Apologetics: does evolution contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
like i mentioned in my previous post, i came across another shady article in the TalkOrigins.org site. this time, it is about whether or not evolution actually goes against the second law of thermodynamics (you can find the article here: The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability).
for those less scientifically inclined, the second law of thermodynamics states simply that "the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease". what exactly does that mean? well, entropy means disorder. so in other words it is saying that left to itself, a system (although here they define a closed system) will become more disorderly.
so what is a closed system? a closed system is a system that doesn't lose or gain energy or matter.
anyway, in that article, that guy states that "there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder. Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seed sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop in chicks." now, all those that he states do happen, but there is a fundamental difference (and they do not violate the second law!!!)
crystallisation happens when thermal agitation (read: heat) is small enough for atomic bonding forces to arrange the molecules in simple geometric patterns. this is a move towards simple and uniform repeating structure with minimal complexity and are functionless. this does show some kind of order, but certainly not in the magnitude of the complexity necessary for life.
he tend goes on to say that "seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks". right... notice that these by themselves are complex organisms with complex energy management and conversion systems. of course they have order!!!
the thing is, simply supplying a system with energy doesn't decrease entropy. try aiming a blowtorch at an egg and see if it hatches faster...
another statement that he makes in the article is this: "A favorite argument of creationists is that the probability of evolution occurring is about the same as the probability that a tornado blowing through a junkyard could form an airplane. They base this argument on their belief that changes in living things have a very low probability and could not occur without "intelligent design" which overcomes the laws of thermodynamics. This represents a fundamental contradiction in which (they say) evolution is inconsistent with thermodynamics because thermodynamics doesn't permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder, but creationism (in the guise of intelligent design) doesn't have to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. "
he then goes on to say: "A simpler analogy to the airplane/junkyard scenario would be the stacking of three blocks neatly on top of each other. To do this, intelligent design is required, but stacking does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. The same relations hold for this activity as for any other activity involving thermodynamical energy changes. It is true that the blocks will not stack themselves, but as far as thermodynamics is concerned, all that is required is the energy to pick them up and place them one on top of the other."
now look at his statements. yes, i would agree that "stacking does not violate the laws of thermodynamics." however, the fact is that the energy that causes the bricks to be stacked HAS to be intelligently directed. the way he puts it makes it seem as if the whole point was that energy doesn't have to intelligent, but he's missing the point that energy that is undirected could cause more harm than good. in that case if you want to grow taller try using the blowtorch on yourself this time...
by the way, did you know that a boeing 747 is so complex that it takes about 10,000 engineering drawings to put one together?
one of the very irritating things that he states is this: "Of course, the creationist application of the second law of thermodynamics to the development of living things is inconsistent with any model of origins. Creationists get around this problem by invoking the supernatural (i.e. God)". well now, look here you bozo. what creationists (i'm one of them) believe in are NOT inconsistent with the law. WE are the ones who claim that an intelligent Designer CREATED everything there is. He DIRECTED energy flow. YOU bozos are the ones who claim that we all came from a single unicellular organism which came from primordial "soup" which came from a rock!!! GAH!!! THAT MUST BE WHY YOU ARE AS STUPID AND OBSTINATE AS A ROCK!!!
well that felt good. anyway, i've been watching a series of videos by Dr Kent Hovind, who is an evangelist and goes around talking about creation. he said that evolution is a religion, not a scientific fact. but look at the it: what are people being taught? they are being taught something that has never been proven correct, has constantly been proven wrong and has absolutely no bearings in science. they are being taught that evolution is correct. how can they do that? because the only other explanation (which by the way, is far more plausible) is unthinkable. it leaves room for an Intelligent and Almight Creator. and that is what many people are not willing to accept. sad but true. for this reason, they keep teaching stuff like this in school. all the science textbooks say that we evolved. what crap. just calculate the possibility of it happening.
a typical protein strand has about 100 amino acids arranged in a specific way. there are a total of 20 different amino acids available for this arrangement. to get this single protein strand correct would mean getting 1 out of 20100, or 10130 combinations correct. that number is 1 with 130 zeros behind it... that's bigger than a googol. that's an insanely huge number. and that's just getting one strand!!! assuming you had to make, say a modest 10 strands (a living organism of course contain far more). how many trials would that take? you do the maths...
in the book "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr Gerald L. Schroeder, he states that "there have been less than 1018 seconds in the 15 billion years since the big bang" (i'm not advocating that the age of the universe is 15 billion years, but a favourite argument of evolutionist is that "the small probability of such things happening is not the issue; given the billions of years, anything is possible" so i'm just using this example to show that even with vast amounts of time it is not possible).
with the given amount of time and given number of trials, approximately 10112 trials would have to be conducted EACH SECOND for 15 billion years... think it sounds ludicrous already? read on...
to "feed" the reactions, 1090 grams of carbon are required. however, the mass of the entire earth and all that it contains is only 6 X 1027 grams. in fact, 1090 grams exceeds the estimated mass of the entire universe... go figure...
in short? evolution is impossible. you do not even have enough time and material to conduct that number of trials... the answer to the title of the post? an unequivocal "YES"!
so will people stop believing evolution? please??? sigh...
ps (for those interested): everyone seems to be talking about the second law. what is the first law? it basically says that there is no increase or decrease in the amount of energy or matter in the universe. matter and energy can be converted into one another, but there is no loss or gain. fyi, the famous formula, E=mc2 is actually a formula for the interconversion between energy and matter, where E, or energy is equals to matter multiplied by c (speed of light in a vacuum) squared. which means, it takes a small amount of matter to make a huge amount of energy.
for those less scientifically inclined, the second law of thermodynamics states simply that "the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease". what exactly does that mean? well, entropy means disorder. so in other words it is saying that left to itself, a system (although here they define a closed system) will become more disorderly.
so what is a closed system? a closed system is a system that doesn't lose or gain energy or matter.
anyway, in that article, that guy states that "there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder. Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seed sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop in chicks." now, all those that he states do happen, but there is a fundamental difference (and they do not violate the second law!!!)
crystallisation happens when thermal agitation (read: heat) is small enough for atomic bonding forces to arrange the molecules in simple geometric patterns. this is a move towards simple and uniform repeating structure with minimal complexity and are functionless. this does show some kind of order, but certainly not in the magnitude of the complexity necessary for life.
he tend goes on to say that "seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks". right... notice that these by themselves are complex organisms with complex energy management and conversion systems. of course they have order!!!
the thing is, simply supplying a system with energy doesn't decrease entropy. try aiming a blowtorch at an egg and see if it hatches faster...
another statement that he makes in the article is this: "A favorite argument of creationists is that the probability of evolution occurring is about the same as the probability that a tornado blowing through a junkyard could form an airplane. They base this argument on their belief that changes in living things have a very low probability and could not occur without "intelligent design" which overcomes the laws of thermodynamics. This represents a fundamental contradiction in which (they say) evolution is inconsistent with thermodynamics because thermodynamics doesn't permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder, but creationism (in the guise of intelligent design) doesn't have to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. "
he then goes on to say: "A simpler analogy to the airplane/junkyard scenario would be the stacking of three blocks neatly on top of each other. To do this, intelligent design is required, but stacking does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. The same relations hold for this activity as for any other activity involving thermodynamical energy changes. It is true that the blocks will not stack themselves, but as far as thermodynamics is concerned, all that is required is the energy to pick them up and place them one on top of the other."
now look at his statements. yes, i would agree that "stacking does not violate the laws of thermodynamics." however, the fact is that the energy that causes the bricks to be stacked HAS to be intelligently directed. the way he puts it makes it seem as if the whole point was that energy doesn't have to intelligent, but he's missing the point that energy that is undirected could cause more harm than good. in that case if you want to grow taller try using the blowtorch on yourself this time...
by the way, did you know that a boeing 747 is so complex that it takes about 10,000 engineering drawings to put one together?
one of the very irritating things that he states is this: "Of course, the creationist application of the second law of thermodynamics to the development of living things is inconsistent with any model of origins. Creationists get around this problem by invoking the supernatural (i.e. God)". well now, look here you bozo. what creationists (i'm one of them) believe in are NOT inconsistent with the law. WE are the ones who claim that an intelligent Designer CREATED everything there is. He DIRECTED energy flow. YOU bozos are the ones who claim that we all came from a single unicellular organism which came from primordial "soup" which came from a rock!!! GAH!!! THAT MUST BE WHY YOU ARE AS STUPID AND OBSTINATE AS A ROCK!!!
well that felt good. anyway, i've been watching a series of videos by Dr Kent Hovind, who is an evangelist and goes around talking about creation. he said that evolution is a religion, not a scientific fact. but look at the it: what are people being taught? they are being taught something that has never been proven correct, has constantly been proven wrong and has absolutely no bearings in science. they are being taught that evolution is correct. how can they do that? because the only other explanation (which by the way, is far more plausible) is unthinkable. it leaves room for an Intelligent and Almight Creator. and that is what many people are not willing to accept. sad but true. for this reason, they keep teaching stuff like this in school. all the science textbooks say that we evolved. what crap. just calculate the possibility of it happening.
a typical protein strand has about 100 amino acids arranged in a specific way. there are a total of 20 different amino acids available for this arrangement. to get this single protein strand correct would mean getting 1 out of 20100, or 10130 combinations correct. that number is 1 with 130 zeros behind it... that's bigger than a googol. that's an insanely huge number. and that's just getting one strand!!! assuming you had to make, say a modest 10 strands (a living organism of course contain far more). how many trials would that take? you do the maths...
in the book "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr Gerald L. Schroeder, he states that "there have been less than 1018 seconds in the 15 billion years since the big bang" (i'm not advocating that the age of the universe is 15 billion years, but a favourite argument of evolutionist is that "the small probability of such things happening is not the issue; given the billions of years, anything is possible" so i'm just using this example to show that even with vast amounts of time it is not possible).
with the given amount of time and given number of trials, approximately 10112 trials would have to be conducted EACH SECOND for 15 billion years... think it sounds ludicrous already? read on...
to "feed" the reactions, 1090 grams of carbon are required. however, the mass of the entire earth and all that it contains is only 6 X 1027 grams. in fact, 1090 grams exceeds the estimated mass of the entire universe... go figure...
in short? evolution is impossible. you do not even have enough time and material to conduct that number of trials... the answer to the title of the post? an unequivocal "YES"!
so will people stop believing evolution? please??? sigh...
ps (for those interested): everyone seems to be talking about the second law. what is the first law? it basically says that there is no increase or decrease in the amount of energy or matter in the universe. matter and energy can be converted into one another, but there is no loss or gain. fyi, the famous formula, E=mc2 is actually a formula for the interconversion between energy and matter, where E, or energy is equals to matter multiplied by c (speed of light in a vacuum) squared. which means, it takes a small amount of matter to make a huge amount of energy.
posted by Jase | 4:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home