Many short-age creationists claim this somehow prevents the whole concept of evolution. For example, in the John317's Questions thread...




The 2nd Law actually says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value

No-one claims the earth is an isolated system

No-one claims that the solar system is an isolated system, although it is in some sense much more isolated from outside influence than the earth

Hence the Second Law does NOT apply

Whenever I see a short-age creationist applying this law, I know that they do not meet my standards for credibility in this area

This, in fact, was THE ISSUE that made me realize at age 19 at a NZ creation-science seminar circa 1976 that the creation science organisation behind the seminar was not a credible source of information. It was the beginning of my disillusionment with the entire creation science movement.

/Bevin

This quote was found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organisation#Self-organization_vs._entropy


The earth has a long way to go to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium with our sun.

~d.allan

Here is AiG's take The Second Law of Thermodynamics





GRI also has a number of articles. Geoscience Research Institute - Thermodynamics

The essential point is there is no evidence that the energy of the universe is flowing uphill. Therefore, unless order is increasing rather than decreasing in the universe, and without some imposed work input, the energy of the universe can only be said to be running downhill.

The discussion about the Second Law has to do with the entire universe and not simply with our solar system.

Please see quote below taken from an evolutionist science text book on the subject.




Here is what the science text book, Physical Science Today, page 348, says about the relationship between the Second Law and the universe:

"...a quantity called 'entropy' (which represents evened out energy that can't be made use of) steadily increases with time, tending always toward a maximum.

What this means is that the Universe, and every part of it, is running down...The sun's radiation depends on the continuing consumption of its hydrogen. That hydrogen supply will someday run out. The sun will expand to a red giant and then collapse to a small and extremely 'white dwarf.'"





It seems clear to me that apart from God's sustaining power, the universe and our solar system would cease to exist, just as Col. 1: 17 and Hebrew 1:3 says.

The following is from a text book on science used in the public school system and not written by ceationists but by evolutionists. It shows what effect the second law of thermodynamics would have on the universe and our world if God did not intervene and sustain it:



"...There is another law about energy, which is called the second law of thermodynamics. That just means the 'second law of heat energy.' It says that heat energy is the lowest grade of energy and can therefore never be completely converted into mechanical energy. Whenever energy is changed in form, some energy always ends up as heat. And the total effect is invariably a lowering of the average grade of the energy involved.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The negentropy of the universe is always decreasing. Energy runs downhill from higher to lower grades.

When the universe was created, all its energy was in a high-grade form. All matter was spread out so that it had the highest amount of gravitational potential energy. It was in the form of hydrogen atoms, which have the highest form of nuclear potential energy. And the universe has been running down ever since.

The hydrogen atoms got pulled together to make the stars and their energy went into the heat of the stars-- including our sun. At its extremely high temperature our sun radiates energy of medium-high grade. It comes to the earth and, through photosynthesis, changes its form into chemical energy. We eat the food that is eventually formed and use the energy for living. But in the process, we change the energy to heat that we give to the atmosphere. The atmosphere radiates its energy as low-grade heat energy into the cold reaches of distant space. What we call life is a brief game played with energy-- a temporary holding action in the course of its natural journey down to the lowest form.

[b]Ultimately all of the energy of the universe will have run downhill to its lowest form-- heat energy at some low temperature. All activity, including life, will have stopped-- except in the gentle motion of the vibrating atoms at the cold temperatures of dark space.[/b]" (Physical Science Today, pp. 146, 147)

I have watched the discussion continue on this thread and several others, and have participated in some of it. I am very impressed at the time and effort that has gone into many of the posts. But I have come to the conclusion that minds have already been made up. Three years ago, or so, a couple of scientists were active on similar threads on C/A. I recall that Dwight Hornbacher, for example, had some very authoritative information about subjects like this, and other topics. I, too, participated on those threads. Shane, John317, I would spare you time and effort here and now. From what I am reading on these threads now, minds seem to have already been made up. There may be other opportunites, with other audiences, where much can be accomplished. I would encourage you to devote your time and prodigious talents to those venues.

Dave

John317, the fallacy there is between global and local phenomena. A star is arguably more complex than a cloud of hydrogen atoms, but as the hydrogen came together to form stars the overall entropy of the universe continued increasing. It is true that the overall entropy of the universe continues to increase... but that does not in any way prohibit small local decreases in entropy, as long as the sum over the entire universe keeps increasing. Our sun *will* run down and run out of energy... in about 10 billion years.

This is the key sentence - except, as Christian's, we believe that God will prevent that natural course - at least for us.

/Bevin

Are you defining the universe as a closed system? Or, units within the universe as closed systems, but somehow interrelated?

All this is interesting. Someone said the energy of the universe is running down. Science says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So instead of energy being lost it is just being redistributed more evenly. That is entropy? If the universe is not a closed system could it be recieving energy from outside? What is the final state of energy in equilibrium? Light? in all its various forms? Can light be destroyed? Does it travel on forever? creating new space in which to exist? Does light have gravity? I am just full of ignorance! on these matters.

It appears that the universe has been organizing itself into galaxies, and solar systems. Eventually black holes may be its preferred mode of existence. Then if these black holes begin to merge into one 'singularity' --- . Would that sequence of events be properly called entropy? Or the apex of organization?

~d.allan

Interesting questions, D. (Don?) Indeed, the first law says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Instead, if left to itself, it naturally goes to its lowest state (2nd law). And now, the universe is not a closed system. I can't imagine they are seriously suggesting that. The 'universe' consists predominatly of empty space. Outside of the gravitational and other forces exerted by celestial bodies, there are no exchanges of energy between, for example, galaxies which are not in proximity. Light cannot be destroyed. Energy in equilibrium? Interesting. The electromagnetic spectrum goes from long-wave, infrared, heat on the one end, to X-ray, etc., on the other end. Heated elements cool with time. Visible light is an energy emission which we can see. Yes, light remains light. It cannot be destroyed, as far as I know. Light is not corpuscular, according to the current understanding, I believe, nor does it possess gravity. It is, however, affected by gravity. Indeed, it would seem to keep on going, but its direction can be bent. How far? What about Einstein's boudaries of the universe? Or, the new theory which Bravus commented on, that the universe is expanding? HOw many more billions of light years? Good questions, indeed.

As for black holes . . . well no, I wouldnt think that black holes are a preferred mode of existence. A star going through the stages of stellar evolution will end up as either a dwarf or a black hole. The determining factor is whether or not its size is greater than the Chandrasekhar limit. As a black hole, it would continue to become more and more compressed and dense--but matter sucked into a black hole can be spewed out the other side!
Well, enough for now.

Carry on, old chap.

Cheers.

Oh, I should add that such is, indeed, what some cosmologists foresee as the final state of the universe. That is, dead. All stars will ultimately evolve into either white or brown dwarfs (and that would be most stars) while very large stars will end up as black holes and eventually collapse upon themselves. The nuclear fusion energy which powers stars while eventually be completely expended and the star will end up as a very dense dwarf, with a mass of a couple of tons per spoonful of its matter.

That, my friend, is the cosmologists' view of the final end. A cold, dead universe. But that, they predict, is billions and billions of years down the road.

Dave

To be honest, no-one knows whether the universe is an open or closed system

Calculating the entropy of a complex system is a non-trivial exercise - and it is the result of this calculation which (AT A MACROSCOPIC LEVEL) shows the randomness distributing itself through the system.

Also, note that the 2nd Law is just like the Law of Gravity. It applies to lots of situations, we don't know any where it doesn't apply, but it is an experimental result that can be changed if it doesn't match reality.

/Bevin

The universe, according the General Relativity, is not infinite. (God is infinite, which is why I sometimes say God 'contains' the universe... and possibly any number of other universes too.) Space-time only exists where there is matter-energy, so under the Big Bang model the universe started tiny and is still expanding. There are a number of models that predict that the universe will (a) keep on expanding, (b) reach some sort of steady state or (c) begin contracting again and end up in a 'Big Crunch'.

Light energy is quite a 'high' form of energy. Its energy can't be destroyed, but the light, for example, can be absorbed by chlorophyl in a plant during photosynthesis, turning the light energy into chemical energy as glucose. That glucose can become kinetic energy in the muscles of the person who eats the plant, and be converted into the kinetic energy of a bicycle, for example. When the person puts on the brakes, the kinetic energy is converted into heat energy as the brake pads rub on the rims. Heat energy is the 'lowest' form of energy, and all energy tends toward it. Heat energy itself can be used to do work, of course, but in the process it produces even more heat energy.

The laws of thermodynamics state that none of the energy transformations in the sequence above can be 100% efficient. That is, some energy is always lost at each step. (In this case, 'lost' means lost as waste heat energy: no energy is destroyed, it just can't all be used for useful work.) If 100% efficient energy transformations were possible we could build perpetual motion machines.

But although the *net* entropy is always increasing, there can certainly be local decreases in entropy - that is, increases in order. What is the building of a skyscraper or a computer if not an increase in local order. More energy is wasted in building such a thing than is 'stored' in the final product, so net entropy increases, but complex products are certainly *not* prohibited by the Second Law.

Certainly, according to some models. Or, there may be other forms of matter/anti-matter. Or, the boundaries of the universe may be independent of matter or energy. As for the existence of space-time independent of energy-matter, and the nature of the boundaries of the universe, those are, indeed, interesting questions for the cosmologists!



Within a global system. I submit that the universe is not a global system for purposes of thermodynamics. I believe the evidence will support that position. That would be an interesting thread on its own. Hmmm. Is the universe a global system or a closed system for purposes of thermodynamics? Question two (related to one): can evidence be shown for interdependence of units within the universe which are otherwise distant from each other to an extent outside the magnetic and gravitional field lines?

Maybe it would be good to start that thread.

The "D." stands for David, David. A very good name, as you know!

Thanks for your answers. I must do more scientfic reading. I have read that Gary Zukov has written a good book called The Dancing Li Lu Master. You couldn't tell it was about physics from the title!

The reason i suggested black hole may some time predominate is because we have a massive (if the word applies) one at the center of our milky-way. I assume eventually the entire galaxy will end up sucked into it, including the brown dwarfs.

Cheers

Interesting the end of the universe for evolutionists is darkness and death. And for creationists it is light and life.

OK... back to the regularly scheduled programming.

A new idea to me. You explained it so well that it looks like it should be a commonplace idea: heat, the lowest form of energy.

D.(avid)Allan

Oh, I didn't comment earlier. I don't know that I would agree about heat being the LOWEST form of energy, but it certainly is way towards the low end (long-wave) of the electromagnetic spectrum. Would have to review that. Been a few years.

Not necessarily.

The end of the universe for atheist evolutionists could be a black hole that explodes - producing another Big Bang and another universe. For theists - both evolutionists and recent-creationists, it could be that God slowly sweeps around the universe, resetting it one galaxy at a time. Or maybe God is going to try a different set of physical laws next time, and create another universe that we can move to.

The laws of thermodynamics, like Newton's Laws of Motion, are approximations that work pretty well at the human scale, but which don't work at either the subatomic or the enormous scale.

Consider, for example, 10 atoms bouncing around in an otherwise empty box. There motion is effectively random, and so there is about 1 chance in 1024 that all 10 of them will be in the same end of the box at the same time - and yet, if you looked at it, you would swear that was a more ordered state than some other possible configurations.

One of the weird results in physics is that, at the tiny level, every interaction we know can go either way - there is no sense of 'forward' in time at this level - and hence the Second Law can't apply because we can't decide which direction is 'the future'.

The 'increasing randomness' idea is a probabilistic argument - which is another reason why it can't be used as rule out the initial formation of self-replicating molecules, nor the mutate/select/replicate mechanism that could cause these to become more complex.

Bravus uses the creation of a computer.

My personal preference for an example is "Sorry Mom, the Second Law of Thermodynamics means I can't clean my room, because that would be an increase in its information content".

/Bevin

Yes, I agree.

The additional point I would make here is that the Second Law shows that the universe is not eternal. A lot of atheists, particularly the Marxists, teach that the universe is eternal, which is how they avoid the question of how the universe began. They simply say God is not necessary because the universe never had a beginning and that it will never end.

The idea that there could be another Big Bang and another universe is a theory, but it does not seem to me that it is anything I can be certain of. It just seems to me that it requires a great deal of faith, in fact more faith, to believe in this theory, than it does to believe in God and in the Bible. After all, nobody has ever seen a Big Bang producing a highly organized and complex universe that includes eyes and brains, etc., and there is no proof that it ever did so. Nothing like it has ever been produced in a laboratory or been scientifically verified.

I find it more reasonable to believe in the Bible's explantion of things. I trust the Bible and its views of God and the universe because the Bible has been proven to be trustworthy in many other ways, such as in archeology, prophecy, history, and human experience. For instance, the Bible's analysis of sin and of how God provides power to overcome sin is all in accordance with my own personal experience. Finally, I'm also persuaded of the truth of what the Bible says about Jesus Christ. It would be just incredible to me that its prophecies of Jesus' first advent could have been made up or that the whole history of the rise of Christianity could be a fiction. Therefore, I am faced with a decision whether to believe the Bible or a theory that leads either to the death of this world or perhaps to another Big Bang. In the final analysis, I simply find the Bible's view of God and of the universe more reasonable and, taken all in all, more in line with the weight of evidence.

The fact that some energy is always lost at each step would seem to me to mean that the universe cannot be eternal. That is, there could not be an endless series of Big Bangs followed by another universe because at some point there would not be sufficient energy to bring about a Big Bang.



Could you give an example of a natural increase of order in the universe or in our solar system, that is, apart from what people do in construction?

I think the examples of man's creations are not very good ones because they seem to me to only demonstrate that there must be a Mind, or some sort of planner or sustainer, in order for there to be an increase in order in the universe.

True. Our galaxy is typical in that way, among others. Black holes power galaxies, in a sense. There are also countervailing forces. One scenario is that ultimately, the black hole will overpower those other forces. At the same time, black holes have life cycles. They represent stars which have become so dense that gravity overpowers all other forces, including the emission of light. But they are not static. The process is ongoing. There is no magical moment. They simply continue imploding, and have their ultimate end.

One of the less credible notions which some have speculated. First of all . . . a black hole is simply a star of sufficient mass (greater than 1.44 times the mass of the sun) to avoid the fate of a white dwarf. There would not be a single Black Hole which would swallow up the universe. That is quite simply incredible. The gravitational field of a black hole is finite, and is not such that it would suck in distant galaxies.

Secondly, once matter passes the horizon of a black hole, it loses any form and, if I recall correctly, molecules are stripped of atoms, etc. (We are delving into the realm of quantum mechanics here, inside a Black Hole, in which Einstein's theories do not hold true.) What the black hole spits out the other end, is quite literally rubbish. No Big Bang here!



An interesting statement, and one which requires further explanation and qualification. "Enormous" scale? Hmmmm.



Actually, statistical entropy is a powerful argument against self-organization of matter.



Your example deals with guided processes, so is not on point.

That may be, but what I am concerned with here is the fact that this view of the universe-- that it will run down and run out of energy and come to a screeching halt in about 10 billions years, only to result in perhaps another Big Bang-- is obviously contradicted in some extremely significant ways by the Bible's picture of the future. What we are ultimately left with is that apart from God's intervention, our world and everyone in it is doomed to an eternal death. The contradictions and differences could scarcely be more stark.

It is interesting to note, in view of the modern theory of the repetition of Big Bangs and the creation of multiple universes, that the German philosopher Nietzsche taught something that he called "eternal recurrence" in Beyond Good and Evil, chapter 56, and also in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part 4, Chs. 8-11. "All joy wants the eternity of all things," and "God is a vicious cycle," etc. He envisioned that everything, down to the minutest detail, would be eternally repeated. It seems to me that in some sense Nietzsche anticipated the concept of eternally repeating universes.

What evidence is there for either an open or a closed system? Why would one come to the conclusion that it must be open? It seems to me that unless we have good reason to believe it is open, the most reasonable conclusion would be that it is more likely to be closed. For me the only hope of its being an open universe is God's existence.

au contraire - seems identical to me. Apart from God's intervention, our world and everyone in it *is* doomed to an eternal death.

Cloud formation out of water vapor, crystals, the growth of a tree, a bee hive, Wave formation, oil droplets, Cell reproduction, the growth of you

/Bevin

Or, for that matter, a 'system' of any kind for purposes of thermodynamics? We are not here speaking of the solar 'system,' or any planetary system, or of a galaxy, or even of a galactic cluster, but of the universe.

On the one hand, organic evolution, apart from God's intervention in the natural processes, leads to our world's ultimate destruction and everyone's death, without hope of anything but nothingness. On the other, the Bible teaches that millions of people because of their faith will live eternally with God on a new earth that will last forever, and it gives us directions that tell us in clear terms how we can be among them. Those are two very different and contradictory views.

Yes, but God would still have to intervene in the natural processes to create an eternal home for us, because under natural processes those laws about energy continue to apply. Suns *will* run down under either view, unless God does something about it.

I guess I'm finding this whole discussion ironic: creationists introduced the 2nd Law because they claimed it disallowed evolution... but we've somehow wandered off into how dismal and depressing the 2nd Law is... seems like trying to have the cake and eat it too. And all, it seems to me, based on some fairly fundamental misunderstandings of thermodynamics. Among other things, we can't just abstract Newton's Second Law of motion from the First and Third laws... they're inextricably linked as a way of describing motion (and the need to divide them into three laws is a human convenience, not a feature of the universe). The same applies to the laws of thermodynamics... what's needed is an understanding of energy and how it moves and changes, not the isolated discussion of one law.

And, while I'm talking myself into trouble... Darkness and decay in tens of billions of years is of very little worry to us or our decendants. If we believe in evolution, there'll likely be nothing recognisable as human in even a million years, let alone a billion or ten billion. If we believe in God's intervention, then there's not a problem. The heat death of the universe is the least of our worries... unless we decide that humans will continue in their present form forever, regardless of changes to the environment.

I'm sorry I didn't make my meaning clearer. I was asking what examples can be given to show that there is a net increase in order in the universe, or a net decrease in entropy. That is, what examples are there that show the universe is not running down?

You give my growth as an example of the natural increase of order in the universe. However, while it is true that people can cause an increase in order, such as growth or in the construction of buildings, yet those sorts of increases do not result in the net increase in order. In other words, they result in a net decrease in order when we consider the larger picture. That is why the building of things and the growth of human beings, and all the other processes you mentioned here, will not keep our solar system, and the universe itself, from finally running completely downhill to the point at which it will become a "white dwarf."

"Living organisms are an exception to the tendency toward disorganization. In living oranisms, entropy decreases. But the order in life forms is maintained by increasing entropy elsewhere: life forms plus their waste products have a net increase in entropy. Energy must be transformed into the living system to support life. When it isn't, the organism soon dies and tends toward disorder." (Conceptual Physics, Hewitt, Paul G., p. 265.)

The bottom line is that none of those examples you give shows a net increase in order, or the addition of work input so that the universe can be said not to be running downhill. My growth or the formation of clouds or waves or even cell reproduction are not decreasing the entropy in the universe, nor are they signs that the universe is running uphill.

Correct.

The Second Law was introduced in order to show that the universe is not eternal and that it had a beginning, which is what some evolutionists deny. It also shows what will happen unless God exists and sustains the universe as the Bible says He does. You're right that it is dismal and depressing, but that dismal and depressing end is all that you can ever get with the theory of atheistic evolutionists. That was the point I made in bringing up the Second Law.




I may be mistaken but it seems you are saying it is a matter of indifference as to what we believe about these matters. If that's what is being said, I don't agree. If I believed that this is how all human history will finally end, it would make a big difference in my total view of things. As you point out, if God does not intervene in the universe's processes, there is a huge problem because it means only endless darkness and decay. The Bible, of course, completely contradicts that view since the theory of organic evolution does not allow for the Biblical picture of God's sudden breaking into human history either with a universal flood or with a resurrection or the Second Coming and the establishment of the Kingdom of God. If it does, I'd like to hear a clear exposition of that relationship.

I don't know of very many atheists who say the universe didn't have a beginning: almost all of them believe in the Big Bang. That leaves the causes of the Big Bang still to be discussed, but that theory is the one they accept, and it does explain all of our observations. Of course, so does a miraculous creation.

So you're not at all using the Second Law to argue against the possibility of evolution? If that's the case, I've been confused, because David K and Shane clearly are using it for that purpose. If you're not using it for that purpose, then we're basically agreed in outline... that, absent divine intervention, the universe will (most likely) eventually undergo 'heat death' with all energy reduced to heat energy.



Not at all am I saying it's a matter of indifference which of these we believe - which we belive is crucial. What I'm saying is there is no real distinction in terms of what happens in a few billion years: without divine intervention, the universe undergoes heat death. With divine intervention... literally anything can happen. I believe in divine intervention...

I did make the associated point that none of us will be around to be effected in a few billion years... absent divine intervention.

Correct - I was giving examples of local increases in order at the expense of a global total decrease.

As Bravus points out - the 2nd Law seems to be accepted by christian recent-creationists, christian evolutionists, and atheists - and it says to all that the universe will wind down unless something out of the ordinary happens.

However the Second Law does not argue against evolution, for the simple reason that all the basic processes needed by evolution happen in the world around us today - small molecules can combine into bigger ones and self-replicating/mutating systems exist. If the Second Law prohibited such things, they could not happen in the world around us today.

Summary: Short-age creationists should remove Second Law arguments from their quiver of anti-evolution arguments.

/Bevin

Well, not really. Your examples are all of either guided process, chemical reactions or of existing organisms which grow. Those mechanisms would not violate the 2nd Law. Nor would they be helpful to cite as examples in support of organic evolution. To do so would be attempting to use the thing to prove itself, IOW circular reasoning. I am reminded that at one time, Bevin, you used the example of water turning to ice under temperature conditions, as a sort of proof that organic evolution could take place. But autocatalysts don't fill the bill.