Entropy contradict Evolution

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Hadeka, Jul 29, 2004.

  1. Hadeka Registered Member

    Physics and Evolution
    The Laws of Thermodynamics Contradict Evolution

    The laws of thermodynamics are one of the most important, most basic and most proven concepts of all scientific disciplines. These are valid in all our universe.

    The First Law of Thermodynamics

    The First Law of Thermodynamics states the following: The total amount of energy in our universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. Furthermore, energy can be transformed from one form into another, but it cannot be created and cannot be destroyed.

    As a consequence, the current amount of energy in the universe has been in existence for a long time. Natural processes cannot create energy, thus this energy could have been produced only by a force outside our universe.

    According to evolutionists, complex organisms evolved from simpler ones. Simple organisms were formed from matter and energy. They state that matter and energy appeared from nothing. This contradicts the First Law.

    On the contrary, Creation is supernatural, stands above the laws of nature. God can create matter, energy and laws that govern them.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the Law of Increasing Entropy, is a general and universal law that can be formulated in several ways:

    According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy available for useful work decreases in an isolated system, although the total amount of energy remains constant. This is because energy can transform only into lower forms of energy through natural processes. For example, electric current passing through a light bulb ends up transforming into heat, which is the lowest "quality" energy consisting of chaotic molecular movement.
    This Second Law introduces the concept of entropy, a measure of disorder. Entropy constantly increases in any isolated system. In other words, the system becomes disorganized and energy becomes less usable.
    Based on this law, the amount of information conveyed by a system continually decreases and its quality deteriorates.
    Basically, the law states that natural processes disorganize the state of objects and systems. Over time, everything decays and becomes disorganized. The universe irreversibly heads toward maximum disorganization.
    Just think about what happens with our house if we "comfortably" leave it by itself for a while, we don't clean up, arrange and mend all the time. Natural processes constantly destroy and disorganize it. Our house needs our useful and expedient work to maintain the order. Even atomic particles search the lowest energy levels, they "like comfort".

    The amount of information and the complexity of our universe perpetually decreases instead of increasing. According to evolutionary theory, life on earth progresses from simple to complex and never vice versa. Everything becomes more and more organized and entropy constantly decreases.

    Thus, evolution contradicts both laws of thermodynamics.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics is by itself alone sufficient to refute evolutionary theories. See the graph below.

    Vance Ferrell, Evolution Disproved Series, p.809.

    According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, everything degrades and breaks down. We can see this in the universe. The sun slowly but surely cools off, stars die, matter dissolves into radiation, etc. Our universe progresses toward its death, namely toward maximum entropy. This process is irreversible. If there was no Creator, this tragic end would certainly occur.

    The Two Laws of Thermodynamics point not only to a death in the future, but also to the Creation in the past:

    According to the First Law, the cosmos could not have created itself, thus an external force must have existed to create it.
    According to the Second Law, if our universe was infinitely old, it would be dead and destroyed already. But this is not the case, so it must also have had a beginning. Sometime in the past the universe had been created and the cosmic processes were started.
    Every star, the perfectly designed nature and all the accurate laws of nature bear testimony to the existence of a Creator who created them all.

    Information Theory and Entropy

    We think that the amount of information is continually increasing on earth. Day after day, new inventions appear, just think about the development of the computer. How does this contradict the laws of thermodynamics? There is no contradiction, for these inventions were not the random result of natural processes, but human intelligence. Humans create the programs running on computers to make them do useful work. Natural processes don't produce anything with a goal in mind. Having a goal means thinking in advance.

    Let's think about the genetic code stored in the simplest living cells. It contains all the information necessary for the survival, behavior and reproduction of the cell. Scientists estimate that the information contained in a single-celled organism amounts to 40,000 volumes. The chance for this information to appear suddenly could be compared to an explosion in a printing shop resulting in Encyclopedia Brittanica!

    We can draw an important conclusion from the above: new information and order can only appear as a result of intelligence, planning and useful work.

    Thus, the origin of life on earth could not have been the result of random natural processes, but only God's purposeful Creation.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Except that what actually happens is that lifeforms degrade energy even faster, reduce things to their entropic minimum quicker than mere inorganic systems. And also utilise the energy from the sun, which is following the entropic laws.

    What matters is the energy put into a system, and there will always be waste energy. The current global economy uses an old stored from of energy, oil, turns a lot of it into products like cars, and a lot more of it into waste heat. Think of it as islands of order in a sea of increasing disorder, possible because disorder is being produced at a faster rate.

    WEll, that probably doenst make any sense, its a few years since i learnt any of it.

    I vote this gets moved to physics, where people who know about thermodynamics and free energy etc can demonstrate it more clearly.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    The matter and energy that compose life forms did not suddenly appear in a vacuum, it was already present on earth. The big bang theory and evolutionary theory are separate theories.


    With regard to entropy, the amount of matter and energy transformed by living things into an ordered state is relatively insignificant, compared to the vast amounts of energy that exist with the universe. Also, the earth could not be considered a closed system.

    "If there was no Creator, this tragic end would certainly occur. "
    So, there is a creator because... without this idea, our existence is tragic? Isn't the idea of eternal suffering in hell rather tragic, too? Wishful thinking doesn't support any logical argument.

    "According to the First Law, the cosmos could not have created itself, thus an external force must have existed to create it. "
    Or, the universe always existed, and the big bang was a form it went through for yet unknown reasons, like the narrow part of an hourglass. Thus it both always existed, and had a beginning. Perhaps it has gone through many beginnings.

    "According to the Second Law, if our universe was infinitely old, it would be dead and destroyed already."
    Perhaps the known universe is not the whole thing, and new universes are constantly bigbanging up. Or, another way to say it is, this universe is not a completely closed system. Perhaps two dying universes expanded towards each other, and coalesced into what later became our universe.

    "The chance for this information to appear suddenly could be compared to an explosion in a printing shop resulting in Encyclopedia Brittanica! "
    Oh, but it didn't happen suddenly, this happened very gradually- 3 or 4 BILLION years, I think.

    Besides, physicists do not think about biology when they formulate their theories.

    "Thus, the origin of life on earth could not have been the result of random natural processes, but only God's purposeful Creation."
    Well, natural processes create astoudingly regular patterns, such as the hexagons that form when mud dries in a lakebed, and crystals. There are also many natural cycles, and self-regulating mechanisms that form with no concious input from anyone. Life is just a more complex form of this. The preservation of complexity may be a property of matter that physics has not addressed yet, since each science likes to stay in their own narrow field of interest.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

  8. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Life isn't the result of a random process nor is it god's purposeful creation.

    You just tried to disprove a false statement. What a waste of effort.
  9. Alpha «Visitor» Registered Senior Member

    It's called a strawman argument. You set up a flimsy version of the opponent's argument to attack.
  10. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    If entropy contradicts evolution, then entropy should contradict creation of ordered crystalline structures during solidification of metals (for example). Which, as we all know, is not the case.
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    (Is this your own work, or did you copy somebody else's idea?)

    It is also possible that the total energy came into existence with the universe, and no outside force caused the universe to come into existence. Causality itself may break down at the big bang.

    No evolutionist says the matter and energy in living things came from nowhere. When an animal has offspring, the offspring are produced by converting food the mother eats into the matter and energy which makes up the baby animal. I am surprised you don't know this.

    If this is so, why do you think that Creation conflicts with evolution, which is a law of nature? If creation is "above" such laws, why does it concern itself with them?

    What is a "lower" form of energy? This is the first time I've heard of an energy heirarchy.

    Actually, it's the other way round. The concept of entropy needs to be defined before you can talk about the 2nd law.

    Be careful! You dropped the word "isolated" in the second sentence.

    That does not follow. And you've left out that important word "isolated" again.

    Clearly, this is false. If it was true, you could never wash the dishes.

    This is approximately true, considering the universe is an isolated system. (There's that word again.)

    That doesn't follow from the 2nd law. Or, at least, you haven't shown that it does.

    Never vice versa? Are you sure?

    Anyway, this statement is so vague as to be meaningless. What do you mean by a "simple" or "complex" form of life? Be specific.

    No. You've ignored that word "isolated", which qualifies the word "system" in the laws of thermodynamics. Earth is not an isolated system.

    'fraid not.

    The First Law says nothing of the kind. It is a statement about conservation of energy, and need not apply at the big bang.

    Most scientists these days think the universe (or at least its current phase) started with the big bang.

    What makes you think nature is perfect? What do you mean by perfect?

    You'll need to define "information" before you can make a definite statement like that.

    Humans get their energy from food, which relies ultimately on energy from the Sun. So, ultimately, the Sun creates computers, in the kind of simplistic sense you're talking about.

    No it doesn't. The cell needs to know, for example, where its food is. That information doesn't come from the genetic code.

    No, because the genetic code in a single-celled organism didn't suddenly appear from nowhere. It evolved.

    Wouldn't that contradict your version of the second law of thermodynamics? O is intelligence exempt from that law, unlikely everything else in the universe? If you think this, I hope you can explain why intelligence is exempt from this law of physics.
  12. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    This happens about once a month on sciforums. Someone who doesn't know anything about thermodynamics posts something about how evolution contradicts the 2nd law, then runs away when faced with replies from people who have actually had science classes. I doubt we'll be seeing Hadeka again.
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2004
  13. Hadeka Registered Member

    Nasor said:
    This happens about once a month on sciforums. Someone who doesn't know anything about thermodynamics posts something about how evolution contradicts the 2nd law, then runs away when faced with replies from people who have actually had science classes. I doubt we'll be seeing Hadeka again.

    well, thank you, but i think u dont have to attack me
    as u said, im not the first and will not be the last who talks about this.

    many poeple are talking about this, many scientists as i think!

    and i think i understand well the laws of thermodynamics:

    Laws of Thermodynamics

    1st-energy is constant in the universe; energy is neither created nor eliminated.
    2nd - entropy is always increasing in the universe.
    3rd – for a perfect crystal at zero kelvin, the entropy is zero.

    (Source: http://www.learnchem.net/tutorials/spont.shtml)

    and these laws are not very difficult to understand, so that's not a reason to attack me

    i will reply to all this posts when i read it well.

    but i must go now because im so busy.

    thank you.

  14. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    According to the second law of thermodynamics, as matter/energy migrates from one form to another, there is a degenerative process that results. Nature is “running down.” The Bible even alludes to the fact that the creation is growing old like a garment that, eventually, is to be laid aside (Heb. 1:10-12). The entire universe is proceeding toward an ultimate death (if current processes were permitted to proceed infinitely).

    Evolution, from the nature of the case, requires a progressive mechanism (a building-up system, from the simple to the complex), but the “second law” reveals that earth’s environment is running down. It would appear, on the face of it, that the evolutionary scheme is not consistent with the facts of physics.

    Here is Johnson’s response to this problem. While it is true that “disorder increases in a closed system,” earth’s environment is not closed. Energy from the sun bathes the planet, and so accommodates the organization of life on earth. The professor employs this analogy. A child may have a messy room, but mother comes in (outside energy), and presto – the room is organized again! Frankly, with all due respect, this is a terribly simplistic approach.

    First, it takes more than mere energy to reorganize the room in our friend’s illustration. One could throw a stick of dynamite into the room (there would be “energy” wouldn’t there?), but the place would hardly be more organized as a result. Without an “intelligent” mom, with all her capabilities and equipment, no reorganization would occur. Does any mother imagine that she can simply open her child’s bedroom window, let sunshine in, and the room will be reordered?

    And so, as suggested above, in order for an increase in complexity to be effected, it takes more than just “energy.” Also required are:

    1. An informational system that contains a plan for the utilization of the energy; and,

    2. a mechanism of implementation (i.e., that which converts the energy into functional work channels). There is absolutely no evidence that “nature” has fabricated (or is able to) either the code (information system), or the necessary conversion machine.

    Noted evolutionist, Ernest Mayr of Harvard, speaks to this very point:

    “Living organisms, however, differ from inanimate matter by the degree of complexity of their systems and by the possession of a genetic program . . . The genetic instructions packaged in an embryo direct the formation of an adult, whether it be a tree, a fish, or a human. The process is goal-directed, but from the instructions in the genetic program, not from the outside. Nothing like it exists in the inanimate world” (quoted by Roger Lewin, “Biology Is Not Postage Stamp Collecting,” Science, May 14, 1982, p. 719).

    In the final analysis, the evolutionary process cannot win the battle against the “second law” in any environment. John Ross of Harvard has stated:

    “. . . 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” (Letter, Chemical and Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 40).

    Biological organisms have been dying upon this planet for thousands of years. Is there a solitary example of where mere energy from the sun has effected a resurgence of these creatures from death?

    Read the entire article and refutation here: http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/september99.htm
  15. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Why do you theists bother with science? All you do is throw brickbats at it in order to try and convince people that the supernatural is necessary in order to explain reality.

    No reputable scientist resorts to superstition and entities beyond natural laws in order to make a theory work. It eithers works, and is accepted and expanded upon; or it fails, and is rejected.

    Gods and demons were at least plausible in the ignorant ages that humans dreamed them up. In the complete absence of knowledge of infectious microorganisms, demons would be a reasonable explanation of disease. But not anymore.

    I also think that many people find the idea of an evil entity purposely trying to do them harm less troubling than the idea of an utterly indifferent universe. It satisfies their ego, where the idea of a universe that regularly has life destroying objects like asteroids and comets strike this planet with no ill intent does not.

    You are free to believe in ancient myths. I am free to reject them. But it is up to you to accomodate your myths to science, not the other way around.
  16. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Ok, this will be about the zillionth time that this has been explained, but what the heck. It's a slow weekend and I don't really have anything else to do.

    This argument for the second law of thermodynamics is based around the mistaken notion that the second law prohibits the spontaneous increase in order in a system. You sometimes hear the second law described that way, but really it's just a misleading paraphrasing. What the second law of thermodynamics actually says is:

    dS > dQ/T where S=kb ln (w). w is a term related to how many possible microstates could correspond to the observed macrostate of the system.

    As you can see, there's nothing here that says anything about the order or complexity of the system. You can think of the term w as a sort of measure of the complexity or order of the system, but it doesn't really correspond to how we think or order or complexity in every-day life.

    Obviously there's nothing thermodynamically wrong with order spontaneously emerging from disorder, as there are many examples of it happening in nature. Any time water freezes into an ordered crystal structure, you're seeing a spontaneous increase in the order of the water, and it doesn't violate the second law in any way.

    So what does the second law have to do with the real world? Well, the second law says that in any isolated system (a system in which energy can't get in or out) any time something happens the system will change so that there are more possible microstates that could correspond to the system's macrostate. This will result in less useful energy being available within the system, so over time an isolated system will reach a state in which the number of possible microstates that could correspond to its macrostate are maximized, and there won't be any energy available for doing work in the system. Fortunately for us we don't live in an isolated system, or our days would be numbered.

    So as you can (hopefully) see, there isn't anything in the second law of thermodynamics that prevents living things from evolving. This is a good example of the dangers that crop up when you try to use 'dumbed down' science explanations for evaluating complex subjects, like thermodynamics and evolution.
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2004
  17. Enigma'07 Who turned out the lights?!?! Registered Senior Member


    Isn't there a law of consevation that states matter cannot be created or distroyed, right? So then, taking Einstien's equation, E= MC^2, we assume the amout of matter remains constant, and the speed of light is constant, the energy must also be constant, right? So therefore, energy cannot be created or distroyed.
  18. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Enigma, your point is rather enigmatic. Who said anything about energy creation or destruction?
  19. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, that's pretty much all true. But what does it have to do with the second law of thermodynamics?
  20. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    The problem here is that Dr. Johnson is responding to the actual threat that the 2nd law poses to life on earth, rather than the imaginary threat that creationists like to imagine. The 2nd law tells us that in an isolated system eventually the energy will become unusable, which would result in the death of everything living in the system. The sun supplies energy to the earth, which is what allows life to continue even though the 2nd law is constantly draining our energy away into an unusable state.

    The creationist who wrote this seems to want Dr. Johnson to explain how life can become more 'complex' with repect to the 2nd law, but of course Dr. Johnson doesn't address that because the 2nd law doesn't actually make any such claim.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    That's a bastardised version of the second law. The second law doesn't say anything about energy or matter "degenerating", as Nasor explained. This is the problem you get when you don't really understand a physical law in its proper context.

    Evolution requires two things, and two things only:

    1. The generation of diversity.
    2. Natural selection - culling of the "less fit".

    Process number (1) is essentially a random process, entirely in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Process number (2), which involves the disproportionate death (or failure to reproduce) of the less fit, could perhaps be regarded as a "running down" process, if you want to look at it that way. But processes (1) and (2) together produce all the forms of life we see on Earth. So, it seems that "order" can come from "chaos" after all.

    Only to those who don't understand either physics or evolution.

    Did you see the word "analogy" there? Johnson is dumbing it down for you so you can understand.

    Correct. It takes organised energy - the kind physicists call work - as opposed to the disorganised energy physicists call heat.

    The dynamite creates heat.

    That's not true. Even the dynamite "reorganises" the room. But it doesn't lead to one of the macrostates of the room which you would call "neat". Intelligence is beside the point.

    No, because letting the sunlight in just lets in heat, which is disorganised energy again, right?

    Right. It takes organised energy. But not intelligently organised energy, mind you.

    That is not required. There is no plan in the formation of an ice crystal from water, for example - at least not in the sense that you are using that word. Nor is there a plan in the bonding between two strands of DNA.

    Nature has many conversion machines. For example, green plants are machines which convert sunlight into cellulose. Animals are machines which convert cellulose into muscle. And a mother is an animal which converts muscle into a clean room.

    John Ross from Harvard is wrong on this point. Probably he is not a physicist.

    What did I tell you about sunlight above?
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    At the bottom of your cut-and-paste, you say the link includes an article and a refutation. I took at look and couldn't see any refutation of the article. In fact, the whole site seems to contain only anti-evolution articles, and no pro-evolution articles. Why did you refer to a refutation, when there doesn't seem to be one on the site?
  23. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    I wonder is Hadeka or SouthStar have any more nonsensical creationist arguments that they would like to cut/paste...

Share This Page