Re: I had an interesting argument this week...
- From: Friar Broccoli <eliasrk@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 20, 12:21 am, Me <haroldf...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This guy tried the old Second Law of Thermodynamics violates evolution
gambit. Now I am not a math major. I could explain why but when he
started using numbers. It was beyond my pay level. Here is his post.
In the Combined Law of Thermodynamics for a spontaneous process:
dG is less than or equal to 0
dG = 0 defines equilibrium
Where dG = dU + pdV - TdS
[please note there is no distinction between open and closed systems;
they are treated as the same]
(U =internal energy)
(p = pressure, V = volume)
(T = temperature, S = entropy)
At constant temperature and pressure; dG = dH -TdS
(H = enthalpy = dU + pdV)
(T = temperature, S = entropy)
When dS is positive and dH is negative (exothermic process), a process
is spontaneous [think explosion]
When dS is negative and dH is positive (endothermic process), a
process is NOT spontaneous AT ANY temperature, but the reverse process
is spontaneous [think decay].
Therefore, if the change in entropy is negative (as the evolutionists
must believe something comes from nothing) and the change in enthalpy
is positive (energy must be supplied for the process) the process is
NOT spontaneous at any temperature, but the reverse process of moving
to a less ordered and lower thermodynamic potential state is
The way to overcome the limitations imposed by the Combined Laws of
Thermodynamics on spontaneous processes is the application of
information as the source of the negative change in entropy. This can
done through design, instruction, interpretation, or all three.
Like you, I wouldn't be able to understand the above math even if it
did make sense, but here that's not a problem because the conclusion
is self-evidently nonsense.
Note that your correspondent is talking about a process that
"is NOT spontaneous at any temperature",
then after a bit of hand waving concludes that the only way you can
have non-spontaneous processes is "through design, instruction,
interpretation, or all three"
The most obvious problem with this argument is that reactions which
are spontaneous at one temperature are non-spontaneous at another and
vice versa. Water, for example, spontaneously produces ice below 0C
and when this happens the entropy of the ice decreases only to
increase again when the temperature rises.
The same sort of thing happens when rock in the earth's crust melts.
The heaviest elements tend to sink in the magma, while the lighter
ones float or gas off. Crystals also frequently form as part of this
process. All of these changes are normally associated with decreased
thermodynamic entropy. So the implication that non-spontaneous
processes are somehow forbidden by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is
completely batty. Temperature change drives all sorts of non-
spontaneous processes by temporarily making them spontaneous, and in
so doing creates local areas of decreased entropy/increased
So his final sentence should read:
Negative change in entropy can be achieved through design,
instruction, interpretation, or temperature change, or all four.
Actually, I suspect the middle two are wrong but since they are
irrelevant to the argument I see no reason for picking on them.
So, since, thermodynamic order/decreased entropy can arise as a result
of adding energy, there is no reason in principle why life as an
ordered process could not have arisen this way too.
- Prev by Date: Re: John Wilkins
- Next by Date: Re: PotM: Re: Howlerfest attendance: Who would...
- Previous by thread: Re: I had an interesting argument this week...
- Next by thread: Re: I had an interesting argument this week...