The Uncarved Block of Ice – Fun With Thermodynamics
28 March 2007 by KA“Defining entropy as disorder’s not complete, “You can’t win, you can’t break even, you can’t leave the game, “Creationists always try to use the second law,
’cause disorder as a definition doesn’t cover heat.
So my first definition I would now like to withdraw,
and offer one that fits thermodynamics second law.
First we need to understand that entropy is energy,
energy that can’t be used to state it more specifically.
In a closed system entropy always goes up,
that’s the second law, now you know what’s up.”
’cause entropy will take it all ‘though it seems a shame.
The second law, as we now know, is quite clear to state,
that entropy must increase and not dissipate.”
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth’s not a closed system, it’s powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
That, in a nutshell, is what entropy’s about,
you’re now down with a discount.
When first I began blogging, I had nary a clue about thermodynamics, outside of the laymen’s version (energy can’t be destroyed, etc). And almost inevitably, that worn out, tired canard gets trotted out for the umpteenth millionth time, you know the one, ‘evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!’ (Herein referred to as 2LoT) Never mind that there’s just as many web links that prove this incorrect. Even the panspermiatists agree.
I can attest that I have at least one gray hair that can be named 2LoT – the problem is that it’s always viewed (by the creationists, wouldn’t you know?) as strictly linear - that is, it’s a straight line from point A to B. But, as the first link says, “In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the second law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. for structure to spontaneously appear as the temperature drops below a critical threshold. Complex structures, such as Bénard cells, also spontaneously appear where there is a steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink. It is conjectured that such systems tend to evolve into complex, structured, critically unstable “edge of chaos” arrangements, which very nearly maximise the rate of energy degradation (the rate of entropy production).”
Never mind that it applies to closed systems (which the earth most distinctly is not, and the universe? Jury’s still out).
Theists typically place their deity outside the realm of falsifiability. That is, said critter is immortal, outside the Einsteinian laws of physics (i.e., beyond time and space, citation of Psalms 90:4), aforementioned beastie is immutable, perfect, ergo unchanging (which would make it impossible to interact with us ‘imperfect’ beings). Nor can we find an instance in nature where the creator is free of the laws of physics that bind the created. Not to mention that it would violate the 2LoT, would it not?
But wait! There’s also the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics. Put simply, it’s “as a system approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value.” Therefore, said deity would have to be frozen, since there’s no hint of entropy, right?
So, in order for there to be any kind of perfect deity, in the interests of symmetry and correlation with any of the laws of thermodynamics (note that the 3rd law stipulates that absolute zero cannot be reached, even though they’ve come within a billionths of a degree), said god would need to thaw itself out before it could ever, ever interact with said creation. And, since this god’s entropy would be restored upon the exchange of heat for cold, it would be mutable, mortal, and imperfect, having been shorn of its superconductivity, superfluidity, and Bose–Einstein condensation.
Got all that? Short version: take gawd out of the freezer, and thaw it out. Oh, whoops, that was the hamburger I made from the sacred cow.
Anyways, next time you hear that hoary old chestnut about 2LoT, do feel free to bop them with this one. It should send them all a-flutter.
28 March 2007, on 5:04 am
So, KA, maybe the ancient Taoists were on the right track with their references to the ‘uncarved block’ huh? LOL.
But just you wait, some crazy theists will come up with (an even crazier) answer to your elegant put-down of their initial claim, namely that the ’second law’ applies. As it is, they happily ignore the fact that it applies to a closed system, but I have never been clever enough to understand their claims that the universe is, de facto, ‘closed’.
Maybe the answers in Genesis, LOL.
28 March 2007, on 6:51 am
The “image elves” have sneaked in and done their duty. This “Onion” image had its aspect-ratio flopped to keep KA’s text ‘as is’. (It was 240×204; it’s now 204×240, which explains why it’s beginning to lose its focus.) And it exaggerates the “nonsense” of the fundies!
POW! Take that, fundies!
2LoT goes over my head–this is the limit of my involvement…
28 March 2007, on 10:37 am
The bit I never quite got was how a theist could say in one breath that god is everywhere and in the next breath say that he/she/it is outside of space and time.
If something is outside of space and time, it obviously isn’t everywhere. Once you have specified a location for it, away from the prying eyes of mad scientists with telescopes, it can’t also be everywhere. This appears to me to be logically inconsistent.
Unless of course, it pops into space and time when those atheistic scientists aren’t looking and then pops back outside space and time when they get their telescopes out.
Either way, god seems to be a shy little critter or extremely anti-social.
28 March 2007, on 12:12 pm
ToG:
Oh, those guys were complete ’squares’. Hee-hee.
Well, the 2nd law DOES apply. How does that go?
“Zeroth: You must play the game.
First: You can’t win.
Second: You can’t break even, except on a very cold day.
Third: It doesn’t get that cold.”
Well, there’s no proof either way – even if it were, it’s large enough that we need not worry about it for another few billion years. Besides which, how would the boundaries be defined? If there are boundaries, how is it closed off? Closed off from what?
Naomi: Thanks for the image – I hunted around the web, looking for something fitting, couldn’t find.
& I think you’re smart enough to understand all this: the trick, as in anything, is not to be daunted.
I flunked science in HS, & have never been to college. If I can figure it out, anyone can.
BBIM:
I call selective perception.
Well, time I can see, since it’s not in a fixed location, but space is.
Or on extended vacation in another universe.
28 March 2007, on 12:40 pm
It’s probably just a shadow, but the redhead in Naomi’s pic seems to have peed her pants. I guess her system didn’t stay closed.
28 March 2007, on 12:48 pm
Karen,
She’s just pissed herself with joy, for ‘the Lord hath made himself known to her’ – that’s the guy with the ‘hard-on’ pressing against her backside, BTW.
What else can these ugly, stupid people do to find themselves a mate?
28 March 2007, on 2:18 pm
Very interesting KA…I must read up more on those laws. “Duh!”
Of course the more sophisticated, philosophically trained theologians…more like the Thomas Aquinas/NON-literalist types?…would claim that their god is “Transcendent”…NOT material at all, completely outside of space and time; thus not subject to the laws. On the contrary, they would claim that the laws themselves, were instituted and are constantly governed, and sustained in existence…moment to moment…by this invisible ‘non-material’ being. [It's all, ultimately, a "Divine Mystery", of course!] Add to that notion…they would probably claim that most scientists are just ‘believers’ and cannot prove those ‘research level’ theses. The scientists only ‘BELIEVE’ that their findings are true. Even the ‘falsifiability’ principle of science would be turned around to argue against any certainty therein. Like all scientific principles…the theories of Thermodynamics always remain falsifiable.
Jeebus, on the other hand, might be the Fundie’s MAIN problem in all of this, since ‘he’s supposedly still ‘up there’ somewhere in time and space…i.e…a physical/quasi-divine “half-breed” variation; not QUITE like the ‘Father’ and ‘Holy Ghost’ (Oh…OK…’Spirit’). Thus ‘He’, COULD be frozen in accord with that 3rd law?…It’s that old Christian Trinity fabrication…you know, the “3 persons in 1 god” trick? [Triplemint gum?] Of course, there’ll always be some kind or rationalization, no matter what.
So much “Yada, Yada”, and “Zama, Zama”! WTF!
As we all know; we atheists are accused of being a religion, partly because we ‘believe’ in the reports of those research scientists, who are still trying to prove, even to themselves, their ‘theories’. Much of modern physics is based on an observation/mathmatics ‘mix’; and for most of us relative dummies, eludes any direct observation.
It may be, alas, that we’re ALL caught up in an endless ‘dance’…we’ll never convince each other, either way…only our own individual deaths will stop the music, and ‘release’ us from the dance!..?
Somehow, all this reminds me of one of MY old joking references to a famous Jeebus ‘quote’ in the New Testacles…
Remember the supposed Jeebus quote:
“Many are called, but few are chosen”?
My variation…
“Many are cold; but few are frozen!”
On a somewhat tangential note: Anyone here…worrying about their leg falling off in the ‘dance’?
[Is Heather Mills, perhaps...lurking?]
28 March 2007, on 2:43 pm
karen:
LMAO! No, she was letting off excess ‘heat’.
ChuckA:
Ha-HA! (as Phil Sebben would say.) Wish I’d thought of it!
28 March 2007, on 4:04 pm
Chuck,
Heather Mills is a phoney, because she has claimed that she is ‘disabled’ in order to obtain a Disabled Parking Permit in the UK, but ‘disabled’ means ‘not being able to walk – never mind dance!’
Disabled groups here are up in arms about her taking part in that dance-thingie. As they say, if she can participate in that, she is NOT entitled to a Disabled Permit and that she should be stripped of it otherwise it demeans genuinely disabled, as defined.
BTW, a ‘thalidomide-woman’ with flippers sticking 6 inches out of her shoulders instead of arms had her permit removed by the authorities because ’she was able to walk’, even though she was unable to manipulate a normal parking meter!
So, fuck Heather Mills, though I bet now that Paul wishes he never had, LOL. Cunt-struck sad-fuck that he is.
28 March 2007, on 5:14 pm
Whilst KA has given some useful links to explain entropy and the second law, I have found the pages written by Frank Lambert, Professor Emeritus, amongst the most detailed, simple and truly helpful to someone not trained in the subject.
The entry page and index is here: http://www.2ndlaw.com/, but the page likely to be of immediate interest is this one – The second law of thermodynamics and evolution – which is here:http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html.
Now go and read a real expert, writing complex material in a way that even untrained people can understand. A pure joy to read, and should enable you to demolish any specious arguments put forward by religious twats.
28 March 2007, on 5:22 pm
“Many are cold, but few are frozen”…
*lol*!
When creationists try the 2LoT schtick on me, I simply reply, “Nonsense; your position has been thoroughly debunked.” When they bleat for evidence/proof/support, I tell them, “I never helped anyone cheat at their homework in school and I’m not going to start now in real life. Do your own damned research, and if you’re dishonest enough to only look for sources that support your side, then you deserve to live in willful ignorance and be laughed at by those who know better.”
I’m so not into debating creationists/IDiots right now – but I’ll be better soon, really I will!
28 March 2007, on 5:29 pm
The UK government definition of ‘disabled’ is set out on the DirectGov website. Its provisions are quite broad, but in essence disability concerns what you can do rather than what disability you have (though the two are obviously connected). I’ve pasted the relevant bit here:
The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
The definition
For the purposes of the Act:
* substantial means neither minor nor trivial
* long term means that the effect of the impairment has lasted or is likely to last for at least 12 months (there are special rules covering recurring or fluctuating conditions)
* normal day-to-day activities include everyday things like eating, washing, walking and going shopping
* a normal day-to-day activity must affect one of the ‘capacities’ listed in the Act which include mobility, manual dexterity, speech, hearing, seeing and memory
Some conditions such as a tendency to set fires and hay fever, are specifically excluded.
Provisions allow for people with a past disability to be covered by the scope of the Act. There are also additional provisions relating to people with progressive conditions.
The DDA 2005 amends the definition of disability, removing the requirement that a mental illness should be ‘clinically well-recognised’.
People with HIV, cancer and multiple sclerosis will be deemed to be covered by the DDA effectively from the point of diagnosis, rather than from the point when the condition has some adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
Re: parking permits (Blue Badge scheme, at any rate)…
You may be able to get one if you:
* are receiving the higher rate of the Mobility Component of the Disability Living Allowance
* are receiving a War Pensioner’s Mobility Supplement
* use a motor vehicle supplied by a government health department
* are a registered blind person
* have severe disability in both upper limbs, drive a motor vehicle regularly but cannot turn the steering wheel by hand even if that wheel is fitted with a turning knob
* have a permanent and substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking
To play devil’s advocate ([wince] please forgive the term, and don’t take this to mean I approve of Heather Mills – what I’ve seen of her has left me distinctly underwhelmed), walking and dancing are two quite different disciplines. It’s quite possible for a person who couldn’t manage a half mile walk to the shops to perform in a ten minute show dance – the adrenaline will keep you going if nothing else!
I have no idea about the thalidomide sufferer. It sounds like a standard DHSS – sorry, they’re the DWP now, aren’t they? – cock-up to me, somebody randomly applying one set of conditions but not another. I have direct experience of this – my elder brother has Down’s Syndrome and a mental age of about two. He can dress himself, clean his teeth and use a tap to get a cup of water, but practically nothing else: he needs full time care. Some years ago the local office decided he wasn’t sufficiently disabled to need the full disability and mobility allowances and tried to cut them. My mother had to fight for months to get them reinstated…
28 March 2007, on 6:01 pm
Joules,
Thanks for that helpful info.
However, heather Mills would seem to be disqualifiable on this condition alone, even if her dancing didn’t do it…
* have a permanent and substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking
As for our Gov’t Depts not knowing their own legislation, I just know your story is true because I’ve spent years fighting one stupid jerk in some department or another who insisted, rather like fundies, that their version of ’scripture’ was correct, when it actually wasn’t. On one occasion, I even took the Scottish Home & Health Dept to court – they had an advocate (a barrister in England) attending, whilst I presented my own case. Result, I won, and they spent over £100K in fighting a £350 claim. Fucking monstrous waste. Even the Sheriff ( a Scottish Judge) asked them why they’d brought such a ‘frivolous defence’ to court and wasted everyone’s time and money!
28 March 2007, on 6:12 pm
They just won’t listen, will they? Either of them…
Glad you won though! it’s nice to hear success stories.
28 March 2007, on 7:02 pm
The typical fundy hasn’t mastered any academic discipline whatsoever, including elementary school English. So I’m always amused when they drag in the Second Law. Truth be known, very few would recognize the Second Law if it bit them in the ass. And those who might paraphrase it semi-accurately would be unable to define any of the terms used in the definition.
28 March 2007, on 7:58 pm
GEEZ!…Poor (well, not really) Heather Mills!
Look what my casual, passing, tangential note:
“Anyone here…worrying about their leg falling off in the ‘dance’?
[Is Heather Mills, perhaps…lurking?]“…hath wrought in some of the comments!
Just think, Giftsters…in another time she might be dressed like..”Long Heather Silver”?…with an eye patch…a primitive peg leg…an atheist quoting parrot on one shoulder…waving a sword…and saying in a quasi-Robert Newton voice…something like:
“Harr!…Avast!…Shiver me timbers…I’ve finished a whole bottle of rum…
Now, watch me dance, mateys!”
Whats that you say, Old Git?…
“Break a leg?”
Or was it the parrot?
28 March 2007, on 8:55 pm
… BWAHAHAAHAHAHA!!….
Thanks for that, ChuckA – wonderful image to close down with! [grin]
29 March 2007, on 12:15 am
LMAO @ old git’s comments to karen
29 March 2007, on 8:27 pm
KA
I think you are describing that frozen confection that is known world wide as GOD POPS. Eat one and feel power hungry the next day.
30 March 2007, on 10:50 pm
Not necessarily.
2LoT is a scientific concept. Therefore, the Thoeory of Evolution must not violate it. (which it doesn’t)
the Sky Genie is not a scientific concept, so there is no need for it to acknowledge 2LoT.
Besides, I don’t know of any religion that doesn’t have plenty of internal consistency problems all its own.
4 April 2007, on 3:39 pm
^ And that’s putting it mildly…