From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Most creationists have rejected the simpler forms of the second law of thermodynamics thing. --John 00:39, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I'm not a young earth creationist, but isn't this one of the things on Answers in Genesis's list of "arguments that should not be used"? MountainDew 00:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I don't like the label "creationist", but I find the entropy argument very persuasive. Maybe it depends on how the argument is presented, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics is fundamental and never, ever violated.--Aschlafly 00:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

MountainDew, in a word yes. The argument is actually one of the most painfully flawed of all creationist arguments- the 2nd law as a statement of entropy levels only applies to closed systems and the Earth (where evolution is occuring) is not a closed system. Furthermore, it isn't even clear that evolution decreases the local level of entropy anyways. JoshuaZ 00:55, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Im getting really fed up of this now... I dont know how many times ive had to dismiss it, but anyone who tries to use entropy to argue against evolution has no understanding of entropy, at all. The argument is wrong in every way its possible to be wrong. It applies to systems, but species are not systems in the thermodynamic sense, though individuals are. Individuals, however, do not evolve. It applies to closed systems - individuals are not, for they eat. The earth is not either, for it recieves and radiates energy. The whole argument is utter... well, I cant use the words I wish to here, but you get the idea. The argument is so absolutly rediculous that, yes, even AiG has publicly advised creationists not to use it. - Suricou
On the contrary, 2nd law is indeed violated on the quantum scale, and even on the macro scale if you wait a very long time. Tsumetai 11:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
But for most, if not all, systems, that would be a meaninglessly long time for a noticeable violation. I'm not sure that the concept of entropy is actually applicable on the quantum scale (whatever that may mean ;-). Entropy is a thermodynamic quantity and hence is only meaningful for large assemblies of particles. PaulB 11:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, the timescales are almost inconceivable on any noticeable scale.
Entropy can certainly be formulated in QM terms, though. For that matter, large assemblies of particles can still be quantum-mechanical in nature; consider the difference between Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics in stat mech. Tsumetai 11:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Stellar edit, Tsumetsai

That about says it all--AmesG 11:57, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Definition of Entropy

While order and disorder are useful concepts for the beginner to start to understand what entropy is, the thermodynamic concept of entropy actually has nothing to do with whether something is ordered or not, especially given how variable the definition of "ordered" can be. I have changed the definition to match what is commonly accepted in scientific vernacular. JaPo 02:15, 31 January 2013 (EST)

Entropy and relativity

I'm quite sure that relativity and thermodynamics aren't contradictory, anyone have a citation for that as I might be wrong. Richardm (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2016 (EDT)

Of course they are not contradictory. I wouldn't be able to find a citation for your being wrong, because you are right.
That statement is just one part of the widespread practice of denying relativity by any means possible, including the use of incredibly confusing/meaningless statements, that goes on in Conservapedia's science articles. We (you, I, and a few others) are trying to fix this, but it's slow going.
Beware--before you try to fix that statement, be aware that it is above the table of contents. We need to be very careful in how we proceed. See my comments at the bottom of Talk:E=mc². You've probably seen it, since it was addressed to you. SamHB (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2016 (EDT)