Errors in Science!

You are mistaken. There is no reason to make such an assumption. In fact, I suspect that many of the monumental scientific discoveries were made as the result of belief in intelligent cause. All you need do is look at the web site I posted earlier.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-103.htm

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that order cannot spontaneously arise out of disorder which is required for evolution to occur. Transition from a state of disorder to a state of order requires a decrease in entropy, again a violation of the Second Law. I will repeat some statements on the Second Law by noted scientists for your edification.

Rudolph Clausius, who developed the concept of Entropy, used the universe as his model when he drew the conclusions "the energy of the Universe is a constant, the Entropy of the Universe tends toward a maximum" [A Brief History of Eternity by Roy E. Peacock]. Thermodynamist Peacock notes [page 69]: "It is this pronouncement "the Entropy of the Universe tends to a maximum', that is of vital importance. In making it Clausius did not refer to individual processes taking place in the universe, neither did he consider different theories of its creation, evolution, and direction. He didn't need to. All that was necessary for his statement to hold true was that all processes should be irreversible.

Peacock also quotes [page 75] Sir Arthur Eddington, Professor of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge: "The law that entropy always increases - The second Law of Thermodynamics - holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observations - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope: there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

Harvard scientist John Ross, in a letter to Chemical and Engineering News [July 7, 1980], writes: "There are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second Law is stated for isolated systems, but the second Law applies equally well to open systems. . . There is somehow associated with the field of far from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of Thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."

Thermodymanicist Arnold Sommerfeld author of Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics [Academic Press, 1955] writes [page 155]: "The statement in integral form, namely that entropy in an isolated system cannot decrease, can be replaced by its corollary in differential form, which asserts that the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of whether the process under consideration is irreversible or not."

As to evolution:

There are at least three aspects or ways to express the Second Law:

1. As a measure of the increased unavailability of the energy of a system for useful work. [Classical Thermodynamics].
2. As a measure of the increased disorder, randomness, or probability of the arrangement of the components of the system. [Statistical Thermodynamics]
3. As a measure of the increasingly confused information in the transmission of the coded message through a system. [Informational thermodynamics]

 

Better stick with what you know rather than arguing with someone elses arguments.

The 2nd law says nothing of the sort, as has been posted repeatedly!

THERMO = HEAT

DYNAMICS = CHANGE

It's most commonly stated as: "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."

I'm not an "evolutionist" however those that would argue the matter (and even those of us that understand just a bit about it), would say that energy does enter our worlds eco-system.

Rob </font>[/QUOTE]Just who made you an expert on the 2nd Law?

You obviously did not read or did not understand what I posted, which was it?

Please note: Rudolph Clausius, who developed the concept of Entropy, used the universe as his model when he drew the conclusions "the energy of the Universe is a constant, the Entropy of the Universe tends toward a maximum" [A Brief History of Eternity by Roy E. Peacock].

 

I gave the source for some of my quotes could you give the source for the above or did you make it up?

 

The following is off topic but since the discussion of the Second Law and Entropy was introduced it is worthwhile to add a little light to the subject. In an earlier post I presented three ways that the Second Law could be expressed. The following paragraphs show the equivalence if these three statements.

In so-called Classical Thermodynamics, the Second Law , like the First, is formulated in terms of energy:

“It is in the transformation process that Nature appears to exact a penalty and this is here the second principle makes its appearance. For every naturally occurring transformation of energy is accompanied, somewhere, by a loss in the availability of energy for the future performance of work.” R. B. Lindsay. Entropy Consumption and Values in Physical Science, American Scientist, vol.47 [September 1959]. page 378; as quoted in The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 131, Volume 2.

A second way of stating the Entropy Law is in terms of Statistical Thermodynamics.

“All real processes go with an increase of entropy. The entropy also measures the randomness, or lack of orderliness of the system; the greater the randomness, the greater the entropy.” Harold Blum, Perspectives in Evolution, American Scientist [October 1955] page 595; as quoted in The Modern Creation Trilogy, pages 132, 133, Volume 2.

The equivalence of Entropy in the classical and statistical context is implied in the following:

“Each quantity of energy has a characteristic quality called entropy associated with it. The entropy measures the degree of disorder associated with the energy. Energy must always flow in such a direction that the entropy increases.” Freeman L. Dyson, Energy in the Universe, Scientific American, vol 224 [September 1971], page 52; as quoted in The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 134, Volume 2.

Similarly, the equivalence of these concepts with the information concept is recognized:

“It is certain that the conceptual connection between information and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is now firmly established.” Myron Tribus and Edward C. McIrvine. Energy and Information, Scientific American, vol 224 [September 1971], page 52; as quoted in The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 134, Volume 2.


Isaac Asimov confirms that all these different ways of looking at the Second Law are really equivalent to each other:

“That is one way [that is, decreasing availability of energy] of stating what is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is one of many ways; all of them are equivalent although some very sophisticated mathematics and physics are involved in showing the equivalence.” Asimov, In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics, page 8; as quoted in The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 135, Volume 2.

 

Is that a commentary on your inability to understand the Second Law?

 

Not for that definition. But you can prove I am wrong, or can you?