Replies

Actually, the Law of Entropy operates in regard to all systems anywhere. It applies to open systems as well as closed systems. That is why physicists maintain that even the universe itself is slowly running down in terms of treadle energy, and so is the sun. Thus, for Darwinists to claim that living systems are excluded from the workings of the Law of Entropy because living systems are open systems does not make sense." —Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1988), pp. 77-78.
"Entropy is a property which is defined for and true of each and every part of the universe. There is no evidence whatever than there is a region of the universe where the second law does not apply. Laws of science are universals and the denial of this fact is question-begging." —*J.P. Moreland, Universals, Qualities, and Quality Instances: A Defense of Realism (1985).

"Evolutionists . . [say that] the Earth, in particular, is an open system; and that in an open system strange things may happen to the entropy, and to everything else. . Some [evolutionists) say that there was a great increase in entropy in the Sun, or in outer space, or somewhere; so that a spontaneous decrease in entropy on the Earth [therefore occurred] and is not surprising. The idea seems to be that an increase in entropy in one place can atone, so to speak, for a decrease in another. It is rather as if one were to expect a small pot of water, put onto the fire, to freeze, provided a larger pot put beside it boil . . But, surely an increase in entropy in one place has to do with an (alleged) decrease in another only if there is some connection of cause and effect between them. And, needless to say, such a connection has not been demonstrated." —H. L Armstrong, "Evolutionistic Defense Against Thermodynamics Disproved," . in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1980, p. 227.

"'The evolution of life is an anti-entropic process, running counter to the second law of thermodynamics with its degradation of energy and its tendency to uniformity:" —*Julian Huxley, Introduction, Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of Man, (1959), p. 27.

Arnold Sommerfel, , "...the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics, p.155

"As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of running down." —*Isaac Asimov, "Can Decreasing Entropy Exist in the Universe?" in Science Digest, May 1973, p. 78.

"No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we end no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles." —*Harold Glum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1962), p. 119.

"Man has long been aware that his world has a tendency to fall apart. Tools wear out, fishing nets need repair, roofs leak, iron rusts, wood decays, loved ones sicken and die.. We instinctively resent the decay of orderly systems such as the living organism and work to restore such systems to their former or even higher level of organization." —*V.R. Potter, "Society and Science," in Science, November 20, 1964, p. 1018.

"There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation—the law of increasing entropy." —*R. B. Kindsay: "Physics—To What Extent is it Deterministic," in American Scientist, Vol. 156 (1973), p. 100.

"As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of running down." —*Isaac Asimov, "Can Decreasing Entropy Exist in the Universe?" in Science Digest, May 1973, p. 78.

Funny, whoever extracted this quote failed to record Asimov's actual answer to the question posed by his article title. But we have him on record elsewhere on this thread, don't we? Or try here:

You must remember that the laws of thermodynamics apply to closed systems only. If we consider an open system, it is only too simple to find examples of apparent decreases in entropy.
In a refrigerator, for instance, heat is constantly being pumped from the cold objects within to the warm atmosphere outside in apparent defiance of the second law. A warm object, placed within the refrigerator, cools down; therefore, the available energy (represented by the temperature difference between the air outside and the object within the refrigerator) increases.

From Thermodynamics by Isaac Asimov (a whole chapter extracted from one of his books).

How many of the quotes in your salad would prove similarly dishonest? You don't know, yourself. You cluelessly paste.

Another section addressed the term "closed."

In other words, if we include within our system all the activities that affect the system, then it turns out that the net change in entropy is always an increase. When we detect an entropy decreases it is invariably the case that we are studying part of a system and not an entire one.
In actual practice we can never be sure that we are dealing with a closed system. No matter how we insulate, there are always influences from outside-energy gains and energy losses from and to the outside. All processes on the earth are affected by solar energy, and even if we consider the earth and sun together as one large system, there are gravitational and radiational influences from other planets and even other stars. Indeed, we cannot be certain that we are dealing with a truly closed system unless we take for our system nothing less than the entire universe.

You said:

*Harold Glum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1962), p. 119.

That's a typo in your uncredited source. It's Blum.

A Yahoo! on "Time's Arrow and Evolution".

Your source uses the correct spelling in most of its other quotes of Blum, various editions of the same book. And why various editions? Observe the wandering years:

*H.F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution, (1982), p. v., 16.
*Harold F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution, (1982), p. 14.
*Harold F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution, (1962), p. 15.
*Harold F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1951), p. 87.

Not to mention your "Harold Glum," same book, back to 1962.

What's going on here?

What makes this problem worse in creationist literature is that many creationist writers do not actually read what they are quoting in the original but copy it from another writer, usually (but not necessarily) another creationist who himself might have copied it from yet another creationist. This is often revealed by multiple creationists having the same error in the quote or citation. Thus if a single creationist is dishonest, sloppy, or incompetent in his quotation the error becomes widespread.

From ThinkPlease's Quote-Mining Reference.

Why all those edition numbers? The author of the web page probably hasn't read even one edition of Blum's book. He just picked up a bunch of quotes already extracted by other ingenious idiots and slammed them together. He probably hasn't read Asimov or any of his mainstream ~~victims~~ sources either. And you, Sparky, are just parroting this clown, claiming his mangled "quote plagiarism" as your own.