Holy shit, a blender to the enterprise, that's a new one!
8/29/2005 7:13:44 PM
Reread the 2nd Law in a thermodynamics textbook and note that it applies only to CLOSED SYSTEMS, which the Earth is not.
8/29/2005 10:03:02 PM
This guy would have a better time banning the third law of inertia.
And I thought the world WAS chaotic, even with man's attempts to drag it into order.
I suppose I should get myself some facts from the Bible Answer Man so I could know the Truth!
8/30/2005 3:30:07 AM
He can't reread the 2nd law; he's assuredly never read it in the first place.
Also, why wasn't more of this post quoted? I mean, seriously, \"
Many noted scientists who have rejected the theory of evolution of purely scientific grounds. They include, but are not limited to Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, Johann Kepler, and Sir William Ramsey etc.\"?
Great. Kepler died in 1630, over 200 years before OOS was even published. According to the writing of Kelvin, he believed in evolution with divine guidance. Pasteur accepted evolution, according to his writings. I couldn't find anything Faraday said on the subject, either for or against evolution. Nor could I find (in a brief search) anything Lister said about evolution. Quite a bit of misinformation can be found in that post.
8/30/2005 4:21:37 PM
1. Energy is almost certainly expended to create life, so the 2nd law is not violated [dumbass]
2. Evolution is really like a random combination of words and ideas being slowly refined into an award-winning novel. An explosion in a print shop producing a dictionary is much more like the biblical tale of Genesis, in which god says that stuff should suddenly appear, perfectly formed and finalized.
11/28/2007 4:07:58 PM
Get a dictionary. See Sun, the
11/28/2007 5:19:02 PM
Get 'em all into a room and ask just one of them to explain how God's existence *doesn't* violate the way they believe the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics works. I guarantee you that before that one guy can choke out an answer, every single person in the room except you will have tried to deflect the question or change the subject, though you never asked them to speak.
11/28/2007 5:52:29 PM
*laughs* don't bring thermodynamics into this until you actual understand it. If thermodynamics worked that way we would be a sea of particles. Furthermore creationism is in violation of thermodynamics its self (energy and matter can not be created or destroyed).
11/28/2007 6:43:11 PM
But come to think of it, that'd kick ass.
11/28/2007 7:33:29 PM
I have yet to hear an ORIGINAL argument from a creationist (or any other kind of fundie, mind you)...
11/29/2007 5:47:40 PM
The second law only applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS!
A little learning is a dangerous thing
drink deep or taste not the Pieran springs
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain
and drinking largely sobers us again
Next time you think you can disprove a scientific theory using another scientific theory, try doing a little more research into both theories.
11/29/2007 5:54:54 PM
Big Chicken Dinner
The 2nd law of thermosdynomics clearly states that things do not simply move from a state of disorder to a more eloquant orderly state UNLESS there is evidence of a designer. Just like if a room was messy and you came back and found everything in a nice, neat condition, you would logically assume that a designer had put everything in order again.
It is like this that we see the true hand of the Lord. We know that it is a natural LAW, not a mere speculative theory (/clears throat and rolls eyes at evolution), that all order must have a designer.
The universe come from someplace, right? Therefore, there is a designer. Sorry Darwinist, we creationist have science on our side. There ain't enough "closed systems" to get around the LAW of thermosdynamics.
Try reading a book or something (preferably the Bible, which is the real choice of top scientists).
11/30/2007 3:03:35 PM
The fact that babies can form in the womb is proof that biology and thermodynamics are not correlated fields.
11/30/2007 3:34:20 PM
Lemme make this clearer.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics specifically qualifies itself only to apply to closed systems. That limitation is part of the law.
Your argument is effectively that your excised portion of the law should somehow stand by itself, and you've made it worse by suggesting that your incomplete section should contradict the remainder of the law. If I applied that logic to "Thou shalt not kill", I could just take "Thou shalt...kill" and say my version specifically contradicts the "not", and then I could claim my version is immutable and go on a God-approved killing spree.
11/30/2007 3:34:58 PM
"Guess what I heard in a Kent Hovind video! And I don't even need to understand it to repeat it!"
You fail at Physics. Sorry. Please try again later.
11/30/2007 5:38:28 PM
I need a blender like that.
Nope, evolution is a billion-year process of DNA replicating and occasionally, intelligently redesigning itself. Occasionally, there are some stupid mistakes, but never mind those, they don't survive to replicate.
I offer the concept of Intelligent DNA, as a compromise between the Evos and the IDiots.
11/30/2007 7:09:20 PM
Earth = drop
Universe = GIANT FUCKING BUCKET
As the drop is not a closed system, and, in fact, is in a very fucking huge bucket, YOU FAIL.
@Big Chicken Dinner: Doubleplus unfunny. You're trying too hard, man.
11/30/2007 9:54:13 PM
b. beau brinker
Big Chickenshit wins the Tiny Tim Memorial Crutch Award for lamest attempts at trolling. He had his ass handed to him on the FSTDT forums.
11/30/2007 11:53:59 PM
As far as I know, creationism respects the laws of thermodynamics just as well as big bang theory; it simply would have taken six thousand years rather than sixteen thousand million*
* This depends on various factors, primarily on the value of the Hubble parameter and its assumed behaviour over time. If I recall correctly from 'In Search of the Big Bang', at 100 and decreasing, it is thirteen thousand million years, and at 50 and decreasing, it is twenty thousand million years, and it may in fact be increasing.
4/23/2011 4:08:18 PM
"It is like this that we see the true hand of the Lord. We know that it is a natural LAW, not a mere speculative theory (/clears throat and rolls eyes at evolution), that all order must have a designer."
Assuming that your faulty logic was actually valid, how do you know that this Designer was the "Lord"? Why not Odin, or Azathoth?
"The universe come from someplace, right? Therefore, there is a designer. Sorry Darwinist, we creationist have science on our side. There ain't enough "closed systems" to get around the LAW of thermosdynamics."
The universe is not a closed system, like a messy room. And while there could be a Supreme Being who created the universe, it's beyond stupid for you and your fellow Creao-tards to jump and say, "it's da GAWD of the Wholly Babble! PUH-RAZE DA LORD!!"
Reading ancient myths from a book of fairy tales is not "science". It's bullshit. And your entire comment FAILS even more drastically due to the fact that you mixed up the Theory of Evolution with the Big Bang Theory. Evolution is a biological theory explaining how organisms adapt to a particular environment; BB is a theory hailing from Physics, a totally separate and distinct wing of science. This is what I love about idiots like you; you try to debunk evolution even though you can't even tell the difference between Biology and Physics. How stupid can you get?
"Try reading a book or something (preferably the Bible, which is the real choice of top scientists)."
The bible says the earth is flat, humans can inbreed without ill effects, and most scientists are either atheists or agnostics.
A FAIL SO EPIC IT JUST MIGHT BE A WIN.
4/23/2011 5:05:56 PM
Violation of 2nd Law ?
abidingone, meet the Sun.
3/1/2012 8:48:12 AM
Woo-hoo! I'm going to take my blender apart and build a starship! Warp Five, here we come...
Uh, Scottie? A little help, please?
Either I've just proven that the universe needs a designer or abidingone's analogy IS TOTALLY SHIT!
3/1/2012 12:04:23 PM
David F Mayer
It is NOT true that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. What IS true is that the principle that Entropy can never decrease in a closed system. Entropy can decrease in an open system provided that work is done on the system in some way, such as sunlight falling on the Earth followed by its conversion into radiant heat and its radiation Into Outer space.
Entropy is not some mysterious quantity. It is the integral of reversible differential heat entering the system divided by absolute temperature.
5/30/2012 2:50:46 PM
Are people like this misunderstanding the second law of thermodynamics, or are they denying the midday sun?
@David F Mayer:
From a statistical mechanics perspective, entropy is defined as the logarithm of the number of accessible energy states in a system. Using Boltzmann's incredible tour-de-force of statistics, you can show that that's equivalent to the thermodynamic definition. Entropy can reverse itself, but the probability is vanishingly small for any system with an interesting number of particles.
Fortunately for us all, the sunlight hitting the Earth mostly gets re-radiated as infrared, which has the same energy and about twenty times the entropy. So life can exist quite nicely without getting anywhere near the entropic limit.
5/30/2012 6:11:32 PM