Evolution vs. Creation: The Great Debate

[RichardT]

I see the second law of thermodynamics come up again and again in creationist arguments. The second law states that entropy increases over time in an ISOLATED SYSTEM, meaning it does not receive or release mass or energy into its surroundings. However, there's that one, big, very hot ball of hydrogen-hydrogen fusion sending quite a fair amount of energy into Earth's atmosphere.

Actually, modern creationists are well aware of what the second law of thermodynamics states, they do know that the entropy of an open system can decrease if it increases elsewhere.

dS > = dq/T can be written as -dS <= -dq/T

 

[RealityCheck]

Actually, modern creationists are well aware of what the second law of thermodynamics states, they do know that the entropy of an open system can increase if it decreases elsewhere.

dS > = dq/T can be written as -dS <= -dq/T

Yes. They just seem to assume that their audiences don't, and they deliberately misinterpret it and read theological implications into it that aren't there.

 

[USincognito]

Not that it really effects the content of his argument, but did any of you guys notice that thecountrydoc is an SDA? His denomination, through George McCready Price and his plagerist Henry Morris gave us modern YECism (stripped of SDA theology). I only point this out because unlike funtamentalists and contemporary denominations who claim fundamentalism, SDA theology is based on a literal Genesis and YEC.

 

[Paulos23]

Well Paulos23,

I find your response most interesting. Why do I say that? Because you have used the introduction to my last post while avoiding the body of the post. Your action reminds me of many so-called christians who pick and choose what they want from the Bible while ignoring the complete text. It would seem that your response is as illogicial as your theory.

To declare something to be scientific the following definition isused: The ability to demonstrate and observe an action or reaction, then by reproduction of said action or reaction observe the same results.

Respectfully,
Doc

The body was not quoted since it was already in quotes and the quick quote feature does not pick up internal quotes. I did read that whole thing, and it is still a statement of faith since it assumes the bible is with out error. We have no reason to believe that it is true. Which is why we look for evidence.

Your second assumtion is that if it is not observed, science can't use it. This is not a good definition of science. A better one would be:

Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality, in a way which can be used algorithmically to make concrete and quantitative predictions about future events and observations. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1]

Nothing in there says an action or event has to be observed. I suggest you recheck your source for that definition. Again, if that was true, then no forensic evidence would be admitted in a court.