It seems to me, however, that I've seen creationist arguments about the "closed system" that aren't quite what is being presented here but since I haven't followed them I can't really say anything about them.
But discrediting a particular argument about the Second Law doesn't necessarily discredit the whole creationist claim.
It seems to me to be pretty obvious that the universe IS gradually running down or losing energy or however that should be put. You can always point to factors that demonstrate renewal and growth nevertheless because seeds do sprout and grow to maturity, babies do start from a seed and grow up, the sun does give energy to all life on earth and so on and so forth, and yet, overall, the sun is gradually gradually burning out, living things are subject to disease and death, even extinction of whole species, and that's where we can see the Second Law in operation. Things running down, things running out. Slowly, very slowly. The evidence of the Fall.
The argument of course is that the Theory of Evolution contradicts the Second Law: both can't be true. They solve the problem by tacitly assuming or hallucinating an ever-renewing input of life energy that does not exist.
Oh, and if with much abstruse mathematical conjuring you can "prove" that the Second Law does not describe what I'm describing, then we need another law, that's all, because what I'm talking about IS happening and creationists know it is happening, and anybody with half a brain ought to know it's happening and it doesn't matter one iota whether the Second Law says so to your satisfaction or not.
Later (Message 17) Trixie says:
Last night someone who was arguing for a 6000 year old earth and a global flood supported their position by linking to information on ice ages dated to 11,000 and 14,700 years ago. Another genius tried to cast doubt on carbon-dating by pointing out problems specific to K/Ar dating then linking to a page which exposed the errors in the usual arguments against carbon-dating, so refuting himself.I don't know what the argument concerning the ice age(s) was but apparently the creationist failed to make clear that he/she denies the dates assigned by old-earth science, which obviously Trixie accepts as gospel truth. We know there was ONE ice age, but there most likely weren't two, and the one can't be older than the Flood. According to something I read somewhere the ice age was most likely the result of heat released in the Flood period, on the same principle as refrigeration (don't ask, haven't researched this in some time), heat caused probably by tectonic movement.
As for the rest of it, it sounds like the creationist did get confused.
And in message 46 by Son Goku:
Unfortunately the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a particularly difficult concept to set right to an audience of this kind. This is because a lot of presentations make it appear to be about order and disorder (where as this is only a common, but not universal, consequence of it). Unfortunately an "increase in disorder" fits with all sorts of notions such as the decline of the world after the "fall". I've seen many Creationists using it as scientific proof of their world view, i.e. "Look the world really is decaying!"I don't think we need the Second Law to know the world "really is decaying," that takes just the minimal knowledge of the fact that the sun IS gradually burning out and life DOES die, and the Second Law seems to reflect this fact. If it doesn't it doesn't, nevertheless the world "really is decaying."