The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by Starrman
If you're a creationist you cannot be a proper scientist, since all your research is precluded by a belief in creation and a denial of evolution and abiogenesis. Can anyone spell 'bias'?

Show me a list of 100 non-creationist scientists that believe abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are false.

It is my sincere belief that creationists are brainwashed idiots and any scientific 'reasearch' done by such people is inherrently flawed.

Just shows what a brain-washed bigot you are.

I could say exactly the same thing about evolutionists, but I prefer to use the scientific evidence at hand. You on the other hand it seems cannot debate properly and just try to smear the people who rightfully point out your flawed beliefs.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I know plenty of creationists who don't even know what the second law of thermodynamics is, so how could they possibly have beliefs on the matter?
However you didn't answer the question. The question was about the Theory of Evolution and not about abiogenesis.

[b]A lot of research has been done and published on the topic.
But somehow it never ge ...[text shortened]... entific magazines/books etc that I read. So am I right about a global conspiracy against them?[/b]

I know plenty of creationists who don't even know what the second law of thermodynamics is, so how could they possibly have beliefs on the matter?

Name one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I know plenty of creationists who don't even know what the second law of thermodynamics is, so how could they possibly have beliefs on the matter?
However you didn't answer the question. The question was about the Theory of Evolution and not about abiogenesis.

[b]A lot of research has been done and published on the topic.
But somehow it never ge ...[text shortened]... entific magazines/books etc that I read. So am I right about a global conspiracy against them?[/b]

If the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, would you mind explaining where life evolved from? Or do you not believe that life evolved?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]I know plenty of creationists who don't even know what the second law of thermodynamics is, so how could they possibly have beliefs on the matter?

Name one.[/b]

My brother-in-law.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My brother-in-law.

I was referring to people with a PhD in Science. Does he have one?

Originally posted by dj2becker
If the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, would you mind explaining where life evolved from? Or do you not believe that life evolved?

I believe that abiogenesis took place. But to claim that abiogenesis violates the second law is different from claiming that the Theory of Evolution violates the second law.

If you are correct in claiming that all the listed people both have university level qualifications and believe that abiogenesis violates the second law (which I doubt as most of your claims to date have proved false), then they are not reputable scientists.

Can you give me any links to any scientific research making such a claim? (that abiogenesis violates the second law) or does this published work you mentioned not get onto the internet?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe that abiogenesis took place. But to claim that abiogenesis violates the second law is different from claiming that the Theory of Evolution violates the second law.

If you are correct in claiming that all the listed people both have university level qualifications and believe that abiogenesis violates the second law (which I doubt as most of y ...[text shortened]... is violates the second law) or does this published work you mentioned not get onto the internet?

Hang on there... Easy... answer my question.

Did life evolve from non-life? Yes/No?

And how do you know this?

And why does abiogenesis have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution if you claim that life evolved from non-life?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I was referring to people with a PhD in Science. Does he have one?

I'm sorry I didn't get that.

You said:
Could you name one creationist who does NOT believe that abiogenesis theory defies the 2nd law?

I didn't realise you only meant people with a PhD in science.

I still find it hard to believe that all creationists with a PhD in science would also agree with your claim, but then I guess there aren't that many creationists with PhDs in science so I suppose it is possible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I'm sorry I didn't get that.

You said:
[b]Could you name one creationist who does NOT believe that abiogenesis theory defies the 2nd law?

I didn't realise you only meant people with a PhD in science.

I still find it hard to believe that all creationists with a PhD in science would also agree with your claim, but then I guess there aren't that many creationists with PhDs in science so I suppose it is possible.[/b]

I only gave you a short list of 94 creationists with a PhD in Science. I guess that's not many huh?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Just shows what a brain-washed bigot you are.

I could say exactly the same thing about evolutionists, but I prefer to use the scientific evidence at hand. You on the other hand it seems cannot debate properly and just try to smear the people who rightfully point out your flawed beliefs.

Rightfully? Please! Evolutionists look at the evidence and make a hypothesis which is open to future refutation by evidential means. Creationists predetermine all their findings on evolution on the laughable notion that the earth is only a few thousand years old, which in turn is predetermined by the frankly insane notion that there is a higher being which created all of us and for which the body of evidence is so amusingly barren that it is consistent with believing in faries.

Rightfully? Creationists believe god exists and then go out and attempt to pervert the course of secular science with slander, lies and misinterpretation. They do not offer any research toward any goal other than badmouthing accepted, supported views of how the world really is, none of which depend on the supernatural.

Rightfully? You yourself fail to understand the very simple notion that abiogenesis and ToE are not homgenous. Time and again you fail to answer quesitons, sidestep implication and divert by asking tangental questions in an attempt to fudge the pseudo-scientific stance you hold, supposedly in the name of scientific truth, but really in the name of Christianity. I am STILL waiting for your ID thesis which I asked you for 18 months ago. It is my belief you wouldn't even know where to start.

Rightfully? Your personal beliefs on science are not those you have learned by study and made up your mind upon. They are those you have been spoon fed by the very people who's views are predetermined as I have said above. When you cannot answer a question wihtout backing down from a steadfast belief, you run, dropping chaff left right and centre.

You are prideful, prone to insult, brain-washed, misguided, elusive, dishonest and I cannot give you or any of your ilk the benefit of the doubt. Instead of endeering your view of the world to those unbelievers we have here, you have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that to be your brand of Christian is to be a vile and repulsive person, with no redeeming qualities. Not once since you have been here have I actually seen you be benevolent, kind hearted, forgiving or accepting of others. You do not act in a Christian way at all. You are too pre-occupied with showing off your newfound talents for ambiguous creationist pseudo-science and blowing your righteous trumpet.

Rightful? You don't deserve anything in the way of rights from me, other than to be called idiot. I extend this view happily to all those of your pernicious and lunatic creationist ilk.

Originally posted by Starrman
Rightfully? Please! Evolutionists look at the evidence and make a hypothesis which is open to future refutation by evidential means. Creationists predetermine all their findings on evolution on the laughable notion that the earth is only a few thousand years old, which in turn is predetermined by the frankly insane notion that there is a higher being whi ...[text shortened]... iot. I extend this view happily to all those of your pernicious and lunatic creationist ilk.

Evolutionists look at the evidence and make a hypothesis which is open to future refutation by evidential means.

If that was true, abiogenesis theory has been refuted over and over again and with that crazy idea that man evolved from a chemical soup.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b] Evolutionists look at the evidence and make a hypothesis which is open to future refutation by evidential means.

If that was true, abiogenesis theory has been refuted over and over again and with that crazy idea that man evolved from a chemical soup.[/b]

Idiot.

Originally posted by Starrman
Idiot.

Your vitriolic asinine verbal jerking is getting you nowhere.

At least you are a good example of the typical evolutionist who resorts to childish insults whenever the science blows them over.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Your vitriolic asinine verbal jerking is getting you nowhere.

On the contrary, it is filling me with renewed purpose. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Your vitriolic asinine verbal jerking is getting you nowhere.

At least you are a good example of the typical evolutionist who resorts to childish insults whenever the science blows them over.

I'm resorting to childish insults because you are incapable of understanding science; you believe in god, clearly you are mad. Why should I give you anything more than ridicule?