Ah, fair enough. I thought your comment was directed to me and I could not quite understand it.
Regards, Roland
Upvote
0
Second Law of Thermodynamics - a creationist puzzle.
- Thread starter rjw
- Start date
Regards, Roland
MoonLancer
The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
its a good thing then, that we don't live in a closed system, otherwise that would be a problem. as seen by the evidence, its not a problem.
Upvote
0
MasterOfKrikkit
Regular Member
Which brings us back to rjw's OP: why, then, can anything occur in a universe governed by entropy. How can a tree grow? How can my refrigerator work?
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
It works because angels move hot air out of your refrigerator and cold air in by beating their wings real fast.
Upvote
0
Wiccan_Child
Contributor
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Don't be daft, it's clearly the action of Maxwell's DemonIt works because angels move hot air out of your refrigerator and cold air in by beating their wings real fast.
.
Upvote
0
You can say it as many times as you want, but reality is not going to bend itself to your narrow view of it.
I'd ask you to explain why, but I have a feeling I would get either an irrelevant bible passage, or no response at all.
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
I don't have to mention anything about the SUN... others here have already done so. But tell us, what specific mechanism(s) of evolution violates the rules of entropy?
Upvote
0
Well I see nothing tangible from any creationist, despite the number of times this claim is made. If it had any tangibility about it, then I am sure that YECs would have flooded in, loaded with their arguments as well as supporting evidence.
I posted this same thread over on another board, CARM. Again it generated a lot of smoke from creationists, but no fire.
All YECs could only see the thread in terms of origin of life. Perhaps one or two vaguely addressed evolution in a round about way. For example one poster proposed that the macro-molecules of life could not be built up from simpler ones because:-
Small molecules build into large ones, and large molecules build into macromolecules. That's addition and it violates the Second Law.
It was pointed out by a couple of posters that the formation of a water molecule then, must violate 2LoT, to which he responded:-
The formation of macromolecules certainly looks like a violation of the Second Law.
That particular discussion ambled on for a few more posts without developing any more sense.
Another YEC proffered the following link:-
http://ldolphin.org/mystery/
with a cut n paste as his argument. It was pointed out that those authors were not demonstrating a violation at all, and that at best, all they were saying was that no natural pathway to the origin of life had yet been found.
Yet another YEC said that he believed that God did it, on faith. Of course, if one adopts that kind of reasoning, then any thing can be believed, providing one does it on faith.
Another creationist, whom I gave full marks to, told me that he did not understand enough about evolution and 2LoT to be able to comment. But he gave me his opinion anyway, and it was one that did not really deny the possibility of evolution. He was honest and offered up no pretentious garbage. I doubt that he would exactly consider himself a YEC either.
So I would say that creationists simply cannot justify their claims. If creationists really had any thing to offer, I am sure they would have been here in droves, presenting their arguments and defending them.
The violate 2LoT claim was not justified here or on the other board.
All attempts lacked sense.
There was one post I was happy with. The last one I mention it was honest.
Regards, Roland
I posted this same thread over on another board, CARM. Again it generated a lot of smoke from creationists, but no fire.
All YECs could only see the thread in terms of origin of life. Perhaps one or two vaguely addressed evolution in a round about way. For example one poster proposed that the macro-molecules of life could not be built up from simpler ones because:-
Small molecules build into large ones, and large molecules build into macromolecules. That's addition and it violates the Second Law.
It was pointed out by a couple of posters that the formation of a water molecule then, must violate 2LoT, to which he responded:-
The formation of macromolecules certainly looks like a violation of the Second Law.
That particular discussion ambled on for a few more posts without developing any more sense.
Another YEC proffered the following link:-
http://ldolphin.org/mystery/
with a cut n paste as his argument. It was pointed out that those authors were not demonstrating a violation at all, and that at best, all they were saying was that no natural pathway to the origin of life had yet been found.
Yet another YEC said that he believed that God did it, on faith. Of course, if one adopts that kind of reasoning, then any thing can be believed, providing one does it on faith.
Another creationist, whom I gave full marks to, told me that he did not understand enough about evolution and 2LoT to be able to comment. But he gave me his opinion anyway, and it was one that did not really deny the possibility of evolution. He was honest and offered up no pretentious garbage. I doubt that he would exactly consider himself a YEC either.
So I would say that creationists simply cannot justify their claims. If creationists really had any thing to offer, I am sure they would have been here in droves, presenting their arguments and defending them.
The violate 2LoT claim was not justified here or on the other board.
All attempts lacked sense.
There was one post I was happy with. The last one I mention it was honest.
Regards, Roland
Upvote
0
Similar threads
