to disorder.

It states that in a closed system, the total amount of entropy cannot decrease. According to Big Bang theory, the total amount of Entropy in the Universe as a whole has, and will continue, to increase.

I fail to see how this fact "proves" God in any way, shape or form.

2007-04-14 17:28:42 · answer #1 · answered by Skippy 6 · 3 0

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, where neither energy nor matter can enter or leave, the amount of disorder ( "entropy" )will tent to increase over time.

Since life forms are highly ordered, some have argued that it would therefore be impossible for life to have come into being without supernatural creator.

But this betrays a misunderstanding of the full meaning of the 2n law. Order can certainly increase in some part of the system ( as happens in our daily routines like washing dishes ), but that will require an input energy, and total amount of disorder in the entire system cannot decrease.

In the case of the origin of life,closed system is essentially the whole universe, energy is available from the sun, and so logical increase in order that would be represented by the 1st random assembly of macromolecules would in no way violate this law

2007-04-14 17:38:41 · answer #2 · answered by SeeTheLight 7 · 1 0

You for sure don't be attentive to the guidelines of Thermodynamics, professor. quite because you talked approximately because it "Thermal Dynamics". the 2nd regulation states that entropy continually will improve entire (not on a guy or woman point) in a thoroughly CLOSED device. In different phrases with the aid of the years ameliorations in temperature, tension, and chemical ability tend to equilibrate in an remoted actual device. The universe is an open device. that's probable between the worst motives of thermodynamics I even have ever heard; the Argument from lack of wisdom fallacy replaced into quite vile. you're basically claiming "i are not getting it, subsequently God".

2016-10-22 04:57:39 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

No. The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. Earth is not.

2007-04-14 17:27:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Nothing in the laws of thermodynamics can be used to prove god. That is unless the new 4th law that Creationists have invented proves God.

2007-04-14 17:32:10 · answer #5 · answered by novangelis 7 · 3 0

You can get order out of disorder if you add energy. A bicycle arrives at your door as a less complex box of parts. By adding energy (physical effort) you create a more complex object.

On earth, the sun is such an energy source.

2007-04-14 17:36:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Aren't the thermodynamics a triple a baseball team in rural Arkansas?

2007-04-14 17:47:52 · answer #7 · answered by t w 1 · 0 0

I don't think the law of thermodynamics proves anything. It's merely an observation.

2007-04-14 17:29:11 · answer #8 · answered by supertop 7 · 4 0

No. God is totally a faith thing. It is not even a conjecture, much less a hypothesis or theory. It can not be falsified and as a result is untestable or provable.

2007-04-14 17:28:26 · answer #9 · answered by U-98 6 · 2 0

Well clearly not otherwise it could be cited as a knock down argument.

The first staement is sometimes used by ignorant creationists but the more sophisticated (tautology alert) have moved on.

2007-04-14 17:28:10 · answer #10 · answered by fourmorebeers 6 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers