Debunking the thermodynamics argument

Originally Posted by cupper3

Wow, you truly do not want to understand how science works, yet are perfectly willing to accept its benefits. You know, like modern medicines.

Which, BTW, are developed base on the theory of evolution. You know, the one you don't believe in. Why don't you go to just a faith healer, rather than using modern medicine?



So, tell my how many electrons were observed developing the technology that brought electricity to your computer, and operates it? You once again show you have no idea of science.




Let's examine what the First Law of Thermodynamics actually says.

Very briefly, the first law defines the energy inventory of a system so that changes in the energy can be calculated in a quantitative fashion.

Specifically, if a system, in going from state 1 to state 2, absorbs a quantity of heat, q, from the surroundings, while doing an amount of work, w, on the surroundings, then the energy difference between the two states is simply given by

E2 - E1 = q - w.

That’s it.

There is no more than that.

There is no fretting about how much of the energy went into which particles, or photons, or whatever, because no such entities are explicitly assumed to exist in classical thermodynamics.

The first law, being a conservation principle, is easily to understand, or should be, because analogous conservation principles are familiar from everyday experience. For example, if to a beaker containing W1 kilograms of water, you add a total of q Kg of water while removing a total of w Kg, the final amount of water, W2, will always be W1 plus q – w. Moreover, this will always be true, no matter how complicated the sequence of individual additions and removals may be. The same is true of energy inventories.





Your argument comes from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. Why is that not a surprise, as you don't even understand the scientific method.

If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

Again, you just have no understanding of the science. Please do yourself a favor, and stop embarrassing yourself with these non-scientific ramblings. They are not valid, they have been debunked hundreds of times before, and repeating them does not make them valid, no matter what CARM or similar sites say. You really need to increase your base of where you are getting your knowledge from.