Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[itfitzme]

The following are the succinct expressions of thermo. They apply to large bodies. A cup of water is large. The volume that can be observed in a microscope, where grains of pollen are visible, is not large enough.

Thermodynamics defines an ideal set of laws. Like all physics, it is difficult to so contol the environment as to create the ideal conditions. For instance, a thermous is very close to an isolated system, still it will lose heat.

•The first law is;

-For an isolated system: ΔU=0
Energy is constant. Change in energy is zero

-For a non-isolated system: ΔU=Q-W

Change in internal energy is total heat minus work. Energy is conserved.

Adding heat increases energy. Doing work on the system increases energy. The direction, the minus sign is important. When a system does work, it loses energy.

A nice note is that friction is a form of work. Friction in an iaolated system is no change of energy to the system. The work done increases the heat without changing the energy. If automobile brakes were not cooled, they would get too hot. For a closed system the work done by the system and, typically, the heat is lost to the environment.

•The 2nd law is;

-For a closex system ΔS>=0
Entropy increases to equilibrium

-For an open system dS= δQ/T
Change in entropy requires a change in heat and how much is required is inversely proportional to temperature.

•Simple implications of first and second laws include

dU=T dS - δW
dU=T dS - p dV

These basically say that work may be extracted from the energy. But, in doing so, there are specific change to temperature and entropy. The direction of that change is apparent from the equations. Still, the context of the system is significant. The form does not guarantee that any particular system is suitable. For instance, right now I am hungry, so my entropy is low and less work is available.

•The 3rd law is;

S(T→0)→0

At absolute zero temperature, entropy is zero.

At the very least, any understanding of thermo should include these. They are measurable. They are defined in specific contexts. Care should be taken to not over apply them, to not presume they imply things without clearly proving that they do.

Note that a virus is not large enough to be simply defined by the laws of thermodynamics presented here. It may or may not be true that these apply. One may not presume that they do as, by definition, a virus is below the size that is defined by thermodynamics.

Without extensive consideration, it is inapprooriate to apply the laws of thermodynamics to the origin of life except, perhaps, to note that the Earth was very hot at one time, increases temperature is higher entropy. High entroly means more ways that things may be arranged. As such, the instantaneous probability of life beginning was likely higher than now.

 

[Steven_R]

•The 3rd law is;

S(T→0)→0

At absolute zero temperature, entropy is zero.

Don't forget, it is impossible to reach absolute zero through a finite number of steps and it is impossible to carry out an infinite number of steps.

Or as a professor once said you can boil down the three laws of thermodynamics to this:

1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't quit the game.

 

[itfitzme]

•The 3rd law is;

S(T→0)→0

At absolute zero temperature, entropy is zero.

Don't forget, it is impossible to reach absolute zero through a finite number of steps and it is impossible to carry out an infinite number of steps.

Or as a professor once said you can boil down the three laws of thermodynamics to this:

1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't quit the game.

Love that saying. It is typically all I remember without review. It needs the zeroeth law in it.

How about

0) You can keep score.

 

[itfitzme]

This seems to be a solid reference;

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jrembold/pdfs/Resources/Stat_Mech_Notes_Completed.pdf

It is mathematically succinct. It is annoyingly succinct. It concerns itself with thermo to the level of quantum mechanics, so we can be sure that is misses nothing. That benefit is offset by the fact that it also requires considerable knowledge to understand all of it. There are many notations which I am not familiar with. Still, what I can garnish from it is clear. At least, if we know algebra, we can garnish somethings with clarity. And, we know where we stand.

I am still searching for a succinct and definitive reference that isn't so intense. But it needs to be clear enough to not be misunderstood. I would rather be clear regarding my limitations than believe I know more than I do.

 

[Steven_R]

•The 3rd law is;

S(T→0)→0

At absolute zero temperature, entropy is zero.

Don't forget, it is impossible to reach absolute zero through a finite number of steps and it is impossible to carry out an infinite number of steps.

Or as a professor once said you can boil down the three laws of thermodynamics to this:

1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't quit the game.

Love that saying. It is typically all I remember without review. It needs the zeroeth law in it.

How about

0) You can keep score.

Sounds good to me or maybe something like "everyone can play" or "all players are equal" or something.

Whichever professor first devised that little ditty has the eternal gratitude of generations of science and engineering students.

 

[itfitzme]

Drunk grad students!!!

 

[Agent.Tom]

Excuse my ignorance and my want for things to be broken down in the simplest of terms.

As I understand it, the anti-creationists insist that the 2nd Law of Thermo doesn't apply because the universe is not a closed system.

I beg to differ. And so does Einstein. Not only is it impossible to prove the universe is a closed system, it doesn't even make sense. How can a vacuum exist in an open system?

Again, maybe I'm way off base here. The anti-creationists boast of "acing" their classes in Thermodynamics and use a lot of big words, so I'm obviously way out of my league.

So where did I go wrong? (Please bear in mind that I'm a simple man so keep the words under 30 letters each and keep your insults and laughter to a minimum so I won't feel so emasculated that I don't get through your reply) -- And I ask that the reply be in 1,000 words or less, else I might have to stop for a coffee break while reading it, and lose interest.

 

[itfitzme]

Excuse my ignorance and my want for things to be broken down in the simplest of terms.

As I understand it, the anti-creationists insist that the 2nd Law of Thermo doesn't apply because the universe is not a closed system.

I beg to differ. And so does Einstein. Not only is it impossible to prove the universe is a closed system, it doesn't even make sense. How can a vacuum exist in an open system?

Again, maybe I'm way off base here. The anti-creationists boast of "acing" their classes in Thermodynamics and use a lot of big words, so I'm obviously way out of my league.

So where did I go wrong? (Please bear in mind that I'm a simple man so keep the words under 30 letters each and keep your insults and laughter to a minimum so I won't feel so emasculated that I don't get through your reply) -- And I ask that the reply be in 1,000 words or less, else I might have to stop for a coffee break while reading it, and lose interest.

It'a usually best to break things down to the specific and simplest terms.

Nobody said anything about the universe, at least not intentionally. A relevant systems would be the Earth, which is not isolated but is closed, for most practical purposes. It absorbes solar energy constantly. We probably prefer to think of it as not receiving or expelling mass, though a few people in Russia might disagree with that, not to mention a few astronauts. But, for the most part, it is closed but not isolated.

For our purposes, its real important to be clear on isolated vs closed. Closed means energy/heat exchange but not mass. Isolated means nothing gets in or out. And open means matter and energy get in and out. I have to be careful about those, to not forget there are three.

An auto engine would be an open system.
A rocket would be open.
A steam engine would be closed, I'm pretty sure.

There aren't many isolated systems I can think of. A thermous is about it. It depends on the boundary drawn.

 

[Steven_R]

Excuse my ignorance and my want for things to be broken down in the simplest of terms.

As I understand it, the anti-creationists insist that the 2nd Law of Thermo doesn't apply because the universe is not a closed system.

I beg to differ. And so does Einstein. Not only is it impossible to prove the universe is a closed system, it doesn't even make sense. How can a vacuum exist in an open system?

Again, maybe I'm way off base here. The anti-creationists boast of "acing" their classes in Thermodynamics and use a lot of big words, so I'm obviously way out of my league.

So where did I go wrong? (Please bear in mind that I'm a simple man so keep the words under 30 letters each and keep your insults and laughter to a minimum so I won't feel so emasculated that I don't get through your reply) -- And I ask that the reply be in 1,000 words or less, else I might have to stop for a coffee break while reading it, and lose interest.

No. I'm not certain where you got this information, but it is wrong.

First this:

keep your insults and laughter to a minimum so I won't feel so emasculated that I don't get through your reply

I'm not going to laugh at you or talk down to you or insult you. This is a teachable moment.

There are three types of thermodynamic systems: Open, Closed, and Isolated.

Open means matter and energy (in the form of light and heat) can be exchanged. Think of a house. Sunlight can go into the house, I can shine a flashlight out of the house. A brick can go through the window, I can throw the brick right back out.

Closed means only energy can be exchanged. My house now has plexiglass windows. Sunlight can pass through, but bricks don't.

Isolated means no mass or energy can be exchanged. Outside of chalkboard examples, the only known isolated system is the Universe. So far as we know, the Universe exchanges nothing with any other Universe (assuming another one even exists outside of the one we're in now). What was in the Universe at the creation of the Universe is all we have to work with.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system does not decrease. That's somewhat confused with the idea that order decreases. What it means is the amount of usable energy (aka heat) in a system will be lost unless some outside energy is added to it. Energy doesn't flow from cold to hot without some external cause.

Think of your car driving down the street. Now kill the engine. You coast to a stop, right? What's really happening is the friction is moving the available energy from your car into the surrounding environment and it is converted to heat in the process. The friction between your tires and the pavement heats up the pavement slightly, causing a loss in energy from your car. Wind resistance because of friction heats the surrounding air slightly by stealing it from you car. Your car's entropy is increasing.

The disorder part of entropy is more confusing, but is less a physical law than a law governing statistical mechanics. Take ice in a glass for example. Because of the physics behind ice, the molecules in ice can only be arranged in certain configurations. Melt the ice so we're left with a liquid and the possible configurations increases. Entropy has increased. You have a plate, solid and organized. Drop the plate and it shatters. You have increased the entropy. You aren't likely to be able to drop the shards and have it spontaneously reorder itself into a solid plate. Let's say we have two containers of gases, a red gas and a blue gas. There is a valve between the containers. If we only open the valve for a short time, very little of the gases will mix. The longer the valve is open, the more the gases will mix. Given enough time, we will have an equal amount of each gas distributed evenly between the two containers. Entropy has increased.

But what about evolution? Well, even if we were to accept the idea that the entropy means what the Creationists think it means, it's still a flawed interpretation because the Earth is not an isolated system. We receive all kinds of energy from the Sun. There is not a fixed amount of available energy or heat or matter on Earth because we are constantly getting new heat and energy and matter from the Sun, meteors, and the like.

This is somewhat difficult to explain with breaking out the mathematics, but this is Freshman level physics. Fortunately, there are any number of available resources to explain what is going on. Try Khan Academy ( Khan Academy ) or Hyperphysics ( HyperPhysics ) or here ( Entropy and the Laws of Thermodynamics ) or better yet, sign up for an Intro to Physics class at your local college. You'll need to have passed algebra to do the basic math (or Calculus if you want to try Physics I and II for Scientists and Engineers).

 

[itfitzme]

We have to be careful with the internet as it gets sloppy. Depending on the source, closed may or may not mean isolated. Some sites do not make it clear that thermo applies to large numbers of particles. Entropy has been determined to have a number of different uses that are fundamentally the same but not apparently.

 

[Hollie]

Excuse my ignorance and my want for things to be broken down in the simplest of terms.

As I understand it, the anti-creationists insist that the 2nd Law of Thermo doesn't apply because the universe is not a closed system.

I beg to differ. And so does Einstein. Not only is it impossible to prove the universe is a closed system, it doesn't even make sense. How can a vacuum exist in an open system?

Again, maybe I'm way off base here. The anti-creationists boast of "acing" their classes in Thermodynamics and use a lot of big words, so I'm obviously way out of my league.

So where did I go wrong? (Please bear in mind that I'm a simple man so keep the words under 30 letters each and keep your insults and laughter to a minimum so I won't feel so emasculated that I don't get through your reply) -- And I ask that the reply be in 1,000 words or less, else I might have to stop for a coffee break while reading it, and lose interest.

While both itfitzme and Steven_R have offered better responses than my will be....
I think that in time, you will discover the slogan “anti-creationists” tends to pre-define both your argument and your agenda. The 2nd law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution™ was an earlier tactic employed by young earth creationists (YEC’ists), allegedly as a foil to evolution and an ancient earth / universe. The tactic involved claims that the 2nd law of thermo was a supposed unassailable obstacle to evolution because the planet operated as an “isolated” or closed system. Most people (“most people”) understand that our sun is the engine that drives any number of crucial electro – chemical processes on our planet. Thus, the planet does not operate as a closed system but rather an open system receiving energy from an external source.

When critics of YEC’ists pointed out these flaws in the alleged violation of the 2nd law of thermo as used by creationists, they retreated to various specious arguments and some rather silly reinterpretations of the law, designed to detour around their faulty re-writing. Over the last 20 years or so, the only YEC’ists who even approach the "2nd thermo" argument have been the more loopy of the YEC’ists as represented by the Institute of Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and the ”Hovind Entertainment Network” among the more notorious of the Christian creation ministries. And make no mistake, if you read the “about”,or the “statement of faith” section of the above organizations, they are fundamentalist Christian ministries with a pre-commitment to literal biblical creation.

I can only urge you to review the relevant science data, here, for one example:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

 

[editec]

•The 3rd law is;

S(T→0)→0

At absolute zero temperature, entropy is zero.

Don't forget, it is impossible to reach absolute zero through a finite number of steps and it is impossible to carry out an infinite number of steps.

Or as a professor once said you can boil down the three laws of thermodynamics to this:

1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't quit the game.

Oh my god that's brilliant!~

Kudos to that professor

 

[Youwerecreated]

You mean like how the Bible says the geocentric model is correct (when it isn't advocating a flat Earth that is), but how We've known since 1610 that simply is not true.

Or how the Bible outright says the circumference of a circle is 3 time its diameter when every 9th grader knows it's really 3.14159... times.

Or maybe the time the Jews are told not to eat rabbits because they chew cud, but rabbits in the real world don't chew cud.

That is just ignorance of the scriptures for anyone to claim the bible teaches a flat earth ,you should stay away from your atheist hate sites they will mislead you.

Yeah, he clearly spends too much time on science.

I use to but now just read and discuss many different subjects concerning science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Incorrect. Fundmentally incorrect.

A closed system is also refered to as an isolated system. This is so fundental as to defy any more basic explaination. All life are open, non-isolated systems.

To say otherwise is to simply ignore a very basic concept of thermo.

How so when scientists consider earth a closed system ? the reason is because no serious amount of matter enters and leaves earth. The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in. This is the only reason they say it is both open and closed but that is nonsense. The sun is pure energy and that is why the energy of the sun penetrates the earth's atmosphere.

The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in.

Makes your Second Law error so obvious.

I disagree, a closed system allows energy but not matter and total entropy of a closed system never decreases.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I hate doing this on my phone but I have read an article dealing with the 2nd law that I will introduce to this discussion on Monday when I get home.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually several articles

 

[Youwerecreated]

The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in.

Makes your Second Law error so obvious.

Nope as I have explained it is simple reasoning. The sun is so powerful the atmosphere can't prevent the energy of the sun penetrating the atmosphere.

You are distracting yourself, again, from the point. The 2nd Law of Thermo does not have any bearing on the matter. Life intakes matter and energy, is an open system by definition.

Nothing about the second law forbids life developing.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics - CMI Mobile

 

[Hollie]

That is just ignorance of the scriptures for anyone to claim the bible teaches a flat earth ,you should stay away from your atheist hate sites they will mislead you.

Yeah, he clearly spends too much time on science.

I use to but now just read and discuss many different subjects concerning science.

You make the mistake of reading "science" on Harun Yahya's website.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Entropy at work. Entropy at work: skeptic blunders on thermodynamics - CMI Mobile

 

[Hollie]

Nope as I have explained it is simple reasoning. The sun is so powerful the atmosphere can't prevent the energy of the sun penetrating the atmosphere.

You are distracting yourself, again, from the point. The 2nd Law of Thermo does not have any bearing on the matter. Life intakes matter and energy, is an open system by definition.

Nothing about the second law forbids life developing.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics - CMI Mbile

"Creation Ministries International"?

Could you have offered a less credible source? That's a rhetorical question, btw.