Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

KeenIdiot · #1 by **KeenIdiot** » Dec 22, 2016 9:31 pm

No, this isn't a JAQing off thread.
I know the claim that the second Law defeats evolution is false.
But double checking my facts I see a number of legitimate sites that refer to the Earth as a closed system.
A bit more digging seems to indicate it's a matter of different systems. Matter wise the Earth is a nearly closed system. But from an energy perspective the Earth is an open system, receiving it from the sun.
Like a lot of things, I don't know much about physics and want to confirm my understanding or correct it.

The_Metatron · #2 by **The_Metatron** » Dec 22, 2016 9:33 pm

It isn't a closed system. There's this giant bright thing in the daytime sky that sees to that.

KeenIdiot · #3 by **KeenIdiot** » Dec 22, 2016 10:29 pm

Right, I get that. And maybe I'm proving the idiot part of my handle here.
But if I Google I come across many non Creationist sites that state that Earth is a closed system. this one for example.
I get it, I'm an idiot perhaps. But I'm trying to understand it.
Is it a technicality of the language used, or am I just over thinking it?

The_Metatron · #4 by **The_Metatron** » Dec 22, 2016 10:37 pm

I used the incorrect term. It is not an isolated system.

Animavore · #5 by **Animavore** » Dec 22, 2016 10:40 pm

Seems like a bit of bait and switch there. It says Earth is closed because radiation from the Sun enters Earth, but matter does not leave. I don't see a reason for this change from talking about energy to matter.
Energy does leave and the Sun's radiation is radiated back into space, except that which is trapped by greenhouse gas.
Interestingly when I google 'Earth closed system' I get a lot of climate change denialist websites, though that could be my Google filter bubble.

The_Metatron · #6 by **The_Metatron** » Dec 22, 2016 10:41 pm

I think what's going on here, is that the system includes, for this discussion, both the earth and the sun.

In creationist speak, they don't like the idea that entropy decreases (order increases). Life, for example, being a demonstrable increase in order. And, that is true.

Except for the shockingly huge increase in entropy within the sun going on at the same time.

Taken together, entropy is increasing in the earth-sun system.

The_Metatron · #7 by **The_Metatron** » Dec 22, 2016 10:42 pm

Animavore wrote:Seems like a bit of bait and switch there. It says Earth is closed because radiation from the Sun enters Earth, but matter does not leave. I don't see a reason for this change from talking about energy to matter.
Energy does leave and the Sun's radiation is radiated back into space, except that which is trapped by greenhouse gas.
Interestingly when I google 'Earth closed system' I get a lot of climate change denialist websites, though that could be my Google filter bubble.

You bring up a good point there, too. Matter is energy. Special relativity establishes that well.

Animavore · #8 by **Animavore** » Dec 22, 2016 10:49 pm

The whole universe is increasing in entropy, of course, and Ken Hovid uses this in his arguments, not that the Earth alone is increasing in entropy. He used the argument to say if the universe was as old as they say it should be chaos all around. I think he may even deny thermodynamics! I can't fully remember.

I'm sure he contradicts some other creationist's 'scientific' argument, but they never debate it among themselves, because they don't actually care about the science part.

Greyman · #9 by **Greyman** » Dec 22, 2016 11:00 pm

The_Metatron wrote:I used the incorrect term. It is not an isolated system.

The definition of the terms is not universal. Some authors do use "closed" and "isolated" interchangeably. You should always check which they mean by the context.

Usually though, in thermodynamics, a "closed system" is one which can exchange energy across the boundary, but not matter, while an "isolated system" is one where all exchanges are prohibited. In discussions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a system of the second meaning is required -- which Earth is clearly not.

The_Metatron · **#10** by **The_Metatron** » Dec 22, 2016 11:01 pm

Science hard.

The_Metatron · **#11** by **The_Metatron** » Dec 22, 2016 11:03 pm

Greyman wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:I used the incorrect term. It is not an isolated system.

The definition of the terms is not universal. Some authors do use "closed" and "isolated" interchangeably. You should always check which they mean by the context.

Usually though, in thermodynamics, a "closed system" is one which can exchange energy across the boundary, but not matter, while an "isolated system" is one where all exchanges are prohibited. In discussions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a system of the second meaning is required -- which Earth is clearly not.

Thanks for clarifying.

KeenIdiot · **#12** by **KeenIdiot** » Dec 23, 2016 1:36 am

Greyman wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:I used the incorrect term. It is not an isolated system.

The definition of the terms is not universal. Some authors do use "closed" and "isolated" interchangeably. You should always check which they mean by the context.

Usually though, in thermodynamics, a "closed system" is one which can exchange energy across the boundary, but not matter, while an "isolated system" is one where all exchanges are prohibited. In discussions about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a system of the second meaning is required -- which Earth is clearly not.

Thank you for the explanation!

Clive Durdle · **#13** by **Clive Durdle** » Dec 24, 2016 11:48 am

Ok, what if the universe is an eternal whole system of total energy zero? :-)

Clive Durdle · **#14** by **Clive Durdle** » Dec 24, 2016 11:53 am

And might we define systems before discussing types and what certain things might or not be?

http://www.ess.inpe.br/courses/lib/exe/ ... primer.pdf

Clive Durdle · **#15** by **Clive Durdle** » Dec 24, 2016 11:55 am

If a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves. . . . There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.
—Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Clive Durdle · **#16** by **Clive Durdle** » Dec 24, 2016 12:03 pm

Early on in teaching about systems, I often bring out a Slinky. In case you grew up without one, a Slinky is a toy—a long, loose spring that can be made to bounce up and down, or pour back and forth from hand to hand, or walk itself downstairs.
I perch the Slinky on one upturned palm. With the fingers of the other hand, I grasp it from the top, partway down its coils. Then I pull the bottom hand away. The lower end of the Slinky drops, bounces back up again, yo-yos up and down, suspended from my fingers above.

“What made the Slinky bounce up and down like that?” I ask students. “Your hand. You took away your hand,” they say.

So I pick up the box the Slinky came in and hold it the same way, poised
on a flattened palm, held from above by the fingers of the other hand. With as much dramatic flourish as I can muster, I pull the lower hand away.

Nothing happens. The box just hangs there, of course.

“Now once again. What made the Slinky bounce up and down?”

The answer clearly lies within the Slinky itself. The hands that manipu-
late it suppress or release some behavior that is latent within the structure of the spring.

That is a central insight of systems theory.

Creationists believe there is a puppeteer making the slinky move - their god, or prime mover.

Problemo. There isn't. This eternal universe of nothing is old enough and ugly enough in this particular quantum fluctuation that we measure as 14.5 billion years long so far to have evolved via earlier universes funny things like slinkies, black holes and that bi product of black holes - life and bipedal primates with a large mass of neurons above their centre of gravity.

Calilasseia · **#17** by **Calilasseia** » Dec 24, 2016 2:03 pm

Dealt with this way back in 2010. Enjoy.

DavidMcC · **#18** by **DavidMcC** » Jan 03, 2017 1:29 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:Ok, what if the universe is an eternal whole system of total energy zero?

Local entropy can still decrease, regardless of total entropy increase.

Sendraks · **#19** by **Sendraks** » Jan 03, 2017 1:41 pm

And the job lot of all lifeforms on earth is to descend into entropy anyway. We live. We die. Our remains decay and go back to their constituent parts.

DavidMcC · **#20** by **DavidMcC** » Jan 04, 2017 3:17 pm

Sendraks wrote:And the job lot of all lifeforms on earth is to descend into entropy anyway. We live. We die. Our remains decay and go back to their constituent parts.

Well done, Sendraks, you've just redefined the phrase "job lot". :nono:

Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Creationism

Who is online