The initial questions to perhaps ask include:
– How many Thermodynamic laws are there?
– Please describe the first law of Thermodynamics.
If they do not have immediate access to google, then you will quickly discover that those making such claims are unable to answer such basic questions. Why? Well because all they are doing is parroting creationist rhetoric, they have not actually thought this through and do not know anything at all about any of the laws of Thermodynamics.
It sounds credible, “Gosh darn, the earth once had no life at all, but now we have very complex life, and since entropy always increases then the only possible answer is that my Judeo-Christian god must have done it“, and so if you skate over the surface like this you will indeed not only fool others, but you will also fool yourself. It is not only a bad argument, but has also been debunked many times over, so anybody making this claim has given it exactly zero thought.
Where shall we start? Well lets first give a very precise definition of this claim, a nice easy one so that we can see it clearly. It can be broken down as follows:
- In natural processes, a system will always lose order or stay the same (second law of thermodynamics).
- Evolution is a natural process where life gains order & complexity.
- Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
- Therefore, evolution must be false.
The first problem is in step 1. The second law of thermodynamics does not state that a system will always lose order or stay the same, it actually says that …
In any closed system, the entropy of the system will either remain constant or increase.
The key thing to understand here is the term “closed system”. Lets think about a Fridge. Quite clearly it works, but how is that possible if heat cannot flow from cold regions to hot regions? Well because it is not a closed system, you are using an external agent, the compressor.
Now lets run that by you again, but add in a bit more detail …
When two isolated systems in separate but nearby regions of space, each in thermodynamic equilibrium in itself (but not necessarily in equilibrium with each other at first) are at some time allowed to interact, breaking the isolation that separates the two systems, allowing them to exchange matter or energy, they will eventually reach a mutual thermodynamic equilibrium. The sum of the entropies of the initial, isolated systems is less than or equal to the entropy of the final combination of exchanging systems. In the process of reaching a new thermodynamic equilibrium, total entropy has increased, or at least has not decreased.
Lets call these two systems A and B. Lets assume that A was a lot hotter than B, so clearly as they interact, heat will flow from A to B until they reach a balance. As expected, the entropy of A increases … but wait, what has happened to B … gasp! … its entropy has decreased.
So what we actually have is a second law of thermodynamics that states that the total entropy of any system will not decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other system. Hence, in a system isolated from its environment, the entropy of that system will tend to increase.
Hopefully you have got it.
Now, lets look at Step 3. The core of the claim is that “Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics” … except it does not because the Earth is not a closed system, we gain radiated heat energy from the sun. Hopefully you can join up the dots now and fully understand that it is in fact possible to increase the order of a system when it is not a closed system, and that great big shining nuclear reactor in the sky is pumping out energy.
As you look around, you will find many natural examples of order arising quite spontaneously from disorder. Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks. If the creationist claim was valid, then none of this should be possible.
If you are a creationist, are you now curious to learn more, does this trigger questions in your mind? If yes, then thats good. For your next stop can I suggest that The Counter-Creationism Handbook might be a good port of call.
There is no Scientific validation for Evolution. Likewise, the same with the Heliocentric ‘Theory’ Cult claims. Unless of course you have Empirical evidence to suggest otherwise.
Right here, this bit –> “There is no Scientific validation for Evolution” <– that’s where my troll alarm triggered.
If you are going to troll, you really need to up your game a bit.
I appreciate your explanation of the second law. It has enlightened me. However, I take exception with your statement “If the creationist claim was valid, then none of this should be possible.”. Not exactly. The creationist claim is that God designed seeds to sprout, and eggs to hatch. In other words, he created a world that can reproduce life. And if the system is designed to seemingly create what you would consider “order out of disorder” (chick from egg, plant from seed) then it can be argued that the order was present all along inside the egg or seed, in the form of a blueprint. The same can be said for the snowflakes and the crystal. As such, you’ve yet to convince me that order can arise out of disorder without any external force (like an intelligent being) acting on it.
The second law of thermodynamics may not disprove evolution outright, but it certainly does nothing to support it.
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not “organizing” mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only “sieve out” the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
// how do you know there are other universes? // What have other universes got to do with any of this? The total amount of energy in our universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.
begs the question, how do you know there are other universes? you can scientifically prove it by…??? your belief in other universes is based on a faith that seems no different then my belief in an intelligent creator.