Answers in Genesis states it so much better than I can, so I will reference this material found at their site:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Answers to Critics
by Jonathan Sarfati
Readers who are unfamiliar with the anti-evolution argument from thermodynamics might like to read this article from the Christian Answers Network. This present article deals with three common questions about creationist thermodynamic arguments, and rebuts some common evolutionary counter-arguments:
Open systems
Crystals
The 2nd Law and the Fall
Question 1: Open Systems
‘Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.
‘This does seem to be a valid point—do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?’
Answer 1:
The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:
that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)
usable energy is running out
information tends to get scrambled
order tends towards disorder
a random jumble won’t organize itself
It also depends on the type of system:
An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.
A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.
An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.1
Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization, covered in Question 2 below. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.
The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow though an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.
It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.
To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.
I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.
You're ducking the question.
An increase in entropy is proportional to the amount of heat transferred at constant temperature. If you're going to make the claim that life is impossible based on this, you should be able to show it using calculations based on this relationship (no one's done this yet as far as I know).
I don't see anything in your post except for the rehashed 19th century interpretations of the second law and some out of context quotations.
Conflation of molecular entropy and informational entropy.
As it applies to biology it is more correctly stated as: Energy spontaneously tends to flow from being concentrated to being diffused or dispersed if not hindered. Entropy is a measurement of the amount of energy that has been diffused.
"An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
"… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.1
This is not what evolutionists say at all. The 2LoT applies everywhere, however it can be held off by various mechanisms (it is not immediate). Further, the application of energy can trigger (overcome the activation energy) a reaction which in the case of chemical bonds allows complex (3 atoms or more) molecules to form. The point is that an open system makes more energy available to do work.
"Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization, covered in Question 2 below. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.
Note the use of the term 'machinery' in an attempt to inject ID into the system. Living organisms have chemical molecules that in the process of putting externally sourced energy to work by either combining smaller molecules into more complex molecules (and diffusing a small amount of energy) or overcoming activation energies of 'stored' energy to make it available to do work (thus diffusing the energy).
"The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things.
This assumes the premise that CSI is part of biological organisms. Without some verification that the premise is valid any argument using it should be ignored.
"Undirected energy just speeds up destruction.
This is another attempt to inject ID into the argument. It completely ignores the use of entropy to accomplish work. It also ignores the possibility of having the energy flow obstructed until the activation energy is overcome. Energy can be obstructed for any length of time.
"Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy.
Except to make vitamin D. This is a strawman argument. Humans use energy from the sun indirectly, through eating plants and animals. These sources 'store' energy that is obstructed from diffusing until we ingest it. During the process of our using and storing that energy some of it diffuses as body heat and bodily excretions. (Anytime energy diffuses, entropy increases meaning that the 2LoT is being followed).
"If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information).
The only time this is a problem for evolution is if the mutation occurs in the gamete. Skin cancer or other radiation damage that occurs in any other cell does not affect the inheritance of DNA. You will note that the majority of mutations in germ cells is due to copy errors during meiosis, are primarily neutral and are not related to radiation. Using the term 'undirected' is simply a red herring.
"Similarly, undirected energy flow though an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.
It will, depending on the temperature, also allow complex molecules to form by overcoming any activation energy. It is only a problem it the temperature is high enough to break the chemical bonds.
This entire paragraph is a strawman.
"It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight.
This is a huge strawman and a false analogy to boot. The use of energy for work and the increase of entropy as used in biological organisms is in no way similar to pouring gas on a car. Biological organisms (other than plants with chlorophyll) use the sun's energy indirectly, by pouring the gas into the gas tank.
"No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.
The creation of molecules takes energy. Work done in chemical reactions takes energy. Complexity is created by all sorts of natural processes that use energy, much of it energy being diffused by an external source, which of course increases the entropy of that source.
lay people trying to be physicists? madness....*shakes head*
"order tends towards disorder "....."a random jumble won’t organize itself "
obviously stated without any knowledge whatsoever of nonlinear mathematics and the "anti-chaos theory". This theory can be mathematically applied to any system (macroscopic or microscopic). see examples of anti-chaos or self ordering systems in genetics for example. where we do not see regression to lower order genome, but in fact movement towards complexity and order. This makes a nonsense of the above statement. This is not a closed system still the author is treating it as such
"The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things.Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. "
Obvious error here, raw energy? a very unscientific term, energy changes STATE it cannot be destroyed in a closed or open system. The argument that solar energy cannot be harnessed by human beings is absurd. Human beings eat food that CAN harness solar energy, they eat predators that also eat food that can be harnessed by solar energy. Solar energy is also not the only form of ambient energy in our system. There is also radiation that stimulates genetic mutations. there are also quantum forces not treated by this comment and ignored. A buffoon wrote this IMHO.
" If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). "
Mutations if combined with the mechanism of natural selection are ALWAYS successful and select for robust and strong competing advantage over the encroached or incumbent species. The mutant gene will in the case of natural selection prevail at the expense of the less robust. In terms of mutation causing loss of information? explain how recombination events or other genetic mechanisms used by biological system to "capture" genetic material and extend the genome seem to fly in the face of this statement?
My conclusion is that this is a poor and crude attempt by a lay person, probably a PHD theologian to rebut topics and arguments he does not understand. It hurts his cause not helps it.