12 Florida Schools Pass Anti-Evolution Resolutions

[Darth Wong]

I just noticed a lot of the creationists in the flascience and abc-news blog discussions have either a "Dr." in front or their name or claim to have an esteemed profession.

"I'm an engineer and I have to deal with the second law of thermodynamics on a daily basis"
Or
"I used to be an evolutionist scientist" (is that even a word?) and then ask something like but "why don't boxes evolve?"


I don't know which diploma mill they bought their degrees from, but it must make quite some profit

Ask them for their full names, alma maters, and years of graduation.

That's what I usually do, anyway. Of course, I can do that because I give out all of that information myself, and I expect anyone else citing his background to be similarly forthcoming.

[Darth Wong]

Henry, I will make sure I pray for your sole tonight

Notice how he spelled soul.

I hope it works. I love filet of sole.

[Darth Servo]

Henry, I will make sure I pray for your sole tonight

Notice how he spelled soul.

You're supposed to respond, "Are my shoes really going to hell?"

[Darth Ruinus]

Henry, I will make sure I pray for your sole tonight

Notice how he spelled soul.

You're supposed to respond, "Are my shoes really going to hell?"

Oh wait, this is true! Clearly the soul is in the sole, since the feet are what ground you to the Earth, and the Earth is a creation of God!!!

Woe is us, for we have mocked Dani, and mocked the soles!!


Reading through that a bit, didn't he say that believing in God is the same as believing in science?

I thought you couldn't believe in science because it is real.

[PainRack]

And a brick is still a brick. It is not a coliseum. And yet ... it's funny how a whole shitload of bricks can eventually become a coliseum, isn't it? Why are these imbeciles incapable of understanding that a shitload of microevolution will eventually become macroevolution, and that this is in fact precisely what the difference between "micro" and "macro" means?

I thought the difference between micro and macroevolution is in populations? Micro-evolution occurs within a population over time, whereas macroevolution occurs across populations over time?

[Surlethe]

I thought the difference between micro and macroevolution is in populations? Micro-evolution occurs within a population over time, whereas macroevolution occurs across populations over time?

Sort of. Microevolution is short-term evolutionary change and macroevolution is long-term evolutionary change. The point is that as you increase the time frame, microevolution becomes macroevolution: given enough time, allele frequency differences between two populations will become drastic.

[wautd]

I just noticed a lot of the creationists in the flascience and abc-news blog discussions have either a "Dr." in front or their name or claim to have an esteemed profession.

"I'm an engineer and I have to deal with the second law of thermodynamics on a daily basis"
Or
"I used to be an evolutionist scientist" (is that even a word?) and then ask something like but "why don't boxes evolve?"


I don't know which diploma mill they bought their degrees from, but it must make quite some profit

Ask them for their full names, alma maters, and years of graduation.

I just did because now he (Eric) is getting rediculous.

From Belgium: Your comments about the Second Law of Thermodynamics show that you don't know the law. I know there are all kinds of sites where you will find academics denying the fact that the Second Law is problematic for evolution, but these folks are not telling the whole truth! One of the most powerful uses of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that it predicts the direction of processes

Way to loose all credibility

[Darth Servo]

And a brick is still a brick. It is not a coliseum. And yet ... it's funny how a whole shitload of bricks can eventually become a coliseum, isn't it? Why are these imbeciles incapable of understanding that a shitload of microevolution will eventually become macroevolution, and that this is in fact precisely what the difference between "micro" and "macro" means?

I thought the difference between micro and macroevolution is in populations? Micro-evolution occurs within a population over time, whereas macroevolution occurs across populations over time?

Not really. Both micro and macro can occur within a single population or across multiple populations. The difference is only in scale. Macro requires speciations. The problem with fundy morons is they think speciation is a rapid process that can occur in a single generation like it does on TV.

It usually isn't even a distinct event either. Two populations can have reduced ability to interbreed but not completely eliminated yet. Its rather ironic that there are many examples of partial interpopulation fertility in real life yet morons still insist it doesn't happen.

[Darth Wong]

From Belgium: Your comments about the Second Law of Thermodynamics show that you don't know the law. I know there are all kinds of sites where you will find academics denying the fact that the Second Law is problematic for evolution, but these folks are not telling the whole truth!

Of course! The grand conspiracy of silence strikes again!

One of the most powerful uses of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that it predicts the direction of processes

That's actually true; the second law of thermodynamics can be used to determine whether a process is reversible, for example. The problem is that he doesn't understand what entropy is, or the difference between an open and closed system. It's all well and good to say that entropy allows you to determine which direction a process will run, but if you don't know what entropy is, that doesn't help you determine shit. Creationists get the WRONG direction when they try to use the second law of thermodynamics, because they don't have any idea how to determine whether a process increases or decreases entropy. Most creationists think that Stephen Hawking's famous "messy room" analogy for entropy was not an analogy, and actually represents a definition of entropy.

[Adrian Laguna]

That reminds me of something.

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."

Too bad the original post disappeared, but the thread where we all mock it lives on.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Is it arguable, that since theories are so well defined and accurate, they don't require other theories or laws to be able to disprove it? I'm pretty sure that physicists don't use Lagrangian mechanics to try to show the existence of magnetic monopoles. If an existing theory is in error, then you can show that it is in error through actual laboratory experiments based off that theory. So the use of the 2nd Law of thermo to disprove evolution is not only superfluous, it further shows the desperation and lack of scientific knowledge of ID'ers/creationists.

[Darth Wong]

If an existing theory is in error, then you can show that it is in error through actual laboratory experiments based off that theory.

Or to put it another way, if evolution theory was false, then its predictions should also be false. Yet its predictions are correct, so creationists seize upon the fact that there are "holes" in it, ie- it can't give us a complete family history of every species on the planet (never mind the fact that geneology cannot give us a complete family history of the average ordinary person, yet no one questions geneology).

So the use of the 2nd Law of thermo to disprove evolution is not only superfluous, it further shows the desperation and lack of scientific knowledge of ID'ers/creationists.

It's not desperation. They honestly believe that entropy is something that must be destroyed in order to increase the complexity of a structure. In order to explain how we humans can build complex structures without violating the second law of thermodynamics, they go on to say that "the only way to decrease entropy is to have an intelligent intervention and a plan".

Seriously, that's actually what they say, right down to the use of the word "plan". They define the second law of thermodynamics so that it makes almost everything we do impossible, and then they declare that the human mind can override the laws of thermodynamics, thus solving this enormous problem they just created.

[Adrian Laguna]

They define the second law of thermodynamics so that it makes almost everything we do impossible, and then they declare that the human mind can override the laws of thermodynamics, thus solving this enormous problem they just created.

To expand a bit, it's not the human mind specifically, but an intelligent mind. The whole point is to put an intelligent being every single ordered process in the universe. The funny thing even if we give them that, and allow that an intelligent being keeps the universe running, it still remains a leap in logic that said intelligent being is YHWH, gives a shits about us, or is even aware of our existence.

[Zablorg]

That reminds me of something.

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."

Too bad the original post disappeared, but the thread where we all mock it lives on.

Maybe he lives in a cave?

[Zablorg]

They define the second law of thermodynamics so that it makes almost everything we do impossible, and then they declare that the human mind can override the laws of thermodynamics, thus solving this enormous problem they just created.

To expand a bit, it's not the human mind specifically, but an intelligent mind. The whole point is to put an intelligent being every single ordered process in the universe. The funny thing even if we give them that, and allow that an intelligent being keeps the universe running, it still remains a leap in logic that said intelligent being is YHWH, gives a shits about us, or is even aware of our existence.

There's a major flaw with that idea anyways, because termites build complex structures, and I doubt anyone is going to say that they are intelligent.

[Darth Servo]

There's a major flaw with that idea anyways, because termites build complex structures, and I doubt anyone is going to say that they are intelligent.

Ah, but an intelligent designer programmed them that way! Just like we humans build robots that carry out complex tasks even though they don't have any intelligence.

Remember, you're dealing with people who think "God did it" is an explanation for everything.