Intelligent design? Big Bang?

Only applies to closed systems?

-You first need a mechanism in place for storing and converting the incoming energy.

-The second law still applies to open systems.

As Dr. John Ross of Harvard University (not a creationist) said, “…there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems” (Chemical and Engineering News).

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati put it like this, “The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed. It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things” (The Second Law of Thermodynamics).

===========

Snowflakes:

http://creation.com/treasures-of-snow

Crystals:

http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynami…

Doesn’t the universe violate the second law of thermodynamics

– Nope.

Sandcastles do not spontaneously appear in the beach

– Try an argument that is not oriented toward 6 year olds in Jesus camp.

It takes a human to come along and create the sandcastle, otherwise it will never happen.

– You said one thing right.

The same with a universe, right?

– Again, try an argument for adults, not 6 year olds.

I’m an Atheist, but my friend set me a challenge to produce an argument for intelligent design. Anyone care to refute it?)

– There is a difference between an argument and an intelligent argument.

No, not at all. The universe is moving towards its own heat death and in some trillions of years from now it will cease to exist. That’s the 2nd law of thermodynamics at work if you consider the universe as a whole to be a closed system. Within the universe there are plenty of open systems, the earth is one such, with enormous amounts of energy input from the Sun. If you are adding energy to a system, you get order out of chaos very easily. Crystals grow, plants grow, you grew from a fertilised egg to a complex human. If creationists had their way, your very existence would defy the 2nd law but it obviously doesn’t. Send your friend back to proper school to study science. You don’t learn science in Sunday school, that is where you learn lies.

There is no need for a designer or a creator although until we understand the Big Bang a little better you can have a god triggering it if you like, but once the BB occurred, everything from that point is explainable without any gods or designers. We will understand the BB better in the future and there will be no need for a god there either.

Entropy is like a river cascading down a mountain, then across the flat plain and into the sea. All the time the river is moving downstream – or the universe is moving towards disorder in my analogy. But on the way there are whirlpools and eddys in the stream where rocks or shallow water have a local input into the system. There the watyer flows upstream or round in circles – but still the river is proceeding downstream.

The universe has those eddys where energy is input locally from Galaxies and stars. Eventually – like the river crossing the plain where is broadens out the matter in the universe will eventually have spread out so far that gravity ceases to affect individual stars systems and eventually individual atoms.

Only if you don’t actually understand the second law of thermodynamics. That law applies only to closed systems – in this context the whole universe is the closed system in question, and with regards to life on earth the closed system comprises the earth itself *and* the sun (the original source of the vast majority of the energy used on earth). Particular local events can seem to defy the law, but taken within the context of the entire system, the overall degree of entropy will still consistently increase over time.

An engine is a good example of entropy in action. If you think of the engine (fully fuelled) as a closed system, its natural state seems to be fairly high-entropy; it’s essentially just an inert pile of metal with a store of fuel. But when you hit the ignition it seems to jump to a far more complex (low entropy) state, which seems to contradict the second law of thermodynamics. This is because the closed system included a source of potential energy (fuel), and mechanisms that allow it to turn that potential energy into kinetic energy (with a good bit of heat, light and sound energy too). But as it’s a closed system (no refuelling), when that energy source is depleted the engine will return to its previous higher-entropy state (in fact, when you consider normal engine-wear, it will almost certainly be in a higher-entropy state than it was before ignition). Just as when the sun burns out, life on earth will follow the same course and return to high-entropy non-life. From the perspective of life on earth, the earth itself is not a closed system because we get vast amounts of energy from the sun; without that external energy source the earth *would* be a closed system, and there wouldn’t be any life to be found.

Whoa! Who says there’s a Law of thermodynamics? And who says what it is?

You have to show your work a bit more here.

Anyway, if you understood the so-called second “law” of thermodynamics (which is merely a theory), you would realize that the universe as proposed is in full and complete compliance!

If you think it is not, you either don’t understand the “law” in the first place, or you don’t see how it must be applied to the present situation.

The Universe does indeed appear to be headed eventually toward total chaos; it just is going to take about ten trillion years to get there.

Our local area is getting constant recharges of energy from our sun, as it depletes its hydrogen fuel, and so we continue to have heat and energy to sustain us, and it will contunue to be so for the next several hundred million years or so. However, when the sun runs out of hydrogen, life as we know it will indeed come to an end here.

See, if you are going to spout this nonsense about “the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” you better come with bells on, kid, because we’ve heard this old chestnut for decades. It was wrong when I first heard it back in 1980, and it’s still wrong now.

No, the universe IS tending towards disorder, just as expected.

However, also as expected, you can find local regions of order being produced if they’re being bathed in vast amounts of useable energy, such as any planet orbiting a star, like ours.

Just when you thought NDMA was heading in the right track, his last two paragraphs diverted into bullshlt.

So close..

Glad you ask, here’s your error.

“The cause and effect event that actualized the universe (time – space…”

You seem like a smart guy, how on earth can you claim that time required a cause?

Either you don’t understand causality or you just hoped that no one else would realise that causality is the relationship between cause and effect, that a cause comes before an effect, but that there cannot have been a “before” time, any more than there’s a north of the North Pole.

In other words, you can’t even claim the universe necessarily required a cause, much less a creator.

As usual, I’d be better off banging my head against a wall than explaining what, to most, is very simple stuff.

This is easy. The 2nd law applies to closed systems. The earth is an open system, powered by the sun. Therefore, your friend must find a square 1 in order to start over. For instance, waves in sand far from water do not create themselves. The wind does. Apparent design at work to those seeking such a conclusion.

Nothing is forever. The earth will be destroyed billions of years from now. Theoretical physicists have many interesting hypotheses regarding the universe as it approaches old age. And that’s a very long time from now.

First, Closed System -Open System is a red herring…. The closed system is a mathematical construct there have been no closed systems observed to actually exist in the universe yet entropy is observed everywhere you look.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics or if you prefer “entropy” precludes the universe from being eternal — in other words because entropy exists, the universe necessarily had a starting point.

The assertion A —> A in addition to being an absurdity it is disproved by the First Law of Thermodynamics.

What makes the Physical Universe the Physical Universe? Time – space and matter.

Time is a logical construct – the medium in which cause and effect events take place and therefore is not in itself tangible an only measurable by the existence of cause and effect phenomena. The first cause and effect event in the physical universe marks the beginning of time in the physical universe. This also makes the time dimension experienced within the physical universe to be specific to the physical universe.

Space is also a logical construct that refers to the relationship between physical entities. Space technically is also a non-tangible. As with time, space within the physical universe was only actualized with the advent of matter, and is specific to the physical universe.

The cause and effect event that actualized the universe (time – space- matter) was the formation of matter from non-matter. The only experimentally observed cases of matter forming from non-matter the effect was caused by a willful conscious action establishing – absent other evidence – the universe was caused be a willful conscious agent… a Creator or designer!

This can easily be disproved, simply by demonstrating a case where sustained matter is formed from non-matter absent a willful conscious action.. So far more than a century of experimentation has failed to do this. Therefore Creation by a willful conscious agent is a experimentally established fact.

torpex20…: You call it bullshit but you fail to provide a single example of empirical evidence supporting your apparently unqualified opinion or a testable, verifiable alternate explanation – making your assertion by definition “BullShit”

tentofie…

IN other words your alternate explanation is based on FAITH in undiscovered evidence ROFL…

torpex20. Time is the medium in which cause and effect events take place… No cause and effect events no means to reckon time. Even an idiot understands that! But you don’t!

Time as a medium exists eternally — but is not actualized without a cause and effect event. In the same sense space exists eternally — but is not actualized without a frame of reference.

The formation of matter actualized both time and space. As to the origin of matter, I will let the experiments (empirical evidence) speak for itself.. You are denying empirical evidence and logic!

Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. Our universe is most likely a flat universe. Additionally there are other forces at work other than straight up thermodynamics.