Understanding - Page 2

VK4 wrote: btw you given up on thermodynamic arguments, math get the better of you?

 

Since you being an A** lately and can’t keep your tongue behind your teeth’s I decided to break that down for you? When we define the creation and evolution controversy in terms of models, conceptual frameworks, creation wins hands down! Evolution is contradicted by all kinds of known facts of chemistry and physics, experimental data. Contradiction upon contradiction, upon contradiction; there aren’t any facts that actually contradict the concept of special creation. VK4, now notice predictions, evolution predicts, the whole reality the self-transforming power of evolution, going ever and ever greater, levels of complexity. So from inanimate particles we get complex biochemical’s which then organize to a living reproducing cell and that goes all the way up to man! And then supposedly man continuing to evolve as going up and up and up. Now if this were true we would predict with got to able find in nature some inherent intrinsic property of matter and energy that drives it to ever higher levels of complexity. No such intrinsic property of matter ever being observed or proven my dear VK4. Thus no law exists to describe this phenomena; exactly the opposite tendency of matter, energy has been observed, over and over again without fail. So much so there is embodied in a law, the second law of thermodynamics, the law of increasing disorder, increasing entropy, and increasing loss of available free energy – converting into dilute unavailable energy, although is there but it cannot harness for useful work anymore.

So what we actually see in the real world as define in the second law something you would expect creation is true! If creation took place then omnipotent creator, created things prefect and complete, they didn’t have to go on this upward progress to reach perfection, it was created with perfection at the beginning; therefore it couldn’t go any higher than perfect! You wouldn’t expect any higher upward movement – like evolution predicts and indeed we don’t see that. However things can go down from perfection, especially if the creator as he has revealed has instituted bondage of corruption and decay. Now don’t think that means God put the second law there at the time of curse, I think the second law is there for a good reason. If we didn’t have the second law on operation, certain chemicals process wouldn’t work, we wouldn’t digest our food that would be pretty miserable okay! Talking about indigestion; so you also wouldn’t able to walk without slipping and falling on your face because as you walk you generate heat which dissipates according to the second law, you have to have friction, without second law you wouldn’t able to walk without slipping all over the place. So there are good reasons for that second law to be there. The Bible says bondage of corruption and decay. I believe there was offsetting principal of God’s providence there as with was with children of Israel, If you know the Bible as you told me in the past my dear VK4, remember as they wonder in the desert, forty years and since all that time, their clothes didn’t wear out, their shoes didn’t wear out and their feet didn’t swell. Does that mean the second law wasn’t there? No, I think it was there but it just God was offsetting its effects with his law of preservation, his providence, his miraculous upholding of his sovereign purpose in that situation. I think when the curse came God withdrew some of the providential grace and this natural law was now bondage because there was no more offsetting principal as their was for the children of Israel. So the law I believe was always been there and the law is necessary but degeneration is what we see and that fits the idea of creation and the curse and that is what we observe and we never observe the opposite which is necessary for evolution to be true on this broad scale, both universally and biologically. I hope I am not going to get lame-A** remark from you with your delusions again VK4.

Thank you for reading. Shtal.   

Before you say science wrong you mebbe should get some actual QUALIFICATION in the subject first.

nice touch how creation was perfect except for adam eve and the talking snake.


how come god never mentioned the laws of thermodynamics. in the bible? We had to wait thousands of years later untill we could break free of religous ignorance and scientists could invent it so you could say on the internet that science isn't true because of thermodynamics. which science invented....RETARD.


like the bit where god put thermodynamics on hold so the people in the desert for 40 years would not get toe germ.


you wouldn't be just making this shit up now would you RETARD.


get an education freak, lier, bitch.

Shtal.

Sleep bitch yr retarded brain needs to have another nightmare that you can post.

i bet in yr dreams you are a smart guy. dream on bitch.

Satan will find you in yr dreams tonight, he told me so.

vk4 wrote: Before you say science wrong

 

Look VK4 lol how many times you going to say that…lol sometimes you entertain me :)

I said your interpretations are wrong, when you look at the “word science” now shall we continue once more maybe? Last time :) Since now I am bored. Now let see! George Gaylord Simpson Evolutionist he admitted and said: The simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in china a shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.

 

And here is what I learned my dear vk4 when you actually try to learn science, okay!

 

What about this second law of thermodynamics? Let’s see!

 

Is creation true? And Evolution is false?

 

So we have four essential criteria that must be met in order overcome the second law and produce any significant amount of increase of complexity.

 

What are they?

 

Number 1 - the system must be open to environment (creationists agrees with evolutionists on this one)

 

Number 2 – An adequate influx of energy must be available (creationists agrees with evolutionists on this one)

 

Number 3 – The system must possess an energy conversion mechanism (like photosensitizes or metabolic energy conversation systems and other life forms) to convert harmful raw energy (in this case solar energy) into a useful form chemical energy.

 

Number 4 – A directing program (a blueprint or genetic code) must exist to control the conversion machinery and to direct the converted energy into the creation and maintenance of complexity.

 

No where in this observed universe we seeing the second law overcome or complexity to build upon any significant scale unless all four criteria are met? But here we have a problem, with the Big Bang the primordial egg that pup-out from nothing into something and then exploded, that is the ultimate isolated system, there isn’t any other matter/energy outside of it to come into system, there own definition and they agree on isolated system everything must go unto direction of greater entropy. How can you have an explosion which increases entropy and then coulisses to a very complex, far more complex universe? Than that little thing started with…you can’t have that because it violates the second law even according to there own definition. Evolutionists don’t have an answer but rather they ignored it.

 

For the origin of life the last two criteria are absent, you do have an open system, you do have inflexed of energy but you don’t have an energy conversion system, because you don’t have photosensitizes and metabolism, very complex chemical systems and you don’t have a blueprint DNA, in fact the sun’s energy would destroy any of those things in an open system under those situations. I think I said enough about science, Shtal.

 

creationists doing science

 

shtal you should get yr science definitions from science not pretend science aka creation cretons;

 

thermodynamic systems

• Open system - Exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings
• Closed system - Exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings
• Isolated system - Exchanges neither energy nor matter with its surroundings

 

here some actual science by SCIENTISTS, sources in text, when yr done refuting real science and not making shit up we can get to the mathematics of thermodynamics. get some nap time in shtal.;

• First, the Earth is not an isolated system - it receives a copious amount of incoming energy from the Sun. Second, evolution does not imply that life is becoming increasingly complex; it only says that natural selection allows genes to be passed on and different characteristics hence preserved.
• It also is a corruption to believe life is always "more ordered" than inanimate objects. In fact, life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics in strict energetic sense. The energy of the sun is converted into chemical potential energy, which is converted to mechanical work or heat (the Earth is not an isolated system.) In each case, the energy transfer is inefficient, and some energy is dissipated as heat to the environment, leading to a dispersion of energy. In the same way, "ordered" snowflakes can form when the weather becomes cold but the entropy of the universe still increases.
• Victor J. Stenger, a theoretical physicist, refuted this creationist claim "However, a transmitter and a receiver are two interacting systems. They are not individually isolated. So, the entropy lost by one system can be gained by the other. Or, equivalently, the information lost by one can be gained by the other. So a physical system, such as a biological organism or Earth itself, which gets energy from the sun, can become more ordered by purely natural processes."^[4]. A quote in reference to chemistry education illustrates this point:
• One aspect of biological systems that intrigues students is the possibility of discovering violations of the well-known laws of thermodynamics and physical chemistry. It is easy to refute most of the examples suggested. A germinating seed or an embryo developing in a fertilized chicken egg are often naively cited as examples of isolated systems in which an increase in order, or decrease in entropy occurs spontaneously. It is evident, however, that respiration, assuming O₂ is present, produces an increase in entropy in the form of heat, which more than compensates for the decrease in entropy that arises when the elements present in the seed or in the yolk of the egg are organized into tissues of the plant or animal. Indeed, neither germination nor embryonic development will occur in the absence of oxygen in the system in question.^[5]
• In reference to evolution, PZ Myers put it: "The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen."
• Furthermore, Carl Sagan points out that if the second law of thermodynamics were applied to a god, then god would necessarily have to die.^[6]
• (Brief quiz about thermodynamics: How many generally recognized laws of thermodynamics are there? We know about the second law: Give the numbers for the other laws.^[7])
• Let us suppose that there actually were some process in nature which violated the second law of thermodynamics. Is that any reason to suppose that intelligent designers are responsible? The only intelligent designers that we have familiarity with, humans and other more-or-less intelligent animals, are as much subject to the second law of thermodynamics as are non-intelligent agents. Indeed, the laws of thermodynamics were discovered as limitations on what the clever engineers of the 19th century were able to design. Intelligent designers are not able to construct perpetual motion machines. Intelligent designers don't bypass the second law of thermodynamics.

 

go sleep  shtal.;

VK4, let me poke you little bit for my entertainment, what we have here is a problem with your cut and paste material as usual. Because we have proven physics which Einstein said whatever be overthrown which Isaac Asimov is the most powerful generalization scientist have ever able to make about universe, the law of Thermodynamics and it says is natural tendency very to go downhill toward greater disorder and greater increase entropy, greater loss of free energy, its irreversible in every test ever done has confirmed it, that is going against something that has never been observed in the history of science, that this big changes, species, order, class, kingdom could happened from nothing then turn into something and then evolved.

VK4, when we are going to be scientific we Otto whether it’s philosophically likeable or NOT we have to let the scientific facts sitting judgment on the theory but they don’t, they let the theory sit in judgment on the facts which anyhow that’s what you do my dear vk4 and I have to point out, hey, are you doing that? - Because that’s not legitimate.

Now of course you do always try to come up with an answer vk4 lol, to problem second law of thermodynamics, how do we go great to increase in order? Well, its because the earth is open system, you see the second law they claim is define in terms of isolated system without any energy of matter entering and is such a isolated system, yes the entropy must always increase, disorganization must always increase overtime. But so happens that the earth is an exception because it is open to energy from the sun and as influxes solar energy more than sufficient to overcome degenerate effect of the second law allowing enormous complexity buildup over billions of years, sounds like a good story dear vk4, but it doesn’t really work.

With little research I found John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, July 27, 1980, p40.

He said “Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.”

Now think about that my dear vk4 is that true? Obviously it’s true! Where do we test and prove the physical law known as the second law of thermodynamics, did we tested here on earth? Or then how do we prove it for all it doesn’t apply an earth, earth is open system; obviously just because energy is available does not negate the function of second law, we tested here, we prove it here. Obviously things rot rust and corrupt and everything is going downhill, in spite of the fact we live in the open system. This a child could understand but NOT you my dear vk4, it does not matter if the system open, the question is what open to? If it’s ONLY open to raw energy you still going to get degeneration overtime.

Now if all we need it was suns energy as evolutionist claim to get system more complex than any machine man has ever created. A living autonomous self-reproducing cell; far more complex than any machine we ever made, and then with Otto able to do many things a lot easier; why expand the energy, you know? If we want to get water to flow uphill, liquid water to flow uphill, can we say the sun energy is their and that energy is sufficient to push uphill? The answer to that question vk4, well yes and no, the energy is their but unless its harness and direct it that water will still flow down hill, you can watch it for millions of years if you want if you can live that long vk4 lol. It always flow down hill because it’s the law of gravity dictates it. But the law can be overcome not made to disappear but overcome if you have solar powered pump that converts the solar energy into electrical energy which then runs on electric pump and then with plumbing pushes water uphill against the force of gravity.

Energy is necessary to do that but it’s not sufficient in on itself, big different between something been necessary and being sufficient and its raw state is completely inefficient and insufficient because it’s not converted to usable form, it’s not specifically directed.

Example my dear vk4, with little more poking lol, and say we want to get standard three bedroom house and garage; we can dump all building material out of open field, we can measure this sun energy reaching the site, we measure all this energy and we go my goodness, after millions of years we are not only have enough energy to build this house, we could build all the city’s in the world, many times over, lots of energy! But as we sit there for millions of years my dear vk4, you know what is going too happened? It’s going to rot and rust and corroded into dust, why? Because of the second law, it’s not going to build itself a house, even thou the energy is their, its useless unless it can be harness and specifically directed.

Now with little illustration vk4, say we have a solar powered robot, it got solar cells on his body that can convert solar energy into electrical energy, it has complex computer that can read a blueprint and he does is able to convert solar energy into useful Connecticut energy, reads the blueprint directed program and he takes random building materials and he build the house according to the specifications of the blueprint. Then my dear vk4, you can cause this random building materials to become more complex structure house, however, in the real sense you don’t have any more complexity their than when you started with, is the house more complex than the blueprint which it was made? Arguably NOT, because all of that specifications, all that information is in the blueprint, all this did is put in physical form but it is the same information; the question is vk4 where did that information come from? That allows you to overcome this second law to a system that can convert energy and specific directed to buildup complexity!

Well an earth, living organisms can do this! Photosynthesis, converts solar energy into chemical energy, take a little seed it can grow into huge redwood tree because it meets the criteria, energy conversion and directive program with an DNA blueprint.

And my last example for my conclusion to completely refute evolution scientifically lol, and when I properly did my research using scientific tools to challenge you my dear vk4.

And suit up mustang, with an over 2000 thousand horsepower engine, and Contra-rotating propellers; I would love to take a ride in one of these because it got all the necessary criteria, but one thing I wouldn’t want to do, is to remove wings completely lol, if my friend said I got an airplane and it’s an this slope and just jump in and we push it off cliff and we will fly, I would say, wait a minute, I would say no because you don’t have all of the criteria, you have seats, you have an engine with 2000 thousand horsepower that can rave like crazy but you can’t convert that raw energy into thrust because you don’t have no propeller to convert the energy, you have no wings to aerodynamic lift allowing you overcome the law of gravity though the law of aerodynamics, you have part of the criteria but you don’t have enough and I am not going to fly in that airplane; evolutionists and you my dear vk4 trying to take creationists on the ride, saying we can overcome the second law without meeting all criteria.

You see vk4, on the primitive earth ultraviolet light would be destructive not only of single cells which would kill in less 1/3 than of the second - it breaks the chemical bonds and destroys DNA, RNA, trapezoids and proteins, the necessary macromolecules of life. You would lay out on sun to long you will find out it’s not good for you, even with filtration biozone you get terrible skin sunburns, skin cancer, so they tell you don’t do that. But evolutionists say here is the sun the savior, the sun makes impossible, evadable and yet on the primitive earth the sun is the villain. Without biozone – that raw energy is like a bow in the china shop (I post it in my other post), would destroy the chemical building blocks of life, how can it be an open system is the answer when actually would destroy any possibility for naturalistic origin of life. And one last thing vk4 please no more cut and paste nonsense material as you usually post, I did my research, I presented to you the real science, now take a break vk4. Thank you, Shtal.          

shtal you did not do much research at all you lier, you went straight to the creationist website ICR here;

http://www.icr.org/article/does-entropy-contradict-evolution/

great scientific source very credible...NOT

So the earth is isolated from the rest of the universe BWAHHAHA.

yr quote mining, special pleading and unpublished sourced add up to shtal is a dishonest wanna be scientist. get an education.
real science is creation science BWAHA you like experiments here's one;

GO SUBMIT YR REAL SCIENCE TO A REAL SCIENCE JOURNAL AND GET IT PUBLISHED.
now just for your education try and read this, http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2929/does-the-theory-of-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics

 

some real science with references to real science that has been peer reviewed by real scientists

 

And how tiresome these canards are. Not least because they've been debunked in the past, even without reference to relevant scientific literature, by people who pay attention to the scientific basics. Once the relevant scientific literature is consulted, these canards become visibly asinine.

I'll deal with the Second Law of Thermodynamics to start with, because that one is a creationist favourite, though when creationists parrot this specious nonsense, they merely demonstrate that they know nothing about the relevant physics, and certainly never paid attention to the actual words of Rudolf Clausius, who erected the Laws of Thermodynamics, and who was rigorous when doing so. Therefore, let us see what Clausius actually stated, shall we?

Rudolf Clausius erects this statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

In an isolated system, a process can occur only if it increases the total entropy of the system.

Now Clausius defined rigorously what was meant by three different classes of thermodynamic system, and in his work, specified explicitly that the operation of the laws of thermodynamics differed subtly in each instance. The three classes of system Clausius defined were as follows:

[27a] An isolated system is a system that engages in no exchanges of energy or matter with the surroundings;

[27b] A closed system is a system that engages in exchanges of energy with the surroundings, but does not engage in exchange of matter with the surroundings;

[27c] An open system is a system that engages in exchanges of both matter and energy with the surroundings.

Now, Clausius' statement above clearly and explicitly refers to isolated systems, which, thus far, have been found to be an idealised abstraction, as no truly isolated system has ever been found. Indeed, in order to create even an approximation to an isolated system in order to perform precise calorimetric measurements, physicists have to resort to considerable ingenuity in order to minimise energy exchanges with the surroundings, particularly given the pervasive nature of heat. Even then, they cannot make the system completely isolated, because they need to have some means of obtaining measurement data from that system, which has to be conveyed to the surroundings, and this process itself requires energy. Physicists can only construct a closed system, in which, courtesy of much ingenuity, energy exchanges with the surroundings are minimised and precisely controlled, and to achieve this result in a manner that satisfies the demands of precise work is time consuming, expensive and requires a lot of prior analysis of possible sources of energy exchange that need to be minimised and controlled.

However, the Earth is manifestly an open system. It is in receipt not only of large amounts of energy from outside (here's a hint: see that big yellow thing in the sky?) but is also in receipt of about 1,000 tons of matter per year in the form of particles of meteoritic origin from outer space. Some of these 'particles' are, on occasions, large enough to leave craters in the ground, such as that nice large one in Arizona. That particular dent in the Earth's surface is 1,200 metres in diameter, 170 metres deep, and has a ridge of material around the edges that rises 45 metres above the immediate landscape, and was excavated when a meteorite impacted the Earth's surface, generating a blast equivalent to a 20 megaton nuclear bomb. Hardly a characteristic of an isolated system.

Indeed, physicists have known for a long time, that if a particular system is a net recipient of energy from outside, then that energy can be harnessed within that system to perform useful work. Which is precisely what living organisms do. Indeed, they only harness a small fraction of the available incoming energy, yet this is sufficient to power the entire diversity of the biosphere, and the development of organisms of increasing sophistication over time. Scientists have published numerous papers (twelve of which are known to me, and this is an incomplete inventory of the extant literature) in which calculations have been performed demonstrating that the utilisation of energy by the biosphere, and by evolution, is orders of magnitude too small to violate thermodynamic concerns. Relevant papers in question being:

Entropy And Evolution by Daniel F. Styer, American Journal of Physics, 78(11): 1031-1033 (November 2008) DOI: 10.1119/1.2973046

Natural Selection As A Physical Principle by Alfred J. Lotka, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 8: 151-154 (1922) full paper downloadable from here

Evolution Of Biological Complexity by Christoph Adami, Charles Ofria and Travis C. Collier, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97(9): 4463-4468 (25th April 2000)Full paper downloadable from here

Order From Disorder: The Thermodynamics Of Complexity In Biology by Eric D. Schneider and James J. Kay, in Michael P. Murphy, Luke A.J. O'Neill (ed), What is Life: The Next Fifty Years. Reflections on the Future of Biology, Cambridge University Press, pp. 161-172 Full paper downloadable from here

Natural Selection For Least Action by Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Part A, 464: 3055-3070 (22nd July 2008) Full paper downloadable from here

Evolution And The Second Law Of Thermodynamics by Emory F. Bunn, arXiv.org, 0903.4603v1 (26th March 2009) Download full paper from here

All of these peer reviewed papers establish, courtesy of rigorous empirical and theoretical work, that evolution is perfectly consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I cover several of these in detail in this post, and it should be noted here that the notion that evolution was purportedly in "violation" of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was rejected in a paper written in 1922, which means that creationists who erect this canard are ignorant of scientific literature published over eighty years ago.

While covering this topic, it's also necessary to deal with the canard that entropy equals 'disorder'. This is a non-rigorous view of entropy that scientists engaged in precise work discarded some time ago. Not least because there are documented examples of systems that have a precisely calculated entropy increase after spontaneously self-organising into well-defined structures. Phospholipids are the classic example of such a system - a suspension of phospholipids in aqueous solution will spontaneously self-assemble into structures such as micelles, bilayer sheets and liposomes upon receiving an energy input consisting of nothing more than gentle agitation. In other words, just shake the bottle. Moreover, the following scientific paper discusses in some detail the fact that entropy can increase when a system becomes more ordered, a paper that was published in 1998, and hence, has been in circulation for over a decade now:

Gentle Force Of Entropy Bridges Disciplines by David Kestenbaum, Science, 279: 1849 (20th March 1998)

Kestenbaum, 1998 wrote:Normally, entropy is a force of disorder rather than organization. But physicists have recently explored the ways in which an increase in entropy in one part of a system can force another part into greater order. The findings have rekindled speculation that living cells might take advantage of this little-known trick of physics.

Entropy, as rigorously defined, has units of Joules per Kelvin, and is therefore a function of energy versus thermodynamic temperature. The simple fact of the matter is that if the thermodynamic temperature increases, then the total entropy of a given system decreases if no additional energy was input into the system in order to provide the increase in thermodynamic temperature. Star formation is an excellent example of this, because the thermodynamic temperature at the core of a gas cloud increases as the cloud coalesces under gravity. All that is required to increase the core temperature to the point where nuclear fusion is initiated is sufficient mass. No external energy is added to the system. Consequently, the entropy at the core decreases due to the influence of gravity driving up the thermodynamic temperature. Yet the highly compressed gas in the core is hardly "ordered".

STOP PRESS: as if to reinforce this point, my attention has just been drawn to this scientific paper:

Disordered, Quasicrystalline And Crystalline Phases Of Densely Packed Tetrahedra by Amir Haji-Akbari, Michael Engel, Aaron S. Keys, Xiaoyu Zheng, Rolfe G. Petschek, Peter Palffy-Muhoray and Sharon C. Glotzer, Nature, 462: 773-777 (10th December 2009)

The abstract is suitably informative here:

Haji-Akbari, 2009 wrote: All hard, convex shapes are conjectured by Ulam to pack more densely than spheres1, which have a maximum packing fraction of φ = π/∫18 ≈ 0.7405. Simple lattice packings of many shapes easily surpass this packing fraction2, 3. For regular tetrahedra, this conjecture was shown to be true only very recently; an ordered arrangement was obtained via geometric construction with φ = 0.7786 (ref. 4), which was subsequently compressed numerically to φ = 0.7820 (ref. 5), while compressing with different initial conditions led to φ = 0.8230 (ref. 6). Here we show that tetrahedra pack even more densely, and in a completely unexpected way.Following a conceptually different approach, using thermodynamic computer simulations that allow the system to evolve naturally towards high-density states, we observe that a fluid of hard tetrahedra undergoes a first-order phase transition to a dodecagonal quasicrystal7, 8, 9, 10, which can be compressed to a packing fraction of φ = 0.8324. By compressing a crystalline approximant of the quasicrystal, the highest packing fraction we obtain is φ = 0.8503. If quasicrystal formation is suppressed, the system remains disordered, jams and compresses to φ = 0.7858. Jamming and crystallization are both preceded by an entropy-driven transition from a simple fluid of independent tetrahedra to a complex fluid characterized by tetrahedra arranged in densely packed local motifs of pentagonal dipyramids that form a percolating network at the transition. The quasicrystal that we report represents the first example of a quasicrystal formed from hard or non-spherical particles.Our results demonstrate that particle shape and entropy can produce highly complex, ordered structures.

So as if the Kestenbaum paper on entropy driving ordered systems, and the empirical evidence from phospholipids were not enough, we now have this. Consequently, the message to creationists is simple: don't bother wasting your time posting the "evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics" canard, because it is now well and truly busted.

Some creationists, however, erect a related, and in some respects, even more asinine canard, that evolution somehow violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Guess who provided us with rigorous statements about this law? That's right, Rudolf Clausius again. Let's see what he actually stated with respect to this, shall we? The Clausius formulation of the First Law of Thermodynamics is this:

The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy input into the system via heating, minus the energy lost as a result of the work done by the system upon its surroundings.

The mathematical expression of which is:

dU = δQ - δW

If the process is reversible, then this can be recast in terms of exact differentials by noting that δW is equal to PdV, where P is the internal pressure, and V the volume occupied, and that δQ is equal to TdS, where T is the thermodynamic temperature and S is the entropy of the system. Therefore this becomes dU = TdS - PdV.

Oh look. Clausius explicitly framed the First Law of Thermodynamics in terms of energy exchanges within a system. He did NOT assume constancy thereof. Indeed, the rigorous framing of the First Law of Thermodynamics explicitly takes into account the possibility of a system being a recipient of energy that can be used to perform useful work. Therefore creationist canards erected about the First Law of Thermodynamics are null and void for the same reasons as those erected about the Second Law of Thermodynamics - said canards not only ignore completely Clausius' original and rigorous formulations of those laws, and ignore completely that Clausius framed his formulations around energy exchanges between a system and its surroundings, but rely upon outright misrepresentations of those laws.

Indeed, Clausius had energy exchanges in mind with respect to the Second Law of Thermodynamics as well, which is why the statement on entropy was framed in terms of an isolated system, which engages in no such exchanges with the surroundings. When energy exchanges are taking place, the operation of the Second law of Thermodynamics within such systems is subtly different.

I also wanted to add a bit about your silly assertion that it's only a theory... Trust me, it's a fact, and is rejection of reality on a wholesecale level to assert anything but. The mechanisms by which evolution happen are also quite well understood, but there are fine points that are still being worked out. Evolution is a theory in the same way gravity is a theory, only that we actually know a great deal more about evolution than we do gravity.

6 Scientific theories are NOT guesses.

This is a favourite (and wholly duplicitous) canard beloved of creationists, and relies upon the fact that in everyday usage, English words are loaded with a multiplicity of meanings. This is NOT the case in science, where terms used are precisely defined. The precise definition apposite here is the definition of theory. In science, a theory is an integrated explanation for a class of real world observational phenomena of interest, that has been subjected to direct empirical test with respect to its correspondence with observational reality, and which has been found, via such testing, to be in accord with observational reality. It is precisely because scientific theories have been subject to direct empirical test, and have passed said empirical test, that they ARE theories, and consequently enjoy a high status in the world of scientific discourse. As a consequence of the above, anyone who erects the "it's only a theory" canard with respect to evolution will be regarded with well deserved scorn and derision.

If you want a good visualization of evolution, maybe this picture will help you with some shorthand: THAT is a logical process that seems to escape people who deny evolution. Again, I suggest you read up more at one of the earlier links provided.