The universe is a closed system.and if you actually believe that somehow the 2nd law does'nt apply to the earth, then why has the law never failed when given application not only to the universe - but to the earth. Yet somehow you claim, that in the area of the naturalist approach to evolution - the 2nd law has no bearing on the theory? I find this absurd. Our sun is winding down and to think this will have no impact on earth as this energy redistributes is also absurd. Atleast you "kinda" admit that "someday the entropic piper will have to be paid."..since "presumably the entire universe is a closed system"? Excuse me, if the 2nd law somehow supported naturalistic evolution, you would not use the word "presumably" nor would you try and give any wiggle room to this unproven splitting of hairs about open or closed systems. You want to carve out some imaginary exception to allow for "entropy running up the hill" and then comparing it to what? eddy currents? How confusing your mind must be when you attempt to juggle such illusions.
The universe is a closed system and the earth is part of that closed system - no exceptions. If you could offer any scientific PROOF where the earth is exempt from the 2nd law, please tell me. Otherwise this is another invented strawman that has no basis in reality. Again, the 2nd law HAS NEVER FAILED when tested -
I believe the Big Bang, the 1st and 2nd law of Therm and Paley's Theory are the best that science has accomplished in terms of creation. I don't need to make excuses for what is obviously true. Independently, they say nothing about the supernatural, but taken together they have unshakable implications. This conclusion is a logical consequence of a collection of explanatory, scientific theories. Its legitimacy could be refuted by falsifying any of these theories. It is actually explanatory, logically self-consistent and testable.
The second law applies to closed systems. The earth isn't such an animal. It is constantly fed energy from the sun. ENTROPY does indeed always get lost in energy transactions, as you have noted, and which confuses you, and is always intrinsically increasing where energy is doing work, as you have surmised, however, that is not the whole story. The second law is about closed systems--look it up (which I strongly recommend, at this point), if you don't believe me. Because the earth-sun system isn't closed, the local entropy losses from energy transactions on the earth are swamped by tons of free energy pouring in all the time from the sun, more than offsetting potential energy losses.
Yet somehow you claim, that in the area of the naturalist approach to evolution - the 2nd law has no bearing on the theory? I find this absurd. Our sun is winding down and to think this will have no impact on earth as this energy redistributes is also absurd.
The sun doesn't somehow radiate it's entropy losses to the earth, only energy. Our sun will wind down in about 8 billion years, or so, and only long after that will the entropy books have to be balanced. That's too long from now to care about.
Atleast you "kinda" admit that "someday the entropic piper will have to be paid."..since "presumably the entire universe is a closed system"? Excuse me, if the 2nd law somehow supported naturalistic evolution, you would not use the word "presumably" nor would you try and give any wiggle room to this unproven splitting of hairs about open or closed systems.
I am not "splitting hairs"--I am reporting to you what the 2nd law states. You really need to look it up before you embarass yourself further on this subject. I use the word "presumably" because it is not yet clear to me that the universe is a closed system, though the arguments from big bang cosmology seem pretty strong--it's a notion that came up before we started entertaining half-serious ideas about extra dimensions and multi-verses.
You want to carve out some imaginary exception to allow for "entropy running up the hill" and then comparing it to what? eddy currents? How confusing your mind must be when you attempt to juggle such illusions.
You have not understood the issues in question, I am telling you nothing different than you could get from any chem professor. This is not a minor issue about which I might be mistaken, it is fundamental to a chemical education.
The universe is a closed system and the earth is part of that closed system - no exceptions.
A subset of a closed system is NOT a closed system, unless it is very carefully chosen to have no energy transfers outside of itself. The earth is no such system, it receives energy transferred from the sun, and will not give it back until everything that might have evolved on the earth is finished evolving.
If you could offer any scientific PROOF where the earth is exempt from the 2nd law, please tell me. Otherwise this is another invented strawman that has no basis in reality. Again, the 2nd law HAS NEVER FAILED when tested -
You don't understand the argument, apparently because you aren't clear that entropy, and the second law, are not the same thing. Get an introductory chem textbook and look at the definitions you are talking about for goodness sakes.
I believe the Big Bang, the 1st and 2nd law of Therm and Paley's Theory are the best that science has accomplished in terms of creation. I don't need to make excuses for what is obviously true. Independently, they say nothing about the supernatural, but taken together they have unshakable implications. This conclusion is a logical consequence of a collection of explanatory, scientific theories. Its legitimacy could be refuted by falsifying any of these theories. It is actually explanatory, logically self-consistent and testable.
Huh. Cosmic.