Creationism and Second Law of Thermodynamics

[Ignorant_Boy]

Hey all,

I'm sorry if this has been asked before or is answered somewhere, but I have a friend who's trying to settle the evolution vs. creationism debate with:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy (Chaos) will always increase within a closed system

Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics because [the Second Law of Thermodynamics] basically states that things will always get worse and worse. Evolution says that things started as a molecole and have gradually gotten better and better (from single-cells to humans in this case), which is contrary to "chaos increasing in a closed system."

Creationism, on the other hand, satisfies the Second Law because it says that man and the Earth were perfect when God first created them, but life has progressively gotten worse due to the introduction of death, pain, and sin."

Now, I'm wondering if the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to something that is rather subjective (what is better or worse?). And I've noticed that this requires the assumption that things really happened according to what the Bible says.

Next, he says that's it's OK to teach creationism/Christianity in schools because it's not really shoving religion down out throats; it's just providing students with both sides of the story (evolution and creationism).

I've tried asking him what makes Christianity and Genesis correct in light of other religions (why is Christianity more "right" than Hindu, Native, or Greek?), but have gotten no meaningful answer. I've also asked him to stop attacking evolution and start defending creationism and was answered with: it's more logical that God should create the earth; it's easier for God to create man than to create a cell and let evolution take its course." When I pointed out that disproving evolution wouldn't automatically make Christian creationism right, he said: "There's hardly a third alternative". This implies that he doesn't care if what is taught is right or wrong; only cares about teaching creationism and by extension Christianity to the world.

When I've argued that teaching creationism would be teaching religion, he responds with "Evolution is a religion too; it has no scientific proof, it can not be scientifically demonstrated or simulated." Now, I've read Mike's creationism site (or rather skimmed over it) and it mentions that this has been done...

And finally, he refutes the Bible quote of Pi being exactly 3 by saying that there was a lip; the liquid was 30 cubits across but the actual sea (from one end to the other) was 10 cubits because the tops tapered out, increasing the distance from one end to the other.

Any thoughts anyone?

[Yogi]

Second law of thermodynamics apply to the universe, not specific parts of it.

Sure things are getting complex on Earth, but that's only at the cost of the Sun which is going to go out sooner or later.

[Colonel Olrik]

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

Really, this says it all

[Durandal]

Creationism defies nuclear physics by stating that the sun and stars were created after the Earth.

Furthermore, your body is not a closed system, and creationist rhetoric equating chaotic systems with evil has absolutely no basis in science.

[Darth Wong]

Ask this idiot to explain why entropy causes sin, pain, and evil. Ask him to define entropy. He obviously has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

[Ignorant_Boy]

Ok thanks everyone. I'll tell what happens tomorrow.
Hey Darth Wong, he's 16 and I'm 15; in other words a few kids learning science under Atlantic Canada's education system

I know it's no excuse... but it's the best we have...

[Durandal]

Ask him to define entropy. He obviously has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

Better yet, ask him to devise an experiment to demonstrate what entropy is. Any time some creationist jack-off starts spouting about scientific laws or theories, ask him to tell you how to demonstrate those laws through experiment.

By the way, if the entire scientific community is engaged in a massive cover-up operation of evolution's supposedly glaring flaws, then how can they trust the the second law of thermodynamics isn't similarly bunk?

[Darth Wong]

Ok thanks everyone. I'll tell what happens tomorrow.
Hey Darth Wong, he's 16 and I'm 15; in other words a few kids learning science under Atlantic Canada's education system

I know it's no excuse... but it's the best we have...

Come live in Toronto

[Wicked Pilot]

Next time some creationist moron gives you the 2nd Thermo bullshit, ask them if it means their dick is getting smaller.

[Darth Wong]

Or try to cut them off by confidently stating that since entropy is increasing, complexity must also be increasing (the exact opposite of what they planned to say), and then watch the glazed look in their eyes.

[Utsanomiko]

Hell, I never learned Thermodynamics in school, and even I know that the 2nd Law argument is invalid because it assumes animals are closed systems (what do creationists think lungs are doing? Suporting our bodies with perpetual-motion untill God wills us to die?).

Again, nice to see Creationists attacking premises for the wrong theories again. Aren't these the same kids who score goals for the wrong team in middle-school soccer?

[Ignorant_Boy]

Hell, I never learned Thermodynamics in school, and even I know that the 2nd Law argument is invalid because it assumes animals are closed systems (what do creationists think lungs are doing? Suporting our bodies with perpetual-motion untill God wills us to die?).

Again, nice to see Creationists attacking premises for the wrong theories again. Aren't these the same kids who score goals for the wrong team in middle-school soccer?

High school, man. High school.
What I find really interesting is that this is the guy who got 99% in Grade 10 science and 100% in Grade 10 math. He's very logical and insightful at politics, design, and logic... EXCEPT when it comes to religion. God, I just don't understand that....

[Stuart Mackey]

Next, he says that's it's OK to teach creationism/Christianity in schools because it's not really shoving religion down out throats; it's just providing students with both sides of the story (evolution and creationism).

If you want a laugh, tell him that if christian creationism is taught as a valid theory then so should the theorys of Buddism, Hinduism, the Maori,, Shinto and the equelly valid ideals of Scientology.

[Ignorant_Boy]

Next, he says that's it's OK to teach creationism/Christianity in schools because it's not really shoving religion down out throats; it's just providing students with both sides of the story (evolution and creationism).

If you want a laugh, tell him that if christian creationism is taught as a valid theory then so should the theorys of Buddism, Hinduism, the Maori,, Shinto and the equelly valid ideals of Scientology.

Been there; done that. He replied with: "Then you can't teach evolution because it's a religion. The religion of those who have no religion (or something like that)."

[Stuart Mackey]

Next, he says that's it's OK to teach creationism/Christianity in schools because it's not really shoving religion down out throats; it's just providing students with both sides of the story (evolution and creationism).

If you want a laugh, tell him that if christian creationism is taught as a valid theory then so should the theorys of Buddism, Hinduism, the Maori,, Shinto and the equelly valid ideals of Scientology.

Been there; done that. He replied with: "Then you can't teach evolution because it's a religion. The religion of those who have no religion (or something like that)."

Bummer, then loan him a tenner and tell him to buy a sense of humour
On the other hand he is 16, he may well grow out of it.

[Darth Wong]

Been there; done that. He replied with: "Then you can't teach evolution because it's a religion. The religion of those who have no religion (or something like that)."

The religion of reality-worship. That's different.

[Jesus Christ]

Next, he says that's it's OK to teach creationism/Christianity in schools because it's not really shoving religion down out throats; it's just providing students with both sides of the story (evolution and creationism).

If you want a laugh, tell him that if christian creationism is taught as a valid theory then so should the theorys of Buddism, Hinduism, the Maori,, Shinto and the equelly valid ideals of Scientology.

Been there; done that. He replied with: "Then you can't teach evolution because it's a religion. The religion of those who have no religion (or something like that)."

My son, tell him I said he needs to re-evaluate his priorities in life, as I only help those who help themselfs and your freind is shooting himself in the foot.

[victorhadin]

Christ, why can't I ever be at the start of these threads. I have just finished a good row over the second law, entropic increase and its numerous misinterpretations with one of the resident creationist types on SB. (You SBers know who I mean: Mr quote-notable-people-to-disguise-not-understanding-the-argument.) I can only assume that discussion is over, since he has left and never again returned to it, which I can only be thankful for.

I have seen creationist sites which list the second law as their 'strongest argument' and really this amply illustrates the combination of ignorance and the arrogance to think your ignorance doesn't matter.

[Utsanomiko]

He's very logical and insightful at politics, design, and logic... EXCEPT when it comes to religion. God, I just don't understand that....

I do. I believe it's called a security blanket. It's so much easier for these little punks to have the world simplified and spoon-fed to them than to find their own damn answers.

[Vympel]

The gall of some creationists.

Yeah, the entire scientific community would miss something like a theory violating the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!!!

Good thing we have bible-thumping morons to help those poor scientists out ...

[Ignorant_Boy]

His reply: "I'll think about it, but I do have rebuttals for most of these points. Also, Internet message boards are hardly a bastion of science." I told him about Mike's credetials (a appear to authority, I realize but anyway... ) and he basically said "civil engineer???"

Either way, thanks again everyone for all the input.

[Antediluvian]

His reply: "I'll think about it, but I do have rebuttals for most of these points. Also, Internet message boards are hardly a bastion of science." I told him about Mike's credetials (a appear to authority, I realize but anyway... ) and he basically said "civil engineer???"

Either way, thanks again everyone for all the input.

Kind of cocky, isn't he?

I await his rebuttals.

[Ignorant_Boy]

His reply: "I'll think about it, but I do have rebuttals for most of these points. Also, Internet message boards are hardly a bastion of science." I told him about Mike's credetials (a appear to authority, I realize but anyway... ) and he basically said "civil engineer???"

Either way, thanks again everyone for all the input.

Kind of cocky, isn't he?

I await his rebuttals.

Too bad he's still running dialup internet; otherwise I'd see if he'd come here directly. And I don't feel like printing off Mike's entire page...

[Coyote]

Right now the "Great Watchmaker" angle is real popular among Creationists-- that there was no way for so complex an organ as the eye to evolve 'by accident' and that it would be foolish to think that an eye just grew out of the side of a frog one day and he decided to keep it. They point to mutations in nature and say that 'a mutation is a bad thing, a deformity resulting in sterility, so no random series of mutations can produce a viable being.'

They're getting big-budget help, too, the Jehova's Witnesses dropped off a very impressively done hardback book with my friend Erin the other day. It was done up with all the nice pictures of trilobites and Neanderthals, etc...

I think these folks just don't comprehend how much time is involved with "4.6 billion years" and that there is a difference between 'mutation' and 'adaption'. But the 'Great Watchmaker' argument is gaining ground, because it wraps Creation up in a bunch of quasi-scientific drool that makes it easier to swallow for some people.

[Durandal]

Indeed, and most people are simply too stupid to realize that it isn't valid science, even if you explain why it isn't in absolutely excrutiating detail. I E-mailed the Ohio State Board of Education outlining very specific reasons as to why intelligent design is blatantly unscientific in every conceivable way, and they still voted to let each individual district decide on whether or not to teach intelligent design. Simply unbelievable.