ernest_theweedwhackerguy said:
No. They've already been asked...again...and again...and again. Multiple times in this very thread! What you need to do is go back and read.
First you need to read all of the posts that already addressed your claim about the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Then you need to look back at this:
What Hovind says is completely correct.
I refuted that claim and illustrated a lie perpetrated by Hovind in Post #122. This is the second time I've had to remind you that post #122 exists. I shouldn't have to repeat the claim over and over simply because you don't read what people write. We've already been patient with repeating claims for you that you ignore and misrepresent. It's time you pull your own weight here.
So basically, we don't have to repeat our responses for you. You have to actually go back and read them.
Ill be more than happy to answer them, I'm just only on for 15 minutes a day, so i don't have time to read all of it.
Then, as the saying goes, don't write checks that you can't cash.
Don't go around making quick posts full of fallaceous statements only to not be willing to take the time to read the replies and address what people really say, and then don't lie about what people write rather than taking the time to read and address those posts.
I still need to catch up on some of the posts.
Yes, you do. It's not our responsibility to repeat the same claims in this thread if you haven't even read them the first time. A quick recap of the thermo. issue:
In response to the question, "because I understand them and know that they are not violated in evolution and abiogenesis. tell me, which one of those laws is violated and why?"
First law, says matter cannot be created or destroyed.
This was addressed directly and succinctly by people like notto and Karl. Yet only a little later in the thread you complain:
Let me ask you one thing, why do both the first and second law disprove evolution, yet you won't even touch it?
You repeat your same claim and then complain that no one addressed it even though they did!
Then your cheerleader posted the same claim that the first and second laws of thermodynamics are violated by evolution by making the same two mistakes that you did: first, both of you posted INCORRECT definitions of the laws of thermodynamics and failed to correct them even though it was pointed out more than once, and neither showed why they were violated by evolutionary theory or addressed the refutations.
Other people like Tomk80, Ondoher, Jet Black, Mistermystery and myself corrected this AGAIN and rather than actually address what any of us wrote you replied with this:
And he's back...Welcome back Bliss...I look forward to the famous, "Thats irrelevent....Thats just a strawman..." type comments again. Nice to have you back, and i look forward to reading your posts again so i can prove you wrong. I got my facts straight, and in this thread you cant say those famous one-liners.
You implied that my post was a one-liner reply of "that's irrelevant" (which is NOT a direct quotation from my post coincidentally) even though my post was more detailed and explained why both of you did not represent the laws of thermodynamics correctly, why they are not violated by evolution and asked other questions like why scientists don't agree with that claim of yours. You avoided ALL of that.
You picked out the word "irrelevant" in my post and then complained that it was nothing but a one-liner, which is not representative of what I wrote at all...you know, all of that you had to delete from my post that you could have addressed. That's another example of a creationist lie right there by yourself.
And i have another queston. Why is it that evolutionists lie, and say that they don't?
That's because they don't, yet there is ample documented evidence that creationists do lie. Take my Hovind example above. Creationists on this forum have been known to lie from time to time even to the point of saying it out in the open, that arguments for creationism should be exaggerated dishonestly because the end goal justifies the means. Even when faced with a refutation of your claim you lied about what I wrote and ignored what everyone else wrote.