A common claim among creationists is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Anyone who understands thermodynamics should see why this is bullshit, but creationists aren’t known for their knowledge of science.
The second law of thermodynamics says, “No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body,” sometimes stated as “The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.” Creationists misread this, using it to say that order cannot come from disorder.
There is one big, obvious problem with this. Hopefully you’ve heard it before. Ready? Okay: we are not living in a closed system! There is something called the sun that provides plenty of energy.
At this point, usually the creationist moves on to another argument, but sometimes they respond by saying living things have information that helps them create order. First of all, this has nothing to do with entropy, but it’s still full of crap. The second law doesn’t apply to living or non-living systems in nature. There is plenty of energy flowing through nature, and thus you are bound to find order.
Basically, anyone who understands thermodynamics and evolution should see why this argument is worthless. Creationists, however, seem to bring this up in nearly every argument, and many of them will continue to bring it up in other situations, even when they already know it’s wrong.
More on this sort of thing later…
That was pretty easy to understand. It’s hard to believe there are still people out there who don’t get it.
“It’s hard to believe there are still people out there who don’t get it.”
Sure is, but they do exist, and seem to be gaining quite a bit of power.
seems like you have a problem with people who have a different opinion.
So I shouldn’t be able to criticize other beliefs? They should be immune? Atheism isn’t immune. Christian beliefs are being used in government decision making. They are being forced down our throats, whether you acknowledge it or not.
If I am forced to defent my belief against someone claiming that entropy invalidates evolution, I want to fight back.
And if you don’t think my description of creationists’ debating patterns is accurate, maybe you should browse through google groups for a while.
The ‘Biblist’ what to destroy science and replace it with a faith based ‘mumbo jumbo’. They are desperate to try and use science to prove the supersistions– as this is impossible , they have to distort known laws to back their agrument
To quote my father: “I find that people who say that physics doesn’t explain everything, don’t know shit about physics.”
So you’re saying that it’s ok if I say your own arguments are bullshit and crap? Nice way to start fires. And “creationists aren’t known for their knowledge of science”? How about the many cientists who agree with creation? Are you aware that evolution is just a theory? But in one thing I agree: creationists should stick to faith and stop talking about pseudo-science bullshit. They should leave that to evolutionists.
Too many ignorent people are trying to impose their will on other people. They think that they know what is best for everyone else.How would they like it if the smart people told them what was best for them?
“So you’re saying that it’s ok if I say your own arguments are bullshit and crap?”
Sure, I just hope you provide some evidence.
“Are you aware that evolution is just a theory?”
Yes, in fact, I am. I am also aware that evolution is science, so it will never be 100% absolute unchanging truth. Creation doesn’t have to worry about that.
Sure, it has no evidence in its favor, but that’s meaningless when you have _FAITH_, isn’t it? Screw logic and reason!
“They should leave that to evolutionists.”
I have never seen one shred of credible evidence that in any way disproves evolution. So why do you call it “pseudo-science?” Duh. Actual evidence doesn’t stand a chance against blind faith!
Nothing is sillier than the “evolution is just a theory argument” Science defines a theory as such:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity. (source: Dictionary.com)
It doesn’t mean its a guess. Just because gravity is a theory doesn’t mean that why we don’t fly off into space is up for debate.
“It doesn’t mean its a guess.”
Right. There is a huge difference between the scientific and the colloquial definition of “theory”
It’s also really *quite* important to realise that you are completely misusing the word ‘theory’ in this context. The first result from searching Google for ‘define:theory’ says:
“a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”"
beat me to it about the ‘theory’ thing.
Gravity is just a theory too, right? or maybe, maybe the Angelic Pressure theory is right, eh Kansas?
Really, the one thing I enjoyed about China was the over Atheism of the country.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp
[quote]So you’re saying that it’s ok if I say your own arguments are bullshit and crap? Nice way to start fires. And “creationists aren’t known for their knowledge of science”? How about the many cientists who agree with creation? Are you aware that evolution is just a theory? But in one thing I agree: creationists should stick to faith and stop talking about pseudo-science bullshit. They should leave that to evolutionists.[/quote]
are you aware that gravity “is just a theory” but im sure you dont deny the existance of that. religous fervour blinds the world.
If you eat beans , your bound to produce gas….
“If you eat beans , your bound to produce gas…”
that, IS a theory.
Aren’t we being a bit picky about our definitions of ‘theory’?
There are numerous definitions, including:
(From dictionary.com, like Mr Karl ‘selective’ Jorgenson)
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
and
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
So, in fact, a suitable definition of ‘theory’ COULD be ‘guess’.
Or am I missing something? Perhaps “atheist fervour blinds the definition?”. AKA “you can’t have it both ways”.
Creationists are weak minded people who cannot bear to face the fact that they are a passing biological phenomenen. (Just like the dinosaurs)
They need to believe their life has a purpose.
Grow up! You came from dust and you will return to dust, and the planet earth will never notice your passing.
(Unless you put all your nuclear weapons into one big bang and see if you can crack it, and even then it will still carry on and ignore your passing)
Oh, and by the way, Americans rejecting evolution!
It’s all about what their peers think of them. They seek approval from others.
How many so called “Christians” do you know that are a million miles from living the Christian Way?
It’s like a mass murderer going to confession before execution.
It’s to late mate – you blew it. Who wants a heaven populated by repentant reprobates. Hell would be of greater integrity.
“You came from dust and you will return to dust, and the planet earth will never notice your passing.”
Couldn’t agree more. Have you been reading the Bible in your spare time, maybe?
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Psa 103:15-16 As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more.
The brevity of life.
“They need to believe their life has a purpose.”
The life of a Christian does have a purpose, but it’s not what you are intimating – “the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever”.
It has nothing to do with lifting yourself up, being counted worthy in your own merits or being ‘good enough’ for heaven. Suggest you read a bit more.
Are you suggesting that your own life is without purpose?
I think life is a kind of combustion process, velocizing the burning of energy supplies and increasing highter temperature and entropy for the planet. So, life is simply an actor as another used by the entropy force.
Fuck the bible.
“There is one big, obvious problem with this. Hopefully you’ve heard it before. Ready? Okay: we are not living in a closed system! There is something called the sun that provides plenty of energy.”
Interesting statement. According to Stephen Hawking if the universe is an open system then there must have been a God to start the big bang. His no boundary proposal to get rid of God from the Big Bang requires the universe to be a closed system.
whoever denies me before man,I will also deny him before my father who is in heaven
matt:10:33
“Interesting statement. According to Stephen Hawking if the universe is an open system then there must have been a God to start the big bang. His no boundary proposal to get rid of God from the Big Bang requires the universe to be a closed system.”
Im sorry but that is just the type of pseudo-science we have come to expect the from Bibalists. Let me say this S-L-O-W-L-Y.
There is no room in the Science Inn for Bibalists.
The Bibalists are attempting to piggy-back their suspersistions onto the back of reasoned scientiic ‘theories’ [--see above for definition].
Its so dangerous because they will destory science in the long run. Any idea that doea not ‘Fit’ into their faith-based view of the world will seen as the THE WORK OF THE DEVIL .
400 years of scientic reason and advancement will be lost to the book burners .
“According to Stephen Hawking…”
Well clearly, Stephen Hawking is wrong, and our
liberal, skeptic, gamer, teenager, geek represents the new way forward.
Way to go, Idaho.
Q—->Heard the one about the agnostic, dyslexic, insommniac???
A—> He lay awake alnight wondering if there was a dog.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp
Anyone who thinks that it is not possible to be a scientist AND a Christian needs to get a history lesson. Citing: Issac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin…
Let me say this S-L-O-W-L-Y:
Science != Evolution.
“Anyone who thinks that it is not possible to be a scientist AND a Christian needs to get a history lesson”
there is a HUGE difference between a Christian and a Bibalist.
Bibalist believe in the literal RE-translantion of the bible. They have no truck with reasoned arguments –only faith based dogma.
The point about this discussion is that the creationist are trying to dress up their faith based ideas as science—AND they are not.
Its faith based psudeo-science. period
Is there really a huge difference?
Honestly, I’ve never come across the word ‘Bibalist’ before (or ‘Biblist’ which I think is what you mean), but all the definitions I can find put it as:
“One who makes the Bible the sole rule of faith.”
Most real Christians would come into that category, I suspect.
Scientist/Christian clearly doesn’t understand the argument either. Whether the universe as a whole is a closed system or not is irrelevant to the original argument. The Earth is not a closed system so entropy decreasing on Earth (order from disorder) does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Imagine a box of self-assembling material, randomly distributed within, in the vacuum of space at zero temperature.. nothing will happen inside the box, you can regard it as a closed system. Now, what will happen if you bring an external heat/radiation source to the box?
If you’re not sure you can ask Stephen Hawking.
““One who makes the Bible the sole rule of faith.”
Most real Christians would come into that category, I suspect. ”
i am happy to tell you that even though most Christians in the USA may think like that–but most Christians in the rest if the world —– DONT . ( yes their is a rest of the world -look on a map–its HUGE)
Bibalist’s ( yes– that spelling ) are dogmtic believers — who like other ‘ist’s ( Islamists, Marxists, Animal Rights Activists , Fascists and Communists ) are extreme and unthinking in their view of the world. ]
The Creationist will not get away with hijacking science–
Intelligent Design is not Science.
.
See! Even my comment about coming from dust and returning to dust has been hijacked because there are similar references in the bible.
Thats what I’m sick of!!!
Reason being hijacked by religious nuts.
Oh God (eh eh eh)I wish there were an afterlife so they could all stand around saying “well I believed it when I said it”.
Just think of the Muslim bombers standing round saying “where are my 77 virgins”?
And yes. My life does have a purpose. Nature will keep experimenting untill it gets it right…Never!
It’s my belief that we are actually now in regression.
Intelligent people limit their family size, the Morons spit em out like pig litters. The Morons are increasing faster than the more advanced mentalities. Then the Bombs will fly.
The Catholic church has a lot to answer for there. It won’t be long (in the scale of things) before you are allowed one child only. Just like in China. They just got there first.
What price religious objections to contraception then? Religion is on it’s on its way out folks. The law of man overides the law of God every time, because men will get ya everytime. Religious nuts only “believe” God will get em!
Bullets go through bibles!
We dont understand how electricity works , you think we have a grasp of everything ?
We are a new species , and barely infants at that, debate all you want, you will never know.
“”"We dont understand how electricity works”
Speak for yourself . It really is not that hard to understand
if some gods exists, one of them should be the entropy, cause it is everywhere and his power is on everything
“we are a new species, and barely infants at that, debate all you want, you will never know”
Right!
So how come all religious nuts KNOW?
Science produces knowledge, religion produces dependants and most definately no knowledge.
It is a substitute “comfort blanket” for people who never grew up.
wht christanity? Is it because oyu researched it and found it to make sense? or was it because you had it drilled in to your head form a young age that it was right no matter what?
“Speak for yourself. It really is not that hard to understand”
Spoken like a true teenager. Sigh.
So what really was there at the beginning of time?
What about before that?
An infinitesimal point? A void? A bang? Some ‘chemical reactions’? Life from nothing? Diversity? Balance?
Really, I’d like to know.
“See! Even my comment about coming from dust and returning to dust has been hijacked because there are similar references in the bible.
Thats what I’m sick of!!!”
Ohhhh Kaaayyyy.
Sick-of, are you suggesting that the portions of the Bible I quoted (which were written a number of *thousand* years ago) have ‘hijacked’ the thoughts that you were having?
I’m confused, because I thought it usually worked the other way around.
Either that, or the Bible somehow read your comment on this blog, went back in time and inserted your thoughts of incredible genius into itself for us all to marvel at later. Now there’s a thought…
Sick-of-what
Sick of the fact that I cannot use terminology which appears in the bible without being accused of getting it from the bible.
The bible “written a number of thousand years ago”?
Never in a million years!
If any of it existed back then (which I doubt) then it was TRANSLATED by religious nuts all putting their two pennyworth in and coming up with something different.
Have you heard the old one about soldiers on the front line in WW1 sending a message to headquarters…
“Send reinforcements, we are going to advance” which passed by others ended up as “send three and fourpence (old English.for three shillings and four pence) we are going to a dance”.
There is also a party piece I believe, where a message is passed around a group to the next person in line. Then compare the original message with the final message!
You dare to suggest the bible was written several thousand years ago? Be specific. The first writings were not Christian, and were not as far back as you intimate.
You SAY, but you can’t back it up with facts.
Like I say, religious nuts KNOW when they can’t demonstrate evidence of claims.
Comment from a European.
I am amazed at the level of conflict and animosity there is on the American Creation vs. Evolution debate. There are appears to be an almost absolute polarisation of opinion. This does not supprise me when I see bizarre religious fundamentalism in the states. A recent example is Warren Jeff’s polygamist sect. This to me is equally as disturbing as the fundamentalism exhibited in middle eastern countries, and the “axis of evil”. America displays the best and worst aspects of humanity, society, culture and religion. Yet despite this, America seems to believe it can and should police the world. This is quite disturbing to say the least. Good luck Americans, you will need it.
By the way Sick-of what!
My Brother in Law is a Church vicar.
We co-exist by him not pushing his religion on me, and me not trying to set fire to his comfort blanket. (Or my wifes)
You want religion fine, but as soon as you try and influence my life, you’re in trouble.
What’s the chance that as an Atheist, I can live a more Christian style of life than you?
Being an Atheist does not exclude being a good person. Shame some people need a book to guide them rather than knowing what’s right and what’s wrong from within themselves.
Quasidodo!
You humble us!
Short and to the point!
If they want to be different, let them do it to themselves.
Leave the rest of the world alone.
Isn’t it interesting, that people have the same faith as those around them?
People in America born in the Middle East would be Muslim, and Middle Eastern people born in America would be Christian.(If the Muslims did not murder them for deserting the faith)
You have to laugh at the idiocy don’t you!
The closed system is the universe. Science ALWAYS has a set of crevats, such as “all things being equal” or “assuming no friction”.
My quest for you is to take as many fruit flies as you wish. Mate them as many times as you wish and produce 2 (a male and female) house fly. That will prove evolution and kill religion. Any takers??
I’ll even put up a prize.
Dear Sick-of,
You used the phrase “more Christian” in refering to yourself. As an athiest which means ‘without God’, then your statement makes no sense since you have no God.
Why do you do good? Why do you not do evil? The laws of the state, were they based on Christianity
rtg1969
A crevat is a necktie worn extensively in the early 20th century.
I will accept your challenge, w.r.t the fruit fly. Check back with me in a few million years and I’ll have your answer.
Sick-Off
Thanks for the comments.
Take it easy.
Quasidodo. You’re welcome.
The fact that someone could say something like “the bible was written thousands of years ago” is the sort of thing that winds me up.
The only writing referred to as coming from God was in the so called “tablets of stone”.
Where in history does the first reference to a bible come in?
The nearest they can come is the dead sea scrolls. Written by who? What motivation? Written how long after the Jesus stories supposed to have occurred?
In my opinion the bible, or equivelant,was written when things started getting a little more crowded, and they needed social guidlines to prevent people from killing each other etc.
As such, the bible is a valuable document to give guidance for communal living. Surely in this day and age we know the way it should be, without writings a very few hundered years old?
“My quest for you is to take as many fruit flies as you wish. Mate them as many times as you wish and produce 2 (a male and female) house fly. That will prove evolution and kill religion.”
You obviously have no understanding of evolutionary theory.
Oh, you got it first, Quasidodo…
I posted this on an earlier blog item, but I think it is relevant here also:
Faith is important in all walks of life.
E.G. It is important to have faith in the fact that cars will stop at red lights, otherwise every time you crossed an intersection on the roads you would be risking an accident and personal injury.
There are different degrees of faith. I do not blindly believe that everyone will stop at every red light. When my light goes green I do not blindly drive across the intersection, I check to make sure the traffic on red has stopped, then cross the intersection. This is because I want proof that the traffic has stopped to support the faith I have in others stopping for a red light.
This is a scientific and analytical approach to crossing an intersection to support a faith I have in people stopping at red lights.
Faith is important, blind faith can be dangerous.
I am sure that if scientists could prove that the soul exists they would not sweep it under the carpet. It would splashed across scientific journals the world over.
I am not so sure that those of a strong religious persuasion would be prepared to do the same if they happened to prove that the Big-Bang did actually happen.
“I cannot use terminology which appears in the bible without being accused of getting it from the bible.”
I did not accuse you of anything. I was pointing out that the sentiments you expressed are also expressed in the Bible. Why, exactly, is it a bad thing for me to do that? If, as you say in your later post – “the bible is a valuable document to give guidance for communal living” – would you be in any way annoyed about sharing a sentiment with it?
———————
“You dare to suggest the bible was written several thousand years ago? Be specific. The first writings were not Christian, and were not as far back as you intimate.
You SAY, but you can’t back it up with facts.”
Sick-of, rather than just having a rant, why don’t you actually do a bit of research. Just a bit. Nothing too taxing. Google will do. One example could be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible – deliberately not choosing any kind of website with which you could accuse me of bias. I quote “It is largely undisputed that the text of the Torah had become fixed by 400 BC” (the Torah is another word for the first 5 books of the Bible). The Bible IS several thousand years old – you would be a fool to suggest otherwise.
———————
“If any of it existed back then (which I doubt) then it was TRANSLATED by religious nuts all putting their two pennyworth in and coming up with something different.”
This is also a very easy argument to destroy. We are not talking about messages quickly passed on in the heat of battle, or a party game – we are talking about the Word of God, and the people who copied it were VERY careful about it. Up until 1947, the earliest Old Testament texts (i.e. physical documents) we had were from about 980AD. Then, when the Dead Sea scrolls (‘The Qumran Manuscripts’) were found, and dated from between 250BC and 70AD we had an opportunity to see with just how much accuracy the scribes of old copied the texts. The Dead Sea scrolls consist of nearly 1,100 documents, several scrolls and more than 100,000 fragments. Parts of every Old Testament book found (with the exception of Esther). The texts from the Dead Sea scrolls proved to be word-for-word *identical* in more than 95 percent of the text. The remaining 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations. There were no major doctrinal differences.
“My quest for you is to take as many fruit flies as you wish. Mate them as many times as you wish and produce 2 (a male and female) house fly. That will prove evolution and kill religion.”
This has effectively been done. It is possible to breed fruit flies in such a way as to demonstarte the beginnings of speciation (i.e the two groups stop interbreeding with each other and show distinct behavoral or physical differences) to get all the way to a house fly (an entirely different species) would as Quasidodo states take millions of years, and it clearly would not be possible to exactly reproduce the evolutionary pathway that gave rise to the house fly. However, given enough time we could easily breed a new species of fly.
If you want further proof of evolution just look at drug resistant bacteria – this is evolution in action – an external pressure causes selection of the fittest individuals leading to a more capable population.
despite this however, i don’t expect religion to die. Anyone who believes religious dogma is not the type of person who is capable of clear and rational thought.
Doesn’t Wilkipaedia say a couple of fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls…not 95%?
Are not arguments always active regarding the translation of ancient words?
You read what you want to read.
Dreadful things happen, and God does nothing. Good things happen, and it is God’s blessing.
All the credit and none of the blame?
Boy! You’ve got to have faith!
If God created all, then he must have moved on to the next universe to try again and see what would EVOLVE from his next attempts.For sure he never started this planet with Humans on it.
“It is possible to breed fruit flies in such a way as to demonstarte the beginnings of speciation”
Speciation is not enough – you have to demonstrate the ***production of NEW genes by mutation***.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/speciation.asp
“production of NEW genes by mutation”
I think you are trying to say that you want to see the production of new features, not just modifications of old ones. This is a common creationist claim (I remember seeing it on talkorigins).
New features are almost always modifications of already existing features, even if it doesn’t seem like it to you.
“Speciation is not enough – you have to demonstrate the ***production of NEW genes by mutation***.”
Jim, how do you define a “new gene”? how many mutations does it take before you would consider that a gene is different? 1 base pair mutation can significantly alter the action of a gene.
Also, speciation (i.e. a noticable change in the phenotype) is directly caused by changes in the geneotype. Therefore speciation explicitly involves genetic change.
Large scale modifications obviously will take time, but surely if it is proven that a selective pressure can modify the genotype then you can see what this will result in over the very long term?
Or am I being too hopeful of your intelligence.
Also, your link does nothing to disprove evolution. At the very most it shows that some changes can occur more quickly than we might expect based on conservative models.
Found the talkorigins article:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB904.html
Thank you Zero, you beat me to it and you were more concise
“Or am I being too hopeful of your intelligence.”
I don’t know. How hopeful were you being?
The artist formerly known as QUASIDODO……..
http://fabrefaction.blogspot.com/
Nice to see “another european” on this excellent site.
Congratulations to “probabilityZero” on developing an intellectual debate on this matter. What started out as a bun-fight has certainly developed into a much more cerebral investigation.
The point I find most difficult to comprehend is how the likes of such a supposedly tolerant faith as Christianity can become so militant. I am aware of the Crusades and other historically significant religious “conflicts”, but find it hard to reconcile such neanderthal attitudes as “I am right and therefore you are wrong” in this modern world. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, but they do not have the right to belive that their opinion is in any way superior to that of anyone else. This is the basis of intelligent debate. If you can present an argument that makes sense, I may alter my opinion to incorporate the truths in your argument.
Anyway, enough alcohol fueled ramblings, time to chill out.
Take it easy y’all.
Why don’t we just start a war with the creationists and see how well they do without physics. If they want to see the effects of things that are “just a theory,” I’ll put Newton and Einstein’s theories up against Jerry Falwell’s any day when it comes to effective munitions. It’s a damn lucky thing the creationists don’t really believe all the BS they spout or they’d be in the same fix as that other fundamentalist group, the Taliban.
“Why don’t we just start a war with the creationists and see how well they do without physics.”
Is this really the level this debate has got to? Let’s kill those who we disagree with?
Land. Of. The. Free. ?
“Is this really the level this debate has got to? Let’s kill those who we disagree with?”
I think he was joking…
Well, Creationists tend to handily “forget” what science has done to help mankind and how the church tried to supress it. Indeed let them try and cope without their homes, cars, food and water for a while and see what they think about science.
Entropy and evolotion are less related than a granite rock is related to homo sapiens. Entropy cannot be used to imply or refute evolotion, just as evolotion is useless in explaining entropy. Though both are appealing, elegant, intuitive and extremely well and easily backed by evidence.
And
-”Speciation is not enough…”
Huh? Please, this sounds like something a ID guy would scream in a church. What grander is there in evolution? Miracles(e.g spontaneous production of two homo sapiens) is not explained by evolution?
And
-”You SAY, but you can’t back it up with facts.”
Would that be references or quotes from scripture?
The Quest
-So what really was there at the beginning of time?
We would all like to know, and it is more or less inferred that it is a dead end. But a neat idea is The creation (or collapse from our point of view) creates a universe w/ big bang on the inside, and consensus is that information cannot be transferred through the (schwarschild) horizon to/from the black hole. Tough break, but really that satisfies my quriosity regarding the other side of The quite big bang.
i never met a fundie that knew what entropy was, so this doesnt look helpful
Nice game with words, very apt to be on “Talking in Circles” getting nowhere.
Polarization of topics is not only the refuge of idiot creationists- idiot atheists are also able to take greyscale and pretend it is black and white.
You are proof.
Too bad you didnt ask an intelligent question, or even bother to do something other than an ad-hominem attack. I might have answered intelligently and you would be better for it.
*notice as you read this you polarized it already, dont need to read more, you already know I am a creationist?
Wrong. I seek the truth no matter what.
Wikipedia has some interesting articles about false logic, and twenty other ways to lie while appearing to say something worthy. Take a peek.
Mike
Think bigger my friend. The Universe is a closed system.
I haven’t read through all the comments posted here, but right at the top there was discussion about “Evolution is just a theory” – wrong. Evolution is a verifiable fact of history. Certain species existed millions of years ago and different ones exist now. It’s more complicated than that, but you can fill in the gaps and QED. *Natural selection* is a *theory* put forward to explain the phenomenon of evolution. Creationism is *not a theory* because it is not falsifiable, nevermind its other flaws. You can just say “a supernatural force caused everything to magically happen” but you can’t call that a scientific theory. An idea, a concept, a story, an “explanation,” are all things you could call it, but not a scientific theory.
Probabilityzero, thank you for a very good, rational explanation of entropy and it’s lack of anything to do with evolution.
I live in England , where there is to be honest less debate , and the little debate there is less aggressive. what I have noticed however is that creationists have the idea that evolutionists condemn the idea of a god. If you think about it though , there should be less animosity between the two advocates of “creationism” and evolution. Anyone remember the scientists at C.E.R.N? looking for the higgs boson , or “god” particle with the LHC?In universal scales , which I think the whole debate should be based on, the existence of a creator is plausible.Although I myself dont believe it , who’s to say god is an all powerful entity who created mankind? Who’s to say he didnt decide the laws of physics then create the universe through the big bang? leaving the universe as a whole a closed system planets forming , and mankind evolving as we know it did , whatever space the universe occupies being the surroundings , presumable wherever an entity we would call God would reside, unable to intefere with the universe as it is. Also Kisama is right , evolution is not a theory , as a theory is yet to be proven , there are extensive records of evolution in the genes of every organism alive today. I don’t condemn the idea’s of Christianity , I think the general idea’s of religion are commendable ,not killing , cheating , lying ,stealing and just general amicability towards fellow man. However I disagree with the fact that “creationism” is being taught as science in equal measure with the “theory” of evolution in schools in various parts of America. Those who wish to practice religion should do so , and the children of them given all the facts of science ,as well as the theories , and all the ideas of their religion without the children being “told” by their parents that christianity , islam etc is “right” as this is the cause of debate. No doubt at a suitable age , a child not taught blind faith by parents , endowed with all the facts of both sides would stop the condemnation of scientific ideas and start to view god as what he is , not omnipotent or omnipowerful , but simply a scientific possibility , with no direct interest in the affairs of humanity.
‘More on this sort of thing later…’ where do i find this more? i am an art student, and i have recently been bollocked for using the word ‘entropy’ to describe what i was up to. By the lecturer who said that i was doing entropy a few weeks previously. i want to come back with a big F**K you. and your description of entropy is the best yet. please help me?