Same old debate: creation x evolution

Originally posted by twhitehead
I can't see where the oxford dictionary says differently. It certainly does not say "a decent idea not yet proven".

I haven't heard that definition before. However, I don't believe it is a decent idea. I believe "an EVIL idea not yet proven" is more like it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I haven't heard that definition before. However, I don't believe it is a decent idea. I believe "an EVIL idea not yet proven" is more like it.

So you believe that all scientific theories are evil ideas? Even Newtons Theory of Gravitation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why not? Why all the talk of closed systems vs open systems if it is irrelevant to life anyway?

precisely.

ask the creationists. they are the ones who enjoy waving the second law around without understanding it is not applicable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Exactly my point. So if the earth was sitting in empty space, they would still survive (the thermal energy is moslty from radioactive decay in the earths core.

[b]it will die out eventually if new energy isn't introduced into the system.
True, but until entropy reaches its maximum, life is still possible without violating the second law.
My point ...[text shortened]... on a space ship, and it could sustain life for a very long time (millions of years potentially).[/b]

all these arguments are helping creationists more. they are the ones who claim life is not possible without outside influence. what you are saying is helping them "prove" their point: by your argument, they will say that god is the one who how sealed the earth with a power source and gave sufficient energy for life to exist.


i suggest we should argue that the earth is not a closed system and that the sun is providing all the energy needed for life to occur and sustain itself. with these facts in mind, god is not necessary and abiogenesis and evolution after is perfectly possible.


(i still claim he exists, maybe even directed evolution in certain directions. i just want to make it clear that god shouldn't be involved in science talk.)

Originally posted by RJHinds
The only thing that matters concering evilution is that it does not happen.

you have no idea what anyone is discussing here. please go away.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
precisely.

ask the creationists. they are the ones who enjoy waving the second law around without understanding it is not applicable.

I thought you'd be up at Sochi screen printing gay rights T-shirts 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I thought you'd be up at Sochi screen printing gay rights T-shirts 😵

it is sad we live in a world where we must talk about gay rights.
it is sad we must fight for gay rights instead of considering equal rights for everyone as a no brainer.

now stop trolling and go away. if you want to derail this topic, abstain

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it is sad we live in a world where we must talk about gay rights.
it is sad we must fight for gay rights instead of considering equal rights for everyone as a no brainer.

now stop trolling and go away. if you want to derail this topic, abstain

sorry i couldn't resist, i have no desire to derail this train, I will be gone.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
all these arguments are helping creationists more.

No, they do not help the creationists.

i suggest we should argue that the earth is not a closed system ...
Why? The second law does not contradict the existence of life regardless of whether or not earth is a closed system.

(i still claim he exists, maybe even directed evolution in certain directions. i just want to make it clear that god shouldn't be involved in science talk.)
Why shouldn't he be invoked? If he did direct evolution, then why should that not be scientifically identifiable? Does he have an anti-science cloaking device?
If his action are indistinguishable from a reality where he did not act, then why do you believe he did act, or might have acted? And if his actions truly had no effect, then can we really call them actions?