second law of thermodynamics (its an easy one)

[gf]

Hello.

I spoke to a Creationist, whom stated that the second law of thermodynamics, goes against Evolution. As the Universe decays.


Now, it dawned on me, that this is not a rare event, as most Creationist proclaim this, not at least, a certain Mr Kent Hovind. So i thought we could have a discussion about this.


The second law of thermodynamics does not claim that everything is "winding down" / decays / crumbles / or similar. What it does state is that you get entropy, and it seems that this is where we get a problem. Either most people do not know what this means, or they dont want to know what it means.

To claim that entropy equals decay, is to go from Physics to Opinion.


And this is the important part of it.
The second law of thermodynamics only states, that entropy occurs in different stages.


And this is it. If you claim, state or otherwise say in any way that it "decays", or "improves", you go from Physics, to your own opinion.



So it does not go against Evolution, it rather enhances evolution, as Evolution also, does not mean improve, but means change.



Opinion anyone ?

Perhaps you need some background information about this, but this is more or less the main thing that most Creationist seems to be confused about.

[otseng]

I still wish to post the possibility of a constant Universe. We are merely humans, just because things cease to exist for us, does not really mean anything. We hardly been around at all (6000 years according to Creationists).

So you believe the universe has no beginning and has existed forever?

The argument for a beginning of the universe has nothing to do with us being human. It has to do with the physical laws that we see operating in our universe. Again, in order for you to argue that the universe has existed forever, you'll have to get around the laws of thermo. Anything else is just wishful thinking, or just plain faith.

To give the laws of thermo absolute power lock ourself for other possibilities is no good. non?

What are you saying? That physical laws are not to be believed in? Just because I might not want to believe in the law of gravity when I fall off my mountain bike, that doesn't mean my desire for the law of gravity to not be operational could make the law go away.

And if I were to use your logic, I could also say, to give the theory of evolution absolute power lock on ourselves for other possibilities is also not good.

[LillSnopp]

So you believe the universe has no beginning and has existed forever?

The argument for a beginning of the universe has nothing to do with us being human. It has to do with the physical laws that we see operating in our universe. Again, in order for you to argue that the universe has existed forever, you'll have to get around the laws of thermo. Anything else is just wishful thinking, or just plain faith.

Nope, but you should be open for the possibility that it could be.

And still, ´the laws of thermo´ could be wrong.

What are you saying? That physical laws are not to be believed in? Just because I might not want to believe in the law of gravity when I fall off my mountain bike, that doesn't mean my desire for the law of gravity to not be operational could make the law go away.

No, but the possibility that we could be wrong.
And we are not talking about the law of gravity. We are simply discussing that the system as we know it, could be constant as a alternative to not constant.

And if I were to use your logic, I could also say, to give the theory of evolution absolute power lock on ourselves for other possibilities is also not good.

Of course, fortunately, the theory of evolution does not lock us in anything, as its open to be questioned, and constantly correct itself. So bad analogy otseng

[otseng]

Nope, but you should be open for the possibility that it could be.

Open to the possibility that the universe has been here forever? Well, I could be if there were any scientific basis to support it. Got any?

And still, ´the laws of thermo´ could be wrong.

Again, got any evidence to suggest that it could be wrong?

Of course, fortunately, the theory of evolution does not lock us in anything, as its open to be questioned, and constantly correct itself. So bad analogy otseng

The analogy is bad in that I'm comparing a theory to a law. When we are talking about a law, it is basically undisputable and is recognized to be correct. When we are talking about a theory, it is disputable and is subject to change. So, if we are talking about truth, laws are closer to the truth than do theories.

[jwu]

Again, got any evidence to suggest that it could be wrong?

For instance quantum vaccum fluctuations. Energy appears out of basically nothing for a short duration of time, and then disappears again.

This doesn't have any significant impact on "macrophysics", but as soon as you get into things which are small enough for quantum physics to be come important the 1stLoT isn't really that reliable anymore.

The analogy is bad in that I'm comparing a theory to a law. When we are talking about a law, it is basically undisputable and is recognized to be correct. When we are talking about a theory, it is disputable and is subject to change. So, if we are talking about truth, laws are closer to the truth than do theories.

That's a difficult issue, methinks. Laws are not some kind of promoted theories, but substantially different. Laws describe regularities in the behaviour of the universe. Theories explain why these regularities occur.
Generally theories are "weaker" than laws, as they provide more details than laws which might get compromised, but nonetheless a law is just an regularity which seems to occur reliably. They however are not indisputable by definition or even "proven" - there just is very few reason to assume that the described regularities would not apply once again if one tests it.

[Gollum]

The analogy is bad in that I'm comparing a theory to a law. When we are talking about a law, it is basically undisputable and is recognized to be correct. When we are talking about a theory, it is disputable and is subject to change. So, if we are talking about truth, laws are closer to the truth than do theories.

I do understand the distinction that you're making but you should note that the term "Theory" has two distinct connotations. Within the scientific community "theory" means an explanation of a set of observed phenomena that has been demonstrated to be true over many hundreds or thousands of individual tests and observations. Thus we have "the law of gravity" but also "gravitational theory" and they are pretty much the same thing.

The more common "man on the street" interpretation of theory is usually more along the lines of "highly speculative" or "impractical". Everyday parlance dismisses things (evolution for example) as "just a theory" when in fact, evolution is probably supported by more evidence from more distinct lines of study than any other theory or law.

Finally, it has been noted by several science commentators that the use of the term "Law" has fallen from favor. Most of the things that we portray as "Laws" were discoveries of the 19th or earlier centuries. Since then there have been numerous well-supported scientific discoveries (e.g. quantum mechanics, relativity, the atomic structure of matter, the existence and function of DNA) that are still referred to as theories rather than laws. Perhaps scientists are a bit gun-shy about proclaiming laws when earlier such "laws" like Newton's Law of Gravity or the Law of Black Body Radiation turned out to be limiting cases in the first instance and just plain wrong in the second.

[otseng]

This doesn't have any significant impact on "macrophysics", but as soon as you get into things which are small enough for quantum physics to be come important the 1stLoT isn't really that reliable anymore.

I have addressed this before in this post.

[jwu]

From that post:

Also, I have a problem extrapolating subatomic observations to the macro level. Even going just to the molecular level is a stretch. "The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely." If it is profoundly unlikely at the molecular level, what is that to say about the entire universe?

Again, at the macro level, this would violate the first law of thermo. We can perhaps say that at the subatomic level, the first law of thermo might not be valid. But what we are considering here is the entire universe, not just a subatomic particle.

I completely agree, it is quite a stretch to go from microphysics to macrophysics, but the point is made nonetheless: The 1stLoT on a macro scale is not invulnerable and proven beyond any doubt (or, as i like to say, "engraved on an obsidian monolith floating somewhere in space"), but merely empirical.

[Fisherking]

Evolution has little to do with the 2nd law. It's simply a necessary consequence of organisms reproducing after their kind, but with the inherent sloppiness of DNA replication, DNA damage, and DNA repair, so that mutations happen. If you have mutations, and reproduction, you will get evolution.

Random changes have the same effect on the genome as random changes in nature, bothing singing to the tune of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You do get evolution (defined as change), when random mutations are introduced into the genome -- changes in the direction of increased entropy

[McCulloch]

Random changes have the same effect on the genome as random changes in nature, bothing singing to the tune of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You do get evolution (defined as change), when random mutations are introduced into the genome -- changes in the direction of increased entropy

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. No one I know claims that evolution works in closed systems.

[Furrowed Brow]

Random changes have the same effect on the genome as random changes in nature, bothing singing to the tune of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You do get evolution (defined as change), when random mutations are introduced into the genome -- changes in the direction of increased entropy

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. No one I know claims that evolution works in closed systems.

The Earth is heated by radiation from the sun. It also experiences the gravitational tug of the sun and the moon. Observations show the Earth cannot then be a closed system. If the Earth is not a closed system we would not expect to see increasing entropy.