On Friday 21 December 2001 17:59, Chris wrote: > >Winning is getting more work out of a system than the equivilent > >energy put in. > > The laws of thermodynamics are all about energy and energy > loss. But the energy into the system called earth is the > Sun. And while the Sun is burning into space increasing > total entropy, it is powering the earth in the process.
Universe = Surroundings + System If Ent of Sys goes down the Ent of Surr goes up by an even greater amount, because of Rule 2, forcing the Ent of Uiv increase. > A bit like I could drill for oil, burn the oil in a > factory to produce widgets. Total entropy has increased > because the oil is burnt up. But I have created widgets > out of raw materials which is a reduction in entropy. Ah! There is the CRUX of the problem: "I". It takes an "I" to create the Widgets. Show me a situation where the oil was burned in a series of steps and QT widgets came out all on their own, without any "designer" being envolved. Your widget set (System), which shows more order (lower entropy) has done so by causing an even greater increase in entropy in its Surroundings, revelaing a net Uinversal increase in Entropy. Futher, you cannot, by any spontaneous means, cause a decrease in the entropy of a system without adding "directions and control" to matter or information to make it behave in ways that are not spontaneous. Organic systems show pools of increasing Entropy, a greater expense to the surroundings, because if information and control supplied by the Designer. Michele Behe points out a case in particular when he discusses the 11 step cascade that causes photons flying into the eye to trigger nerve impulses to the brain. It turns out that molecules at step one need molecules made in step 10 and 11. But, those molecules need the previous steps to be created, and there is no naturally occuring process (nor any known by man) that can create those step 10/11 molecules except that very cascade itself. It had to have been given a "push" to get started. It's really a classic "Chicken and Egg" argument, which has never been answered by those relyijng on gradualism: how could a non-egg laying creature lay at least two eggs, which begins a species. Well, you see the point. No sense in wasting more bandwidth since I am speaking to the choir. :) JLK > Since the energy loss from the Sun dominates any > calculations about earth you're going to have to use > a better argument I think. Not necessary. The Temperature and/or capacity of the heat source is immaterial. dS = dQ/T and > 0 for all T > 0.
