Lets start with earth, and not the universe. I am still researching background radiation, and certain effects in regrades to the universe being a closed or open system. I have heard both… Anyways
What are the common arguments against Creation with evolutionists (will use the God of Christianity,The One and Only true God-“I Am That I Am”) in the subject of Entropy? I have heard one rebuttal, that the earth is not a closed system therefore one cant use Entropy for proof of God. I have also heard the argument against this rebuttal.
That energy “sunlight” also breaks down matter; for example, sunlight over time fades paint, wood, houses, buildings, skin, ect ect ect. Therefore energy “sunlight” being introduced into the system “earth” isn’t a sufficient rebuttal. Therefore it isn’t logical to say over time, matter arranged itself increasingly more complex, when we know it really shouldn’t
But I believe there is another rebuttal atheist use, perhaps a more pronounced argument? Something about mutations in regrades to evolution. I’m just not too sure what it is
I tend to spend more time on information regrading consciousness/spirit/emergent properties in arguments for or against God. And haven’t really jumped into any arguments regrading entropy or thermal dynamics. So please go easy, I just so simply am looking for true, logical, up to date information.
From my limited understanding of evolution, I gather something like this. Once upon a time, long long ago there was amino acids. And due to time, these acids found each other, they then started to form into more complex things. Now I cant remember but I do think before they even evolved cell walls to be in, they used bubbles. Yes bubbles, you read right. I have been told, single cell organisms didn’t even have cell walls at first. Very strange but hey that’s what I have been told.
But back on topic, so to say the earth isn’t a closed system and receives energy. Perhaps the first “living” things could evolve due to them gaining energy? I think that’s correct.
Also you say life isn’t a decrease in entropy, this seem reasonable (obviously we live now, not to say we wont lose the fight some day, and our flesh will die and decay, but we do live now gaining and losing energy all the time) . But am I to apply that statement not to life, but to the ever changing complexity of the first single celled organisms, or apply it to the chance that these extremely weak and sensitive organisms defied entropy?
Arguments with regard to thermodynamics are generally a waste of time in my experience people expend a great deal of effort explaining what the laws are only to be met with nothing more than obfuscation and question dodging.
Entropy is a tenuous concept at best one that is more philosophy than science, that said you really want to argue with scientifically ignorant people who haven;t really got the first idea what they are talking about. I gave up on them ages ago, they dug a deep grave and are seeking to move towards the centre of the Earth, let’s hope they don’t find any dinosaur bones eh?
Entropy is the state of order in relation to disorder of any given system, it is also mathematically consistent if you assume an axiom of what order and disorder is, there’s where the philosophy comes in you can’t really apply a mathematical framework to a subjective notion. It has driven a few scientists mad trying to put it in a concrete framework. That said stick to the thermodynamic laws without going to far into entropy and you should be fine, after all the idiots wont understand what you are on about at any level of physics. in short stick to that we call a law and for the reasons we do and you can’t go far wrong.
