For all those Creationists who (mis)use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to support your "theories"?

Question

Do some reading before posting nonsense:

Creationists say "the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa".

This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

Creationists: You should either read this link or remain blinded by dogma...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

Can you provide a single non-ad hominem, non-scriptural counterargument?

Answer 1

Well said, mate. I guess they don't understand the concept of a closed system (or the definition of 'entropy').

Jade: The Bible's just full of science, isn't it? I mean, it tells us that fowl have four legs, bats are birds, whales are fish, rabbits chew cud, striped goats come from plain goats breeding while looking at striped sticks, and the sky is a solid dome of water resting on the disc that is the earth.
Oh, wait, all that's been proven scientifically incorrect... oops.

Answer 2

You seem to be a very intelligent person. Can you explain to me where the matter that makes up the billions of galaxies scientists have identified came from?

And what exactly is the premise that led to any discussion of the 2nd or any other law of thermodynamics? Is it not that creationists believe the universe had a beginning and will have an end, whereas evolutionists believe that the universe has always existed (from where matter came from has never been answered by the evloutionist) and is constant w/o a beginning or an end (e.g., the 1st law of thermodynamics, which scientist now know that usable energy is decreasing which means the universe is running out)?

Answer 3

It's sad, but Creationists, Fundamentalists and other such have a problem. They don't like to be confused by facts.

I also like their "information" theory of DNA and their attempts to correlate that with the Second Law of thermodynamics. Their idea is that there can be no increase in information over time.

What ever. You'll not a valid response from such here.

Answer 4

Random Mutation does not lead to improvement of a system. Random Mutation followed by Natural Selection does.

Answer 5

This reminds me of one of the better FSTDT.com postings where a fundie was using the second law to say life could not grow here with out some huge outside source of power.

Yeah, well, we call that "the Sun" genius.

Answer 6

Thank-you for that excellent information.

Answer 7

Random Mutation does not lead to improvement of a system, only degradation.

Answer 8

Thanks for taking the time to post this, I'm afraid that I'm skeptical that it will penetrate but it was good of you to try.

Answer 9

http://fool4given.com/books/301proofs.pdf

check it out, if anything, it will give you an interesting read. :)

Answer 10

God is the ultimate scientist.