Creationism and Second Law of Thermodynamics

[Ignorant_Boy]

Indeed, and most people are simply too stupid to realize that it isn't valid science, even if you explain why it isn't in absolutely excrutiating detail. I E-mailed the Ohio State Board of Education outlining very specific reasons as to why intelligent design is blatantly unscientific in every conceivable way, and they still voted to let each individual district decide on whether or not to teach intelligent design. Simply unbelievable.

Since when has logic ever prevailed over religion?

Funny little quote I picked up from reading The Lost World by Michael Crichton a few years ago: "What makes you think human beings are sentient and aware? There's no evidence for it. Human beings never think for themselves; they find it too uncomfortable. For the most part, members of our species simply repeat what they are told - and become upset if they are exposed to any different view. The characteristic human trait is not awareness but conformity, and the characteristic result is religious warfare. Other animals fight for territory or food; but, uniquely in the animal kingdom, human beings fight for their 'beliefs.' The reason is that beliefs guide behaviour, which has evolutionary importance among human beings. But at a time when our behavior may well lead us to extinction, I see on reason to assume we have any awareness at all. We are stubborn, self-destructive conformists. Any other view of our speices is just a self-congratulatory delusion. Next question." - Ian Malcolm, The Lost World: Jurrasic Park

From fiction, but still strikingly true wouldn't you agree?

[Ignorant_Boy]

Well, here's his rebuttal:

Posted by Yogi
Second law of thermodynamics apply to the universe, not specific parts of it.

So how did anything evolve in the entire universe? The amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing and more order requires more energy; disorder is increasing

Posted by Darth Wong
Ask this idiot to explain why entropy causes sin, pain, and evil.

It doesn't. Entropy causes things to die, break down. It is the effect of The Fall and not its cause. There has to be an input of energy to increase order and it has to be intelligently applied to increase order. You can pour boxes of Lego onto each other at very high speeds but energy along won't build anything. You also need a purposeful design (or do it randomly with intelligent constraints ie. straight up). You can force all the sunlight you want into a leaf and it won't photosynthesize unless its DNA is functioning (ie. it has enough intelligence to process the energy to transform simple molecules (C02+H20) into more complex ones (C6H22O6)). It takes energy and information to increase order.
"One DNA molecule contains more info than Encyclopedia Brittanica. How is that much different into (not like ice crystals) going to come about randomly? And for millions of different species? Moreover, all know compilations of info have intelligence behind them. Information as complex as that in your genes. If you took all carbon in the universe, put it together and let it ceact as rapidly as possible you have a 1/1EGO chance of having 1 protein molecule after 1 billion years. There is no chemical effinity for to form proteins amino acids. There are about 200 protein molecules in 1 cell. Chance can't do that! ""A statistical examination of self-ordering of Amino acids in proteins" Origins of Life and Evolution in the Biosphere 18(1988)Randall A. Kok, John A. Taylor, Walter L. Bradley

So... where are the external forces (environment) in your examples?

From Mr. Wong's Creationism Page
Proof for Evolution:
Progressionism: Everywhere in the world, if you dig for fossils, you will find as you get deeper, the fossils get simpler. This trend is known as progressionism and it indicates that highly evolved animals occupy only a small recent portion of the fossil record, so thay couldn't have been there from teh beginning. This consistent, observed physical evidence is predicted by evolution theory but not by creation theory. If all the world's creatures came into being at once, why are fossils always progressively simplier as you dig deeper?

Fossil record = Genesis Flood

WTF? I don't see what the Flood has to do with this. Simple fossils magically sinker faster?

homology: Profound similarities between different species (in conjunction with their geographical placement) were the original motivation for Darwin's theory of evolution. To put it simply, when two species are so similar that they seem as if they're related, then perhaps they are related. Evolution is based on "family trees", hence the biological classification of species into larger groupings known as genera, familites, orders, classes, and phyla. You can draw a "family tree"for any animal species on Earth, tracing its evolutionary ancestry as well as the geographical migrations of its ancestors.

circular reasoning - these family trees are drawn on the assumption that the aforementioned species are related then used to prove the assumption

And you creationists using the Bible as "absolute truth" aren't assuming that it really is?

Structural Homology: There are fundamental similarities between divergent species within their families. For example, the forearm skeletal structure of hundreds of vertebrate species (including man and ape) are remarkably similar. The structure of the eyeball is remarkably similar among mammals. All flowering plants share structural aspects of leaves, stem, roots, etc.

Behavioural Homology: There are striking similarities between the behavioural instincts of different species. For example, different species of thrushes in Britan and South America line their nests in exactly the same way. Also, geographically separated different species of stickleback have similar mating rituals.

Biochemical Homology: As with structure and behaviour, there are profound similarities in the chemical makeup of numerous related species. For example, we share 98% of our DNA with apes. Human blood-precipitation agents are still 64% effective in gorillas. And at a more fundamental level, the protein enzyme known as cytochrome is part of the respiration process and is found in everything from plants to bacteria, fungus, and mammals. Minor differences in the structure of the enzyme constituents can actually be used to map the evolutionary development of entire "family trees" of species.

Why would God "reincent the wheel" for each species?

I thought we couldn't question God? Hypocrite.

Poor design: Many biological structures are obviously "jury-rigged", ie- they are trial and error modifications upon pre-existing structures which don't work very well in their current application. We can see this in both their structural similarity to those structures (ie- the homology argument), and the fact that they are pretty damned bad designs. For example, the human eye's photoreceptors are backwards (the nerve fibers are on the side facing the incoming light), which means that the "wiring" gets in the way and reduces our visual acuity! Worse yet, there is a hole where the fibers exit the eye, which creates a blind spot! Squids and octopi don't have this problem, but we (and all vertebrates) inherited this flaw from our ancestors. Similarly, we swallow and breathe through the same tube, which creates a choking hazard that can easily be fatal. Once again, this is easily explained by examining our evolutionary ancestors, but it is absolutely incomprehensible for an "intelligent designer".

THere were no dangers in Eden

Christian belief. You assume that. And you're accusing us of circular reasoning.

Vestigial features: The human appendix serves no useful function but it corresponds to the cecum of the alimentary canal of many other mammals. It can be removed without detriment, and it creates a serious infection hazard that can lead to death; hardly a good idea! Flightless birds such as ostriches and penguins also serve as examples of vestigial features because their wings are transitional. They correspond in structure and placement to the wings of flying birds, but a land animal has no need of wings, and their shrunken wings make terrible arms. And what about the hollow bones of flightless birds? A land animal has no need of such weight-reducing measures, which merely weaken their skeletal structures. All of this is easily explained through evolution from previous life forms, but if one subscribes to creation theory, it can only be viewed as evidence that God was a terrible engineer, mindlessly copying serious design flaws from species to species.

Ostriches survived

And what does the fact that they survived have to do with the argument? Red herring.

Parasites and diseases: Most parasites have evolved to specialize so that they require another life form, sometimes retaining structural evidence of a previous, free-living evolutionary ancestor. It is easy to imagine organisms adapting to utilize other life forms for survival in a manner consistent with evolution theory. Once a life form becomes numerous, it behooves parasites to adapt in order to take advantage. However, if we are to believe that life was created in its current form as predicted by creation theory, then Adam and Eve must have been created with tapeworms in their stomachs and malaria parasites in their blood! In fact, Adam and Eve should have both died immediately from an astounding array of diseases, because every species of human-specialized parasite and bacteria must have been already present in their bodies or it would have promptly died for lack of a host.

Disease didn't exist until after The Fall. People were healthier then too.

Paleontology: The fossil record demonstrates that the structure of animals has historically been consistent with their environmental conditions. For example, the feet and teeth of horse fossils have changed in correlation with changing environmental conditions: 65 million years ago, the habitat of the horse's ancestors was swampy and full of leafy plants. The horse ancestors (hyracotherium) accordingly had feet with four splayed toes so as not to sink in the swamp, and short teeth for eating the soft leaves. When the ground hardened and the leafy plants receded in favour of grass, more recent horse ancestor fossils had long teeth and smaller feet. This is quite a remarkable coincidence- according to the creationists, all of the fossils were put there as a practical joke by God, and they were coincidentally tailored to be consistent with evidence of appropriate environmental conditions for each era, which was also put there as a practical joke by God. This is a rather elaborate practical joke!

Observed adaptation: It is hopefully common knowledge that bacteria have been constantly adapting to survive the antibiotic assaults of mankind. It is hopefully also common knowledge that successive generations of cockroach can become resistant to chemical pesticides, as can numerous other forms of insect. A more specific example is the British peppered moth. Before the nineteenth century it had only been seen in a gray variant, but in 1850 a black mutant variant was seen. The black variant was not successful because it was so easily spotted by predators, compared to its gray brethren which could blend into the tree bark. However, the black variant remained in the species as a recurrent strain due to a recessive gene, and it began to dominate after the Industrial Revolution. There is some debate as to why and how the Industrial Revolution caused this change, but no one can dispute that they were predominantly gray before the Industrial Revolution and predominantly black afterwards, thus acting as an example of environmentally driven change, ie- evolution.

I'm not disputing minor adaptations or survival of the fittest. I think (only my half formed opinion ) that God created at the genus level (ie. common ancestor for dogs, wolves, coyotes - all in genus canis). The difference between a poodle and a husky demonstrates how much variety is possible in 1 species let alone genus. Changes in color, size, even shape of prominent features (nose) can vary a lot and aren't forbidden by Genesis 1. Survival of the fittest weeds out harmful mutations and can, say, gradually make it so that the bears living up north are all al binoes. (occasionally, grizzilies are born as albinoes)Things such as wings are a disadvantage if they don't work and thus must have evolved very quickly (3 generations, amx) or have been created.

So you admit that at least some evolution must have happened. You also admit that environmental changes forces this evolution, but still maintain that God created them? See the evidence but can't abandon your religious beliefs eh? Where's the evidence that God created these gensus?

Can the Bible be taken literally?

The Bible is infallible. Apparent contradictions have a habit of coming from the Kings Games Version (~1605) often vanish in translatins using modern language.
Proofs of the Bible: testable promises (Matthew 6:33 "seek first [God's] Kingdom and His Righteousness and all these things [your daily needs] will be given to you as well." I have found this and other promises to be true. Another promise is that Jesus will come back (shortly before the world ends) and take those who are His. This one is waiting for fulfillment. There are fulfilled prophecies (Daniel predicted the conquest of Persia be the Greeks (Alexander the Great). The falls of many cities were predicted in specific terms). The Holy Spirit (John 16:13) was promised by Jesus to come and lead us into all truth. He has come and lives inside of Christians. He shows us that the Bible is true.

Hmm... I haven't been looking for God's Kingdom and all my daily needs are taken care of...

From Genesis 1:20:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Notice that he makes sea life, followed by birds. Then he made land animals, and then last but not least, he made mankind (both man and woman simultaneously). However, if we skip forward to Genesis 2:4, we see a second, slightly different sequence of events:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 1 deals with the day by day order of creation. Genesis 2 concern Adam and Eve ant the Gargen of Eden. To me, at least, it doesn't use language that signifies such a clear-cut chronology

I though the Bible was the word of God, or the absolute truth? Now you're saying the wording might have lied a little? I sense hypocracy...

Creationists want their "theory" to be taken, and examined, as if it were like any other scientific theory. But it fails to qualify as a theory. The numerous variants are either unworkable or hopelessly vague, with no attempt whatsoever to explain the mechanisms involved. A legitimate scientific theory proposes equations, rules, and mechanisms to explain observed phenomena. Creation theory does none of this! Where is the mechanism? Where is the explanation of how God created living beings in their current form? What chemical reactions, or physical forces did he use, and in what configuration? How long did it take to create each being? How were the creatures kept alive during the process? In what precise order were they made, since some species (such as parasites) require living hosts?

Exactly. Evolution is required for entire food chains - decreases prob. of evolution by chance. Land animals were created simultaneously which fits with research on interdependence (eg. David Suzuki)

The Bible is so badly inconsistent with physical reality (and sometimes itself) that a Christian is presented with only two choices:

Accept the Bible as allegory, not as literal fact. This is the route taken by scientifically enlightened Christians. More power to them.

Ignore science. Deny the physical evidence. Bury your head in the sand, like an ostrich. This is the route taken by creationists.

There is no concrete evidence. The case is not closed on either side. Cut the rhetoric. Get rid of the phrase "crammed down people's throats" too. It is extremely unobjective. And you must ad it that I'm good in science.

If I kill a guy should I say: get rid of the phrase "murdered a guy?" because it's unobjective? Yes, I personally have to vouch for your understanding and application of science, except when your religion becomes involved in which you can't accept that the Bible might actually be wrong!

Other religions: you wanted my answer. Where they agree with Christianity they are right. Otherwise they are wrong. The truth excludes its opposites. If Christianity is true than nothing different can be. If any other religion is true, Christianty isn't. I know that Jesus wasn't lying when He claimed be the only way (John 14:6). He whispers in my heart that this is true. I have staked my life and my purpose on this fact. "If there is no resurrection from teh dead we are to be pitied above all men" (1 Corinthians 15:19). But Jesus rose again (There is no disputing that the tomb was empty, and it was guarded by 16 Roman soldiers and a 1.5 ton rock. The disciples couldn't have stolen teh body) so all who trust in Him will too. Everyone will be judged on whether or not they trust in Jesus and there is a heaven and a hell. That is chy Christian want everyone to learn the truth.

*sigh* You're still arguing from the Christian prespective. SEPERATE YOURSELF FROM CHRISTIANITY AND ACTUALLY LOOK AT THINGS LOGICALLY GODDAMNIT! You're assuming that Christianity is right.

Consider the ramifications of this: your children, regardless of their religious beliefs, would be forced to accept Genesis or face failing grades in science class! Therefore, any attempt to introduce creation "theory" into science class is not only an affront to science and a deliberate act of fraudulent misrepresentation, but it is also unconstitutional, and it would represent the inauguration of a watered-down Spanish Inquisition, where children are coerced into agreement with Christian fundamentalist religious principles. That is completely unacceptable in any enlightened society, so the "what harm could it do" argument is clearly specious.

Christians have to learn about evolution which implies that there is no God

And Christians have to learn about math and physics and geography and astronomy and biology etc. Take astronomy: the Bible says the the sun orbits the earth. Should Christians not have to take astronomy or have it replaced by Bible-nomy? Take geography: the Bible says the Earth is flat. SHould Christians not have to take geography or have my placed with Bible-graphy?

Strawman attacks. These arguments are popular among casual creationists: gross misrepresentations of evolution theory. Popular examples are "time and chance alone cannot explain the complexity of life" or "something can't come from nothing".

Please explain evolutionary theory as it is then... wait, it changes every 3 months

The basic premise is the same which you Christians have trouble understanding. Sure there are revisions but there are revisions to most branches of science. You think chemistry or physics or quantum mechanics was all thought out (or is all thought out) when they first started teaching it?

Pseudoscience. These arguments are popular among hardcore creationists: mutilate scientific terminology to make it sound as if science itself supports its own downfall. They often don't even understand the terminology in question, but they've spent a lot of time reading creationist propaganda (as opposed to genuine science books), and they make fallacious appeals to that authority whenever they are challenged. Popular examples are the infamous "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" argument and the "Occam's Razor proves the existence of God" argument, not to mention all the young-Earth lies about supernovae and radiometric dating.

Evolution has never been a proven theory either. Don't equate a constantly changing theory with proven science.

News Flash: Quantum Mechanics is constantly changing too! Should it not be taught in chemistry?

Attacks on Science. These arguments are popular among "born-again" Christian fundamentalists, whose hatred for science knows no bounds: instead of attacking evolution theory, simply attack science itself. Popular examples are the demand for "scientific proof", the claim that "Science is really just another religion", and of course, the recurring claim that scientists are mindless followers of dogma (talk about the pot calling the kettle black!)

Religious Bigotry. Religious bigotry is a powerful force in the American "Deep South", also known as the "Bible Belt". Its main features are ignorance, fear, and hatred. Religious bigots (who are often racial bigots as well) are ignorant and dismissive of other systems of thought, they fear dangerous ideas, and they hate all those who don't believe as they do. In their minds, evolution theory versus creationism isn't a debate so much as a war, and their arguments reveal this mindset. Common examples of bigoted arguments are "you support evolution theory because you have turned away from God and towards Satan" and of course, "schools should teach creationism", which argues that we should let them use the public schools to shove their beliefs down the throats of our children (these people invariably subscribe to the notion that science is a religion, hence their bizarre claim that they need "equal time").

Hasty generalizations. This is a form of logical fallacy which applies characteristics of parts to the whole. Good examples are "I can list many things in the Bible which are true, therefore all of it is absolutely true", and "I can list examples of incompetent scientists, therefore all scientists are incompetent, and all of science is worthless".

HAve you known me to do this? The author is making "hasty generalizations" about Christians

Religious Bigotry. Religious bigotry is a powerful force in the American "Deep South", also known as the "Bible Belt". Its main features are ignorance, fear, and hatred. Religious bigots (who are often racial bigots as well) are ignorant and dismissive of other systems of thought, they fear dangerous ideas, and they hate all those who don't believe as they do. In their minds, evolution theory versus creationism isn't a debate so much as a war, and their arguments reveal this mindset. Common examples of bigoted arguments are "you support evolution theory because you have turned away from God and towards Satan" and of course, "schools should teach creationism", which argues that we should let them use the public schools to shove their beliefs down the throats of our children (these people invariably subscribe to the notion that science is a religion, hence their bizarre claim that they need "equal time").

Again, it isn't science but 1 unproven theory that has religious implications. Origins of life is a religious issue.

One-sided burden of proof. This mentality comes from watching too much Court TV. In criminal trials, the burden of proof is totally one-sided, in favour of the defendant. Creationists often paint creationism as the "defendant" and treat evidence the same way. Evidence supporting evolution theory must be perfect, flawless, and 100% complete and comprehensive or it is summarily dismissed, while even the sketchiest piece of poorly documented or undocumented evidence in favour of creationism is hailed as unassailable. Similarly, any area in which scientists are still unsure of mechanism is considered conclusive disproof of evolution, but the fact that there is no conceivable physical mechanism through which God could have created humans from dust doesn't bother them at all (creation theory is the only "scientific theory" in existence explicltly requiring that which is physically impossible, ie- "miracles")

If God were bound by the physical laws He created then He wouldn't really be God.

Chrisitan prespective. Assumptions. I suppose you're goping to base everything on the infallability of God....

Well, that was his reply. Ug... too much typing...

[Darth Wong]

"Ask this idiot to explain why entropy causes sin, pain, and evil."

It doesn't. Entropy causes things to die, break down. It is the effect of The Fall and not its cause.

Wrong. There is more entropy in a healthy adult male's body than there is in a corpse shortly after death. I am so goddamned sick and tired of ignorant creationists misinterpreting entropy.

You can pour boxes of Lego onto each other at very high speeds but energy along won't build anything.

Of course not, since Lego, unlike chemicals, does not have innate self-bonding characteristics. This is a false analogy.

You also need a purposeful design (or do it randomly with intelligent constraints ie. straight up).

Notice the circular logic; he states his conclusion as a premise. In reality, order forms all the time without anything but mindless energy or pressure. Crystals form in ice as it freezes. Diamonds form a lattice structure. No intelligence is required.

One DNA molecule contains more info than Encyclopedia Brittanica. How is that much different into (not like ice crystals) going to come about randomly? And for millions of different species?

Notice how he doesn't explain why it cannot (or why he can arbitrarily dismiss the example of ice crystals as spontaneous order); he simply states his conclusions as premises again. Why does he feel that billions of years of evolution could not produce a DNA molecule? And why does he feel that the massively overcomplex DNA molecule (most of which is filled with genetic junk code) is proof of intelligent design, when it is actually proof of jury-rigged unintelligent design? The same question applies to all of the sheer number of species. A self-proliferating system makes sense; intelligent design does not.

Moreover, all know compilations of info have intelligence behind them.

Wrong again. There are complex geological patterns, for example, which form without intelligence. There are complex metallic microstructures, for example, which form without guiding intelligence.

Information as complex as that in your genes. If you took all carbon in the universe, put it together and let it ceact as rapidly as possible you have a 1/1EGO chance of having 1 protein molecule after 1 billion years.

Notice how he assumes completely random reactions, but chemical reactions are deterministic. Oldest dumb-ass creationist argument in the book.

(Re: fossil record) circular reasoning - these family trees are drawn on the assumption that the aforementioned species are related then used to prove the assumption

ROTFLMAO!!! This idiot just accused the entire scientific method of being circular reasoning. Explain it to him very slowly; we hypothesize, and then see if the hypothesis fits observation. The fossil relationship is the hypothesis. The fossil record is the observation. There is no circular logic, since the premise is validated by objective reality, not self-references (unlike his arguments, which are almost entirely circular since he states conclusions in order to prove themselves).

Why would God "reinvent the wheel" for each species?

If not for direct inheritance, why would God copy mistakes from species to species in one family tree but not another, where that mistake had never cropped up in the first place (see backward-wired mammal eyes)? Why would God lay out the species so that their migration patterns coincidentally match those that we would expect from evolution? A practical joke?

THere were no dangers in Eden

Using a belief in order to justify a belief. No attempt to reference objective reality. Typical.

Disease didn't exist until after The Fall. People were healthier then too.

Ditto.

Proofs of the Bible: testable promises (Matthew 6:33 "seek first [God's] Kingdom and His Righteousness and all these things [your daily needs] will be given to you as well." I have found this and other promises to be true.

The only testable prediction is one which makes precise, objectively verifiable predictions. None of the so-called "Biblical prophecies" qualify. What a moron ...

Another promise is that Jesus will come back (shortly before the world ends) and take those who are His. This one is waiting for fulfillment.

Too bad Jesus said it would happen before his disciples died ... two thousand years ago.

You should swing it back to the original subject and focus on entropy. One subject at a time. Ask him to explain how a healthy adult male can contain more entropy than a corpse, given his idiotic claims. Also ask him to explain the fact that ice has less entropy than water, since it's not difficult to freeze stuff.

There are fulfilled prophecies (Daniel predicted the conquest of Persia be the Greeks (Alexander the Great).

Not inconceivable. Too bad he couldn't make a truly prescient prediction, such as the Jews being annexed by the Romans (whoops; that wasn't supposed to happen, was it?)

Other religions: you wanted my answer. Where they agree with Christianity they are right. Otherwise they are wrong.

I love the way he says shit like this and pretends to be objective and rational.

If God were bound by the physical laws He created then He wouldn't really be God.

Tell him to come here and make us a bargain. I will insult him, his parentage, and his religion in the most vulgar language possible. He will pray to God to change my mind. I will stop only when that happens.

[Durandal]

A sphere is an ordered shape. Spheres occur naturally because large amounts of mass in a single system will gravitationally smooth themselves into that shape. No divine intervention is required.

A cone is an ordered shape. If you drip sand down through a small stream, it will naturally form a cone. Clearly, God is neatly placing every little grain of sand.

[Wicked Pilot]

[Yogi]

Well, here's his rebuttal:

Posted by Yogi
Second law of thermodynamics apply to the universe, not specific parts of it.

So how did anything evolve in the entire universe? The amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing and more order requires more energy; disorder is increasing

You are absolutely, positively, 100% correct!! Disorder is increasing.

The increasing of order on this planet (Earth) is taken by leeching energy from another source (Sun). When the sun goes bye-bye, we'll all die and then disorder too return.

UNLESS, we use nuclear power to keep us afloat. Then, we'll keep alive until the nuclear energy runs out.

UNLESS we use geothermal energy to survive, and so survive we will until THAT runs out, and then we die.

UNLESS . . well . . . you know. Nothing short of The Road That Flows Downwards Both Ways (from an Asimov story) will save us.

[Durandal]

He assumes that disorder must be increasing on his small timescale. The universe's timescale is much larger. We can avoid entropy and put off our eventual descent into useless heat, but not forever. However, since we are in an environment consisting of many open systems, we can transfer disorder out of our system into something else, until we reach thermal equilibrium (death).