The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why do you say pulverised?

Why, on another level, do you feel the need to (a) lie, (b) take things out of context or (c) deliberately misquote people all the time?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Now you are compromising the definition you gave for functional:

"3. having or serving a utilitarian purpose; capable of serving the purpose for which it was designed:"

Since when is a calculator designed to operate as a hammer?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your a liar. I did not give that definition.

So you are now admitting that anything that was not 'designed' is non-functional however complex it may be? Or do you claim that God designed everything and you claim to know the exact 'designed function' of all things?

Originally posted by dj2becker
That is why the entire Nebraskan man was constructed from the tooth of an extinct pig.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You conveniently forget that Nebraska man was a deliberate hoax, the scientific equivalent of passing off a piece of old wood as a piece of the true cross.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The point you deliberately missing is that most fossils are so deformed and the fossil record is so incomplete that most of the times the person that is reconstructing the fossil relies purely on artistic imagination to fill in the gaps.

That is why the entire Nebraskan man was constructed from the tooth of an extinct pig.

Why do I even bother explaining? You of all people should know this by now.

Originally posted by dj2becker
My mistake, but your words exactly:

According to Webster:
functional
3 : performing or able to perform a regular function.

Which is the basically the same as the one I gave from dictionary.com.

So my point remains. And answer the question: Since when is it the regular function of a calculator to knock in nails?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
This is pure rubbish. How are people able to reconstruct entire dinosaurs (or the recent discovery of that fossil whale in an Italian vineyard) if fossils are "so deformed"?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Since I started using it to knock in nails.

1. Functionality is dependent on use.
2. How functional something is, is not directly related to how complex it is.
If you don't agree with those two statements then you are just stupid (which I doubt, in which case you do agree but are too stubborn to admit it or have some other reason for lying about it).

Whatever the case there is really no point discussing it further.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Deliberate hoax, my foot.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
My mistake--Piltdown Man was a hoax. Nebraska man was "discovered" in 1922 and discovered to be an error within 3 years. A retraction was published in 1927. Hardly a slam-dunk for your evolutionary critique.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nebraska-man

Originally posted by dj2becker
And you know that the more complex something is the more capable it will be at serving the purpose for which it was designed.

QED.

Originally posted by dj2becker
And you know that the more complex something is the more capable it will be at serving the purpose for which it was designed.

Ok, I don't know much about this Thermodynamics thing you're talking
about, but if you all spent 590+ posts talking about the second law, I sure
hope there isn't a third, or fourth for that matter. 😕

Originally posted by dj2becker
You mean the tooth of an extinct pig was discovered in in 1922, and the imaginative artist constructed Nebraskan man around the tooth.

Says a lot about the artistic innovation and imagination shown by desperate evolutionists. Especially when it comes to the fossil record.