Re: POLITICS - Evolution | Creation | Intelligent Design

February 26, 2004

In a message dated 2/26/04 5:34:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,

nativenutrition@... writes:

> The complexity of

> the universe necessitates a Designer by the second law of thermodynamics,

> which states disorder should be the order of the day (entropy).

Deanna,

Unfortuantely, this is an absolute fallacy that demonstrates a thorough

inability to understand what the second law of thermodynamics is.

Chris

February 26, 2004

In a message dated 2/26/04 5:46:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, myers_45@...

writes:

> What evidence? There is no evidence for the " Big Bang " theory. Chaos to

> order doesn't happen. Contrary to evolution, the Second law of thermodynamics

> says everything is winding down, wearing out, like our sun for example.

> Eventually it will burn out.

No, the second law of thermodynamics says nothing of the sort. This logical

error is similar to saying, " The universal law of gravitation says that

everything is falling down, falling down, crumbling. It is impossible for

anything

to be built, suspended, or fly. "

Chris

February 26, 2004

In a message dated 2/26/04 6:28:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,

dovedesignsrus@... writes:

> Chaos to order doesn't happen.

Sheryl, plant a seed and watch it grow, and find out how wrong you are.

Chris

February 26, 2004

Second Law of Thermodynamics (1850). R.J.E. Clausius stated the law of

entropy::

> All systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and

> eventually become totally random and disorganized (Harold Blum, Time's Arrow

> and Evolution, 1968, p. 201). In other words, everything runs down, wears out,

> and goes to pieces (R.R. Kindsay, " Physics: to What Extent is it

> Deterministic, " American Scientist 56, 1968, p. 100). This law totally

eliminates the

> basic evolutionary theory that simple evolves into complex. Einstein said the

> two laws were the most enduring laws he knew of ( Rifkin, Entropy: A New

> World View, 1980, p. 6).

I shouldn't have gotten myself into this, but I'm going to go way out on a

limb, and assume there's more than a 1% chance you'll consider the truth if

you're confronted with it.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the UNIVERSE is

increasing. It does not state that the entropy of any given system, or the

entropy of all systems, is increasing.

In any given chemical reaction, there is a system, and there are the

surroundings of the system, and together the two components make up the

universe. In

an exergonic reaction, free energy is evolved from the system to its

surroundings, and in an endergonic reaction, free energy moves from the

surroundings

into the system. Any given chemical reaction will have some increase or

decrease of entropy of the system, which will have some impact on the increase

or

decrease of the entropy of the surroundings. The change in entropy of the

universe in that reaction is the net effect of the two entropy changes.

In other words, if the entropy of the system increases but the entropy of the

surroundings decreases by the same magnitude, there is no net change in the

entropy of the universe.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not concern itself with the entropy of

a given reaction, but the entropy of the universe. Therefore, a system can

decrease its entropy, and the reaction can occur, so long as the entropy of the

surroundings increases enough that the net effect on the universe is for

entropy to increase.

What determines the sponteneity of a reaction (that is, whether it occurs by

itself without some outside force making it occur) is an evolution of free

energy from the system to the surroundings.

The change in free energy for a given reaction is the product of the

temperature in Kelvin and the entropy, all subtracted from the change in

enthalpy

(heat energy). If the value of entropy is negative, that means the entropy of

the

system DECREASED. However, note in the following equation:

delta G = delta H - T(delta S)

where G= free energy, H=enthalpy, T= temperature in Kelvin, and S= entropy,

and " delta " means " the change in " ,

that if delta S is negative, the minus sign will change the value to

positive, and since the reaction will only occur if the delta G is negative, an

increase in S makes the reaction less likely to occur to the extent of the

magnitude

of the positive value of S, BUT, whether or not the overall value of G is

negative (and the reaction is therefore spontaneous) depends on the value of

H!!!

So, if the reaction has a very negative delta H, and the product of T and

delta S is smaller than the delta H, the reaction will be spontaneous, even

though the delta S was positive.

Furthermore, the absurd claim that evolution is contrary to the second law of

thermodynamics ignores biological catalysts and the ability of a biological

system to induce the occurance of non-spontaneous reactions.

Some examples of reactions that occur every day where the entropy of the

SYSTEM decreases:

--Ice freezes

-- Light energy, water, and carbon dioxide combine to form glucose during

photosynthesis

--Two ions entering a solution precipitate as a solid

--ATP is generated within the human body from ADP and phosphate

--Rain (water vapor becomes liquid water)

--Amino acids are assembled into proteins within biological systems

--Stalagmites and Stalagtites form in caves

I could go on and on for hundreds of pages, but these are all examples of

reactions where the entropy of the system decreases.

According to the argument you are making, where the decrease of a system's

entropy violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, all of these reactions are a

violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, even though they happen every

day.

In other words, your argument requires the argument that the process of

RAINING is a fundamental violation of the laws of the universe.

Clearly, it isn't.

Chris

February 26, 2004

In a message dated 2/26/04 6:41:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,

dovedesignsrus@... writes:

> I wouldn't call a see Chaos.

A seed? It isn't. What's chaos is the light energy, the carbon dioxide, the

water, and the nutrients in the soil, which become ordered into a biological

system. The plant turns chaos into order, like every other biological system

does.

Chris

February 26, 2004

What about the option that the universe was necessarily created

(intelligent design) as evidenced by the Big Bang (a theory that supports

" In the beginning... " ), yet doesn't follow the Bible's ideas (creationism)?

Is it by chance or necessity that the universe exists? The complexity of

the universe necessitates a Designer by the second law of thermodynamics,

which states disorder should be the order of the day (entropy). Highly

ordered systems don't just happen by chance as Darwin (evolution) supposed.

See A. Demski's work for more details about this other option not

listed below.

Deanna

Known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being--

1. The universe was created by God.

2. The universe always existed.

3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known

as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

February 26, 2004

What evidence? There is no evidence for the " Big Bang " theory. Chaos to order

doesn't happen. Contrary to evolution, the Second law of thermodynamics says

everything is winding down, wearing out, like our sun for example. Eventually

it will burn out. The universe has God's fingerprints all over it.

RE: POLITICS - Evolution | Creation | Intelligent Design