Support NeoGAF

[Raist]

Tiome is very much the difference and it's a huge factor. There is no way to experiment on abiogenesis wiothout factoring in time. Further, there is no way to even determine what the earth was like those many moons ago to establish how life would come to be. It can't be done and one cannot assume that just because science has accomplished one thing that is simple in comparison, it can accomplish the other.There are experiments running all over the place and based on what the particular view of what the Earth was like (Discover magazine had an interesting article on it). Overall, however, the large portion of it is still going off Darwin's pie in the sky take on it- something that has nothing to do with his studies in evolution. It was merely conjecture on his part.This more than anything else i what gets me in trouble. I say it means absolutely nothing at all that life is created in the lab. There would be zero correlation between it and how life happened without the Hand of God so to speak. Science does very good at convincing people that evolution is fact. It sucks at convincing people that abiogenesis is a possibility beyond them saying so.We can know a lot of things and know in complete harmony with one another give or take a few YEC beliefs. Form a POV standpoint, though, the knowing with certainty the origin of life is shared by both those who believe in God and those who don't in relation to how life came to be here. They are equal concepts outside of the individual's view.

EDIT: Takes forever to post something on a busy work day. Not really picking and choosing, but that coupled with all the posts makes it hard to catch up- not that the argument or my view of it is necessarily worth spending a whole lot of time on.

So I guess, you completely reject as non-sense/fairy tales the big bang theory, that birds evolved from dinosaurs, etc etc, because we didn't witness it and can't possibly reproduce that in a lab. Correct?

 

[Sanky Panky]

The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with with organisms not beying immortal.

Fuck, even wikipedia gets it right:

Get me a Wiki article on Santa Clause describing how Santa is believed to be, and it won't prove he exists. Organisms operate in a closed system (the entire planet if it makes you feel better, as energy coming in can equal the amount of energy going out) where energy is constantly changing forms. Energy is constantly being exchanged. Energy is constantly being converted into useful force, and entropy is always increasing.

No, and again, no. We would still die. Biologists don't have a definite answer on senescense, but we do know that thermodynamics is not the reason why. There are various approaches to this problem, but we have no definite answer (yet). Check wikipedia on senescense for a review.

They can abandon the simple view that we are all living in an open system.

Matter is energy. That's what that whole E=MC^2 business is about.

Are you doing the whole "Second Law of Thermodynamics proves creationism" routine?

Of course matter is energy without any movement (the C). Organisms exchange excert energy to produce energy from matter. It's a simple exchange. And no, I'm not trying to support creationism at all. We are tackling the definition of life, and why it dies.

 

[Pandaman]

Get me a Wiki article on Santa Clause describing how Santa is believed to be, and it won't prove he exists. Organisms operate in a closed system (the entire planet if it makes you feel better, as energy coming in can equal the amount of energy going out) where energy is constantly changing forms. Energy is constantly being exchanged. Energy is constantly being converted into useful force, and entropy is always increasing.



They can abandon the simple view that we are all living in an open system.

if only there was some large object in space pumping energy into the earth.
possibly through nuclear fusion.
itd probably have to be pretty big though.
and bright.
it would be hard to miss if it existed.

 

[Dude Abides]

Get me a Wiki article on Santa Clause describing how Santa is believed to be, and it won't prove he exists. Organisms operate in a closed system (the entire planet if it makes you feel better, as energy coming in can equal the amount of energy going out) where energy is constantly changing forms. Energy is constantly being exchanged. Energy is constantly being converted into useful force, and entropy is always increasing.



They can abandon the simple view that we are all living in an open system.

Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun....

 

[Sanky Panky]

if only there was some large object in space pumping energy into the earth.
possibly through nuclear fusion.
itd probably have to be pretty big though.
and bright.
it would be hard to miss if it existed.

Can you imagine if all the energy had stayed throughout these BILLIONS of years of existence?

THEN saying stuff like "you're not immortal, see?" Plus making claims that life is defined by death. Potentially, bacteria don't die, tumour cells don't die. So they're not alive then? With an infinite amount of nutrients, you'll still die. How do you reconcile this just with thermodynamics? Hint: you can't.

But bacteria DO die, tumor cells activate telomerase so they continue repairing themselves (by accident of course), and yes, we all still die. I'll be back to illustrate what I mean with an example.

 

[Raist]

And no, I'm not trying to support creationism at all. We are tackling the definition of life, and why it dies.

Instead of saying "evolution isn't possible because: 2nd law of thermodynamics, order decreases" you're saying "we're a closed system, therefore we die".

2 faces of the same coin. It's just a reformulation. Instead of not understanding that earth (or anything in the real world) is NOT a closed system, you just claim it is. And it's completely wrong.

But bacteria DO die, tumor cells activate telomerase so they continue repairing themselves (by accident of course), and yes, we all still die. I'll be back to illustrate what I mean with an example.

Bacterias don't if you just keep giving them LB medium. They never get less efficient at all. Same for tumour cells. So by your definition, that can't be (everything has to be a closed system) and they're not alive, because they don't die.

 

[Dude Abides]

Of course matter is energy without any movement (the C). Organisms exchange excert energy to produce energy from matter. It's a simple exchange. And no, I'm not trying to support creationism at all. We are tackling the definition of life, and why it dies.

Without any movement? What are you talking about? Matter is energy whether it is moving or not. E=MC^2 is how you determine the amount of energy in a given quantity of matter.

 

[Gorgon]

Get me a Wiki article on Santa Clause describing how Santa is believed to be, and it won't prove he exists. Organisms operate in a closed system (the entire planet if it makes you feel better, as energy coming in can equal the amount of energy going out) where energy is constantly changing forms. Energy is constantly being exchanged. Energy is constantly being converted into useful force, and entropy is always increasing.

They can abandon the simple view that we are all living in an open system.

Oh, I'll wait for the publication of your article in a peer reviewd journal then. The Nobel prize awaits you. By the way, send a message to all the physicists and biologists saying that they are all wrong. Heck, I'll stop beying a researcher tomorrow after your demostration of sapience.

Also, if wikipedia is too bad for you, then please show me a scientific paper that shows:

- Life operates in a closed system
- Senescense is a direct consequence of thermodynamics

Also, the Earth is not a closed system, precisely because energy coming in balances out the energy going out. If it was, there would be no income of energy to mantain the balance. Which actually is the OPPOSITE of what you state regarding Life as a closed system. It's precisely because there is energy coming in from the organism's environment that senescense isn't limited by energetic balance.


Dude, if you want to argue science then you better follow scientific arguments. If you don't have anything else to say except that every scientist is wrong about thermodynamics in biology except a guy posting on a videogame forum, then there's no point in keeping this discussion. You can just as well say "it is thus because I say so" and leave it at that without further embarassing yourself. All you've done in this thread, especially after the bolded part in the above comment, was to show that you don't care a fuck about scientific argumentation. You have your beliefes and the moment they fail you make comments like the above. Stop trying to sound well educated scientifically because you're not. Either admit it and try to learn something or just say you're not interested so that we can all stop wasting our times argumenting with a person who doesn't care about arguments and only cares about his faith. You either accept scientif argumets or you don't. You don't get to cherry pick scientific argumets when it fits your misconceptions and ignore what you don't like.

 

[Pandaman]

Can you imagine if all the energy had stayed throughout these BILLIONS of years of existence?

dont be silly, the rate of fuel consumption in a star is tied to the relationship between its energy output and mass. the sun isnt a big ball of energy, its a big ball of superheated hydrogen[and various other elements] falling into the core and radiating energy through a fusion reaction. its an ongoing reaction, the energy isn't just sitting around.

its adorable how you don't even know what the sun is but think you deserve an opinion.

 

[Mgoblue201]

It appears that Sanky has exhausted all of his fallacies when it comes to radiometric dating, so now he has to waste all of our time with this stuff.

 

[Mengy]

Get me a Wiki article on Santa Clause describing how Santa is believed to be, and it won't prove he exists. Organisms operate in a closed system (the entire planet if it makes you feel better, as energy coming in can equal the amount of energy going out) where energy is constantly changing forms. Energy is constantly being exchanged. Energy is constantly being converted into useful force, and entropy is always increasing.

Um, you think that the Earth is a closed system of energy? Seriously?

 

[Subprime]

Is she really hot or something? Because I don't know why you would stay her boyfriend.

 

[The Technomancer]

Did someone just say that life is a closed system?

 

[Sanky Panky]

2 faces of the same coin. It's just a reformulation. Instead of not understanding that earth (or anything in the real world) is NOT a closed system, you just claim it is. And it's completely wrong.

Also, the Earth is not a closed system, precisely because energy coming in balances out the energy going out. If it was, there would be no income of energy to mantain the balance. Which actually is the OPPOSITE of what you state regarding Life as a closed system. It's precisely because there is energy coming in from the organism's environment that senescense isn't limited by energetic balance

The FACT that the energy coming in is balanced by the energy going out, tells us that there is a constant level of energy within our planet, that THEN gets distributed among living organisms. We work with the level of energy in the Earth, as if operating in a closed system. That's why the Law actually works and in observable in everything. I can't go out to the sun and grab some more energy, if more energy is demanded by an ecosystem or system. The Earth has constant flow of energy, but operates as a closed system. That's why the 2nd law can be applied so well to engineering.

edit: Thanks to the wikipedia lords, we can the apply the 1st law by saying that:

The first law of thermodynamics for a closed system states that the amount of internal energy within the system equals the difference between the amount of heat added to or extracted from the system and the work done by or to the system.

Things decay with time as energy is lost as work is done by the system. Perfectly in line with what happens in nature and living things.

The whole thing about me "accepting and learning what scientists say", they can't figure out themselves the why we die (because of a very basic assumption in thermodynamics), so I figured for the sake of science, it would be good to view the opposite argument that the Earth operates as if it was a closed system. Predictions on entropy can then be made and calculated (which is done by engineers all the time, to measure the efficiency of systems). Sorry but your appeal to authority won't work with me.

its adorable how you don't even know what the sun is but think you deserve an opinion

It's adorable how you think I was talking about the Sun and not the Earth.

 

[The Technomancer]

The solar system taken as a whole is a reasonable approximation of an isolated system: there's fairly negligible mass and energy entering our solar system from the rest of the galaxy compared to the contained mass and energy.

But the Earth is not a closed system.

 

[Pandaman]

.

It's adorable how you think I was talking about the Sun and not the Earth.

still havent put it together yet eh?

how is the earth a closed system when there is a nuclear reactor about 1.3 million times larer than it constantly bombarding the planet with energy?

wait, wait, wait.

what do you think leaves are for?
you know, on plants.

i'll give you a hint:
Chlorophyll

 

[Raist]

The Earth has constant flow of energy, but operates as a closed system.

Oh dear...

 

[Sanky Panky]

still havent put it together yet eh?

how is the earth a closed system when there is a nuclear reactor about 1.3 million times larer than it constantly bombarding the planet with energy?

wait, wait, wait.

what do you think leaves are for?
you know, on plants.

i'll give you a hint:
Chlorophyll

And the point is that if all that energy had remained in the Earth for all this time, we'd be hot pockets a long time ago. Energy leaves the Earth also. It's not as if energy that comes in somehow disappears (even if consumed). I hope you are not saying THAT.

 

[danwarb]

And the point is that if all that energy had remained in the Earth for all this time, we'd be hot pockets a long time ago. Energy leaves the Earth also. It's not as if energy that comes in somehow disappears (even if consumed). I hope you are not saying THAT.

What are... Fossil fuels.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Just had a chance to revisit this thread again and see this response. What does it matter if the 2nd Century dating for Daniel was arrived at through entomology, anachronisms, and literary style by some historians? The Dead Sea Scrolls were Carbon Dated. Some were Carbon dated as far back as the 4th and 5th Centuries BCE in fact. And as stated before they already contained the completed works of Daniel. So which form of dating is more accurate? Carbon dating or entomology, anachronisms, and literary style? The reason the Dead Sea Scrolls are so important is because they combine both science and history. On the one hand you have the science carbon dating them to the dates mentioned. On the other hand you have history showing us with little doubt they were not the first iterations of the texts written on them, meaning the original copies of the texts were written even earlier. If I can use Kinitari's example from earlier about being 99.9% positive a meteor will not hit him tomorrow and the other .1 percent is not enough to make him be concerned, the same can be said with history. Given 99.9% certainty of historical records put together, the .1% of unknown is not enough to make historians doubt that certain corroborated historical documents are in fact speaking the truth about what happened in the time periods they are recording. And that there, is the evidence needed to show that Daniel was written prior to the carbon dated dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It speaks of being written prior to them and is corroborated by them. How do the historians who dated Daniel to the 2nd Century BCE explain the carbon dating of the scrolls (not to mention it prophesied events 100 years later than the 2nd Century BCE as well)? They don't and they are not the only historians who have input on the subject. But they need an answer explaining why the prophecies made couldn't have happened before the actual events of history took place. Hence anachronisms and literary style or whatever else can be said to place Daniel at a later date. I for one am more inclined to believe the scientific carbon dating method is more accurate and then look at history from there.

So you're saying that you believe the carbon dating method in the case of the Dead Sea scrolls, yet the Carbon dating method invalidates a 6000 year old earth. Where are you going with this?

Oh and I'm glad you're now supporting the Carbon dating method in the case of the dead sea scrolls because all manuscripts that relate to Daniel have been dated between 125BCE-50CE. I'm really interested in how you're going to get out of this one. Your very first 'prophecy' which you think establishes the bible as infallible is already looking rather shaky, both by historical scholars and the carbon dating method.

 

[Pandaman]

And the point is that if all that energy had remained in the Earth for all this time, we'd be hot pockets a long time ago. Energy leaves the Earth also. It's not as if energy that comes in somehow disappears (even if consumed). I hope you are not saying THAT.

energy enters and leaves earth, therefore earth is a closed system. adorable.

and yes, energy does stay. life is very good at trapping it. plants spontaneously combusting to release captured energy as heat/light is more of a biblical thing, it doesn't happen in reality. so your hotpocket problem isnt a problem, keep digging these holes though, im curious to see how far you're willing to go.

 

[Sanky Panky]

What are... Fossil fuels.

Not enough decomposed organisms to account for billions of years of energy flowing from the sun to the Earth. No oil crisis would exist.

energy enters and leaves earth, therefore earth is a closed system. adorable.

and yes, energy does stay. life is very good at trapping it.

And expelling it when we die, and as we die.

 

[Pandaman]

And expelling it when we die, and as we die.

expelling it? magically?

 

[Raist]

So first earth or life or whatever perfectly obeys the 2nd law, which applies to isolated systems.

Then the earth/life is a closed system (which is different from an isolated system).

But that's ignoring that in a closed system no transfer of mass is allowed. So hum I guess meteors never crash on earth and no living organism has any sort of mass intake.

 

[Orayn]

Not enough decomposed organisms to account for billions of years of energy flowing from the sun to the Earth. No oil crisis would exist.



And expelling it when we die, and as we die.

You don't even know how energy works, you creationist dunce. A dead creature is full of chemical energy. That's kind of how one living thing is able to consume another for sustenance.

 

[danwarb]

Not enough decomposed organisms to account for billions of years of energy flowing from the sun to the Earth. No oil crisis would exist.

Most of that energy is reflected back into space, but clearly not all of it. Life can't exist in a closed system, the order and complexity of life is paid for by the sun, increased entropy overall.

 

[LiK]

Tell her you're Jesus

 

[Sanky Panky]

expelling it? magically?

Your decomposing body does not magically release energy. It's quite natural in fact

Most of that energy is reflected back into space, but clearly not all of it. Life can't exist in a closed system, the order and complexity of life is paid for by the sun, increased entropy overall.

The order of complexity in life exists within the constant level of energy (energy in minus energy out) that is on Earth.

 

[Orayn]

Your decomposing body does not magically release energy. It's quite natural in fact.

Decomposition is the process of other organisms using up the chemical energy in your tissues.

 

[Mengy]

And the point is that if all that energy had remained in the Earth for all this time, we'd be hot pockets a long time ago. Energy leaves the Earth also. It's not as if energy that comes in somehow disappears (even if consumed). I hope you are not saying THAT.

OK, wait, so on one hand you are saying that the Earth is a closed system, but above you just said that Energy leaves the Earth also. Both can't be true. Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics that you are using in your arguments?

The order of complexity in life exists within the constant level of energy (energy in minus energy out) that is on Earth.

Ah, so you feel that the Earth has a constant level of total energy, that all energy coming into the Earth is balanced by energy leaving the Earth. That's what you believe, and is the reason why everything else you are saying is wrong. Of course you also don't know what a closed system of energy actually is, either. But I think I can see why you have convinced yourself that what you are saying is true, even though it isn't.

You just don't know what you are talking about but act like you do, that's all.

 

[Aeris130]

I think he's arguing that because the energy that goes out kinda sorta balances out with the energy that goes in, you can pretend it's like the energy on earth is constant instead. Or something.

 

[Raist]

Let's just go back to the basics, shall we?

The second law of thermodynamics is only true for isolated systems.

An isolated system is more restrictive than a closed system as it does not interact with its surroundings in any way. Mass and energy remains constant within the system, and no energy or mass transfer takes place across the boundary.

So, not applicable to life/earth. Even according to you, Sanky, because you described earth/life as a CLOSED system. So I don't know why you insisted so much on the 2nd law.

Now.

In a closed system, no mass may be transferred in or out of the system boundaries. The system will always contain the same amount of matter, but heat and work can be exchanged across the boundary of the system.

Hmm. You said yourself that life is defined by growth. So how did you get past the fertilized egg stage if you're a closed system? Remember, no mass transferred in.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Decomposition is the process of other organisms using up the chemical energy in your tissues.

Exactly. No energy is created nor destroyed. It goes elsewhere.

Ah, so you feel that the Earth has a constant level of total energy, that all energy coming into the Earth is balanced by energy leaving the Earth. That's what you believe, and is the reason why everything else you are saying is wrong. Of course you also don't know what a closed system of energy actually is, either. But I think I can see why you have convinced yourself that what you are saying is true, even though it isn't.

You just don't know what you are talking about but act like you do, that's all.

What a compelling argument. I'm wrong because I'm wrong.

I think the original point is kind of lost at this point, so I'll illustrate everything I've wanted to say:

This example applies also to the problems of abiogenesis, so I'll just leave it here.

Any living system (or anything that complies with the 2nd law) is like the process of building a house of cards, where I as
the builder am an integral part of the closed system.

I consume energy from the outside, and use that energy to grab two cards with my hands and place them against
each other on the table (directed energy). My energy gets transfered to the two cards, and there is energy
between the bond of the two cards, keeping them pushed against each other. Since the table is always being
moved a bit by mistake (undirected random energy), the energy or heat between the cards, tends to dissipate.

I repeat the process applying specific energy with my hands, placing cards on top of each other, who themselves have
accumulated energy. The tendency for this accumulated energy is to release, so any little random undirected energy of the
table will nearly collapse the house of cards. Of course, when I see that the cards are about to fall (the natural
tendency), I apply energy to that particular area that was decaying.

BECAUSE energy dissipates, and because I as the builder (as part of the system) have also become inefficient, the house of
card starts to fall apart. Moreover, the table provides enough outside forces that it will help in bringing disorder
to the order created by me (a directed energy). Entropy always increases in every step.

 

[Raist]

Let's try again. Third time's the charm?

Any living system (or anything that complies with the 2nd law) is like the process of building a house of cards, where I as the builder am an integral part of the closed system.

I consume energy from the outside,

The second law of thermodynamics is only true for isolated systems.
An isolated system is more restrictive than a closed system as it does not interact with its surroundings in any way. Mass and energy remains constant within the system, and no energy or mass transfer takes place across the boundary.

Sorry, you just violated the second law :/

 

[Sanky Panky]

Let's try again. Third time's the charm?

Sorry, you just violated the second law :/

Heat (energy) flowed from a hot place (my surroundings) to a cold place (me) thus increasing entropy. Heat became more evenly distributed. This is exactly what the 2nd law says would happen.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Sanky, you seriously don't understand what you're talking about and have been misled to by the people who made you believe it. That's all there is to it.

There's no room for discussion on this point as the argument you're attempting to make holds no water.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Sanky, you seriously don't understand what you're talking about and have been misled to by the people who made you believe it. That's all there is to it.

There's no room for discussion on this point as the argument you're attempting to make holds no water.

Once again, great counter-points. I usually find that it's the other way around.

 

[Raist]

Heat (energy) flowed from a hot place (my surroundings) to a cold place (me) thus increasing entropy. Heat became more evenly distributed. This is exactly what the 2nd law says would happen.

Unless you're sitting in a room which has a temperature above 37˚C, you just violated the second law as well.
If you're going to argue that you're talking about energy and not real heat, then you had to build and store that energy up by eating food and breathing oxygen, which is a mass transfer, which makes you an open system.

Nevertheless (for the 4th time), your statement that you "take energy from the outside" is a direct contradiction to the fact that the second law only applies to isolated systems, which can't receive energy from the outside. Again, you do not know how to apply these principles correctly.

 

[Mengy]

This example applies also to the problems of abiogenesis, so I'll just leave it here.

Any living system (or anything that complies with the 2nd law) is like the process of building a house of cards, where I as
the builder am an integral part of the closed system.

I consume energy from the outside, and use that energy to grab two cards with my hands and place them against
each other on the table (directed energy). My energy gets transfered to the two cards, and there is energy
between the bond of the two cards, keeping them pushed against each other. Since the table is always being
moved a bit by mistake (undirected random energy), the energy or heat between the cards, tends to dissipate.

I repeat the process applying specific energy with my hands, placing cards on top of each other, who themselves have
accumulated energy. The tendency for this accumulated energy is to release, so any little random undirected energy of the
table will nearly collapse the house of cards. Of course, when I see that the cards are about to fall (the natural
tendency), I apply energy to that particular area that was decaying.

BECAUSE energy dissipates, and because I as the builder (as part of the system) have also become inefficient, the house of
card starts to fall apart. Moreover, the table provides enough outside forces that it will help in bringing disorder
to the order created by me (a directed energy). Entropy always increases in every step.

A house of cards on a table might be a good example of entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but it has no relevance at all in a discussion of isolated or even closed systems. And your example of you, the builder, being part of the closed system including the house of cards, well again that just proves to me that you have absolutely no idea what an actual closed system of energy really is.

A good example of an actual closed system would be a sealed hydraulic cylinder, where fluid is compressed by an internal piston.

I majored in thermodynamics for three years in college, so I have some idea of what I am talking about. Either you are trolling us, or you are just not as educated as you think you are.

 

[Gorgon]

The FACT that the energy coming in is balanced by the energy going out, tells us that there is a constant level of energy within our planet, that THEN gets distributed among living organisms. We work with the level of energy in the Earth, as if operating in a closed system.
That's why the Law actually works and in observable in everything. I can't go out to the sun and grab some more energy, if more energy is demanded by an ecosystem or system. The Earth has constant flow of energy, but operates as a closed system. That's why the 2nd law can be applied so well to engineering.

Your argument is irrelevant in this context. The energy IS available to feed the life system. Life operates in an open system, senescence is not a direct consequence of thermodynamics. Your confusing two completely different things.

edit: Thanks to the wikipedia lords, we can the apply the 1st law by saying that:

The first law of thermodynamics for a closed system states that the amount of internal energy within the system equals the difference between the amount of heat added to or extracted from the system and the work done by or to the system.

Things decay with time as energy is lost as work is done by the system. Perfectly in line with what happens in nature and living things.

There is nothing here that helps your argument.

The whole thing about me "accepting and learning what scientists say", they can't figure out themselves the why we die (because of a very basic assumption in thermodynamics), so I figured for the sake of science, it would be good to view the opposite argument that the Earth operates as if it was a closed system. Predictions on entropy can then be made and calculated (which is done by engineers all the time, to measure the efficiency of systems). Sorry but your appeal to authority won't work with me.

So again you solved a problem that we've been having all these years? I'll wait for the publication of your article in Nature.

Any living system (or anything that complies with the 2nd law) is like the process of building a house of cards, where I as
the builder am an integral part of the closed system.

I consume energy from the outside, and use that energy to grab two cards with my hands and place them against
each other on the table (directed energy). My energy gets transfered to the two cards, and there is energy
between the bond of the two cards, keeping them pushed against each other. Since the table is always being
moved a bit by mistake (undirected random energy), the energy or heat between the cards, tends to dissipate.

I repeat the process applying specific energy with my hands, placing cards on top of each other, who themselves have
accumulated energy. The tendency for this accumulated energy is to release, so any little random undirected energy of the
table will nearly collapse the house of cards. Of course, when I see that the cards are about to fall (the natural
tendency), I apply energy to that particular area that was decaying.

BECAUSE energy dissipates, and because I as the builder (as part of the system) have also become inefficient, the house of
card starts to fall apart. Moreover, the table provides enough outside forces that it will help in bringing disorder
to the order created by me (a directed energy). Entropy always increases in every step.

Your analogy fails the moment you fail to realize that the builder can get energy from outside the system (eat a sandwish!). You said so right at the begining. The builder is NOT part of a closed system in your analogy. Stop trying, your making a fool of yourself. At first you say that you use energy from outside, but at the end of the argument you suddenly can't? You as the builder only become innefficient if energy from outside stops, which it doesn't. It only stoped because in your analogy you say so. Stop ambarrasing yourself.

A house of cards on a table might be a good example of entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but it has no relevance at all in a discussion of isolated or even closed systems. And your example of you, the builder, being part of the closed system including the house of cards, well again that just proves to me that you have absolutely no idea what an actual closed system of energy really is.
A good example of an actual closed system would be a sealed hydraulic cylinder, where fluid is compressed by an internal piston.

I majored in thermodynamics for three years in college, so I have some idea of what I am talking about. Either you are trolling us, or you are just not as educated as you think you are.

I think everyone has already realized this many posts and threads ago. I don't know why I've been wasting my time with this shit. As far as I'm concerned, I have better things to do than continue in this Circus of Stupid. I'm out, I need to work in real science tomorrow.

 

[Orayn]

A house of cards on a table might be a good example of entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but it has no relevance at all in a discussion of isolated or even closed systems. And your example of you, the builder, being part of the closed system including the house of cards, well again that just proves to me that you have absolutely no idea what an actual closed system of energy really is.

A good example of an actual closed system would be a sealed hydraulic cylinder, where fluid is compressed by an internal piston.

I majored in thermodynamics for three years in college, so I have some idea of what I am talking about. Either you are trolling us, or you are just not as educated as you think you are.

Clearly you're aligning yourself with people who pre-suppose that thermodynamics doesn't preclude the possibility of evolution, abiogenesis, and Earth being more than 6,000 years old. You're just a religious zealot and Sanky has exposed your lies!

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Once again, great counter-points. I usually find that it's the other way around.

This is normally a flippant response, but in this case you aren't worth the time.

Do yourself a favor and google something like "creation 2nd law of thermodynamics" and read one of the many responses to the point you're trying to make. If you aren't willing to read the actual explanation of the second law in a way that isn't purposefully biased towards "disproving" evolution then you're doing yourself a disservice.

 

[Lothar]

Non literalists happily get around the age debate by claiming the 7 days of creation could each span any length of time, and claim the Bible with that interpretation is therefore not in dispute with science.

These people have never opened up page 1 of the bible. The first day begins with the creation of Earth not just the creation of the universe. This view is actually in more dispute with science than the literal 7 day view.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

At this point Sanky I think you realise you're mistaken, it's okay to be wrong dude, we all are from time to time.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Unless you're sitting in a room which has a temperature above 37˚C, you just violated the second law as well.

Or you can also assume I'm a leaf taking in energy from the sun. Pick whatever option floats your boat. It's an illustration.

Nevertheless (for the 4th time), your statement that you "take energy from the outside" directly is a direct contradiction to the fact that the second law only applies to isolated systems, which can't receive energy from the outside. Again, you do not know how to apply these principles correctly.

The fact is the 2nd law applies to everything that happens mechanically in nature. Entropy always increases in the system as a whole. The mathematical formula to calculate efficiency of a system can only be properly used in the context of a closed system, so engineers assume a closed system when solving problems. The 2nd law applies to everything.

A house of cards on a table might be a good example of entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but it has no relevance at all in a discussion of isolated or even closed systems. And your example of you, the builder, being part of the closed system including the house of cards, well again that just proves to me that you have absolutely no idea what an actual closed system of energy really is.

A closed system of energy is in this case (and in the natural world) is where you begin with a constant level of energy, and that energy is constantly being equally distributed within the system. The Earth is a thermodynamically closed system, or else we would be fried by now. By energy being constantly equally distributed within the system, the law of thermodynamics and entropy will always apply (and DO apply on everything we see around us). Everything happens in nature because of heat flows. The rules of thermodynamics dictate how heat flows.

 

[Raist]

At this point Sanky I think you realise you're mistaken, it's okay to be wrong dude, we all are from time to time.

Accepting he's wrong would be transferring energy from the outside. But that would violate the 2nd law so it's obviously impossible.

Or you can also assume I'm a leaf taking in energy from the sun. Pick whatever option floats your boat. It's an illustration.

Why didn't you quote the sentence right after that one? Oh, right, because it wouldn't work either. I mean pick a leaf from a tree, constantly expose it to sunlight, it's not going to live for very long. Could that be... because it has to work as an open system?

 

[Orayn]

So he's gong to argue with the guy who actually majored in thermodynamics?

popcorn.gif

 

[railGUN]

I thought believing the earth is only 6000 years old was pretty silly, but trying to follow all you scientists and shit is hard and fuck it, I'll go with the 6000 year old theory.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

A closed system of energy is in this case (and in the natural world) is where you begin with a constant level of energy, and that energy is constantly being equally distributed within the system

That's not what a closed system is. A closed system is one where energy is transferred to and from external sources but no matter passes through the boundary.

That's not even from college, that's just looking at the wiki for a closed system.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

My head hurts.