Problem with your presentation is in this statement. The earth isn't a closed system per se; but, the universe is. And the Earth lives in that universe. The sun is destructive to everything it presents itself to with one exception - chlorophyl. So, your own example destroys your premise. You can introduce energy into any system you want, that doesn't mean the system is capable of making use of said energy. Wherever it can't make use of said energy, said energy is destructive to the system - not beneficial. Thus the law itself. Your exception to the rule requires another exception to the rule to be relevant in minor circumstances. If a man dies on the operating table and is brain dead at 90, you can introduce all the energy to his system you want, the brain is dead and the body will continue decaying. The end of that is disorder as the body breaks down. You can keep the circulatory system and resperatory system going; but, without the brain to tell every other system what to do, you're just spinning your wheels. It's like putting a car with a dead engine up on blocks and spinning the wheels to convince someone that the car is still good. Not without an engine it ain't. Introduce all the energy to that car you want, it ain't goin anywhere unless you can replace the engine. In the case of the human body - that's impossible.
No, it isn't. His statement is quite to the point, and explains in a nutshell your error with regard to the laws of thermodynamics.
The earth isn't a closed system per se; but, the universe is. And the Earth lives in that universe.
None of which invalidates his point or rescues your mistakes with respect to what the laws of thermodynamics do or do not allow.
The sun is destructive to everything it presents itself to with one exception - chlorophyl.
ROFL!! Where exactly do you learn all your "science"? I suspect you've been reading *way* too many creationist sources and far too few scientific ones. That wasn't a rhetorical question -- please tell us where you learn this stuff, since it misinforms you at almost every turn.
No, the Sun is not "destructive to everything it presents itself to with one exception - chlorophyl". It is, for example, the constructive force behind the formation and movement of rivers and freshwater lakes. And as was pointed out to you in the very post you're attempting to respond to, it also causes the organized weather pattern known as a hurricane, which is far more ordered than what preceded it. The Sun also is what causes ordered salt deposits to form from disorganized salt water, clouds to form, weather patterns to organize, etc. etc. And that's not even to mention the indirect processes powered by the Sun.
And finally, nothing in your assertion helps your claim about what the laws of thermodynamics actually say.
So to ask a question I unfortunately find myself asking of almost all creationists, are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?
So, your own example destroys your premise.
No it doesn't.
You can introduce energy into any system you want, that doesn't mean the system is capable of making use of said energy.
Please rigorously define "capable of making use of" as you're using in this context. Also let's see you attempt to tie this recent rambling into some sort of relevance to the laws of thermodynamics.
Wherever it can't make use of said energy, said energy is destructive to the system - not beneficial.
Please define "destructive" and "beneficial" as you are using them in a thermodynamic context. We'll wait.
Thus the law itself.
You're still grossly misunderstanding what "the law" of thermodynamics actually says and does not say. Your notions of "destructive and beneficial" have nothing to do with thermodynamics.
Your exception to the rule requires another exception to the rule to be relevant in minor circumstances.
*His* "exception to the rule"? Oookay... Please quote where you believe he cited any "exception to the rule".
If a man dies on the operating table and is brain dead at 90, you can introduce all the energy to his system you want, the brain is dead and the body will continue decaying.
Actually, an appropriately intricate application of energy would indeed restore him to life. It's just that current medical science doesn't have that level of finesse. But you're talking "even in theory", and you're wrong on that point.
The end of that is disorder as the body breaks down.
Not if you freeze him in liquid nitrogen. Oops, there goes your "law".
You can keep the circulatory system and resperatory system going; but, without the brain to tell every other system what to do, you're just spinning your wheels. It's like putting a car with a dead engine up on blocks and spinning the wheels to convince someone that the car is still good. Not without an engine it ain't.
That's nice. And this has *what* to do with the laws of thermodynamics, please? The real ones, I mean -- not your cartoon versions of them.
Introduce all the energy to that car you want, it ain't goin anywhere unless you can replace the engine.
How much money would you like to wager on that claim?
In the case of the human body - that's impossible.
And again, this has *what* to do with the laws of thermodynamics? Oh, right, nothing.