Prove him wrong

Prove him wrong.
Protip: you can

Other urls found in this thread:

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>implying that the earth is a closed thermodynamic system.

This. Don't forget about our big fusion reactor. It emits the energy that ultimately drives all living processes on earth (except for perhaps some deepsea extromophiles that are chemotrophs). It emits energy as visible light, light is used to drive some reactions and is converted by photsynthetic organisms into carbohydrates using H, C and O, the stored energy of which is used to make other complex macromolecules (amino/nucleic/fatty acids) that have given rise to enzymes to catalyze normally nonspontaneous reactions, leading to a more complex system of chemical reactions that is an organism. That organism emits heat the whole time, and may sometimes pass on genes to offspring. Those genes can undergo mutations, leading to different developements to maintain the organism system in a different, potentially more niche way. I'm not a smart cookie, but that's the gist of it. I wouldn't mind if someone corrected me or elaborated more. I'm just an undergrad who wants a decent job and doesn't usually concern himself with such matters.

no, it doesn't
where in the 2nd law does it say that entropy always locally increases at every step? where does it say that there can't be some intermediate step where entropy decreases in some local region?

>mfw took bait

i want to kill dumb motherfuckers like that inbred piece of shit. they are ruining the achievements of generations passed with their distorted "logic" if such disgusting behavior can ever be deemed as such

correct.

>does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove the concept of creation?

what achievements? a theory? has the discovery/study of evolution contributed to modern technology?
ftr I'm an agnostic as well but I think you're just mad because you're emotionally attached to macroevolution

does this guy even understand thermodynamics? the entropy argument is supposed to challenge the idea of organization, not energy. arguing about energy wouldn't even make sense since most of it comes from the sun

Are you from /r/atheism? Please go back.

*cough* medicine *cough* biology *cough* genetics *cough* robotics design *cough* learning software *cough* fucking every-other-fucking-thing
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01

Did y'all watch that "debate?"

Ken Hamm could of just spoken in fart noises and it would of sounded more coherent.

holy shit he really is from /r/athism

could've is "could have"

creationist bait threader pls go

Sun inserts energy into earth and has for as long as life has existed on earth. When equilibrium of nuclear isotopes in the sun makes the sun not able to shine no more earth will either fry or get freezing cold so no life could live here, but that is likely to be so long into the future it does not matter on the time scale of development of life and irregardless if life evolves continually or is developed / created in some other way.

Uf... There are so many idiots out there... COMPLEXITY AND EQUALIBRIUM ARE NOT THE SAME THING. THE HIGHEST COMPLEXITY LAY ABOUT HALF THE WAY BETWEEN 0 AND 100% OF EQUALIBRIUM! Like when you drop.thome milk in yiu Coffee. First, Milk and Coffee are completely seperatet but the milk starts to squirl around and the System becomes more and more complex until complexity falls again and you have a light-brownish colored soup which still nobody really likes to drink.

Btw. Please excuse all those errors. I am not a native speaking persond and I am to drunk to See em though.

This was exactly a conceptual question in my stat mech book lol

The second law specifies a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, the second law does not apply.

If you want to get real fancy and make define the system as the earth and sun, then it does readily apply. The amount of energy sent by the sun is either equal to or less than the amount utilized by plants and humans.

Fpbp

weiner weiner chicken dinner

Current theories actually suggest that the energy for the first lifeforms came from geothermal vents.

not to mention just because something looks ordered doesn't mean it is. The human body is a complete disorganized mess compared to a cloud of hydrogen.

Stop it with the bullshit, the system you speak of as growing in opposition to the second law is the surface and oceans of the earth. If energy came from the center of the earth, then it would be energy coming from outside the system.

And again if you want to argue that the entire earth is the closed system, then know that the amount of thermal energy given off is more or equal to the amount of energy utilized to develop, create or grow things..

Ohhh I think I get what he means.

The second of law thermodynamics no matter can be created nor destroyed so this dude thinks the process of evolution and natural selection is creating more matter by inducing variation right?

Were all going to have a different approach to answering this question since we all major in different shit in STEM you don't even need to get into explaining earth exists in a closed system because every nigger and their dog knows mutation doesn't create more genes and alleles, it doesn't physically add more fucking nucleotides to a strand of RNA, variation is "created" by the semi-conservative nature of DNA every physfag CS fag would know this shit.

I think this is what he was referring to but there are many definitions of the 2nd law dependent on the focus of study.

>Inb4 troll thread