26 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadDJ- Please just answer the quoted post, enough side arguments.
Here is your claim: abiogenesis, the process whereby life arises from non-life, contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.
If you have evidence then please present it. If not please admit that you don't.
This is totally independent of any other theory such as evolution, the big bang etc. If God made the world yesterday, and we put the right mix ...[text shortened]... and stirred and life appeared would the second law of thermodynamics have been violated an why?
And stop trying to apply the term "run down" to everything as evidence that it violates the second law. Please try to use a more formal definition of the 2nd law, perceived order is not what it is talking about, but energy and entropy. "Run down" does not mean anything as far as I'm concerned.
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowGood point. If you're a senior double majoring in Chemistry and Physics you should be using the technical terms.
DJ- Please just answer the quoted post, enough side arguments.
And stop trying to apply the term "run down" to everything as evidence that it violates the second law. Please try to use a more formal definition of the 2nd law, perceived order is not what it is talking about, but energy and entropy. "Run down" does not mean anything as far as I'm concerned.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI had to hand in 60 odd assignments this week, so I'm kinda busy... I'll get back to the forums as soon as I get the chance.
So, DJ, can I take it that you simply don't have any evidence for your claim but are not honest enough to admit it?
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerI will be waiting. I've been busy too this week.
I had to hand in 60 odd assignments this week, so I'm kinda busy... I'll get back to the forums as soon as I get the chance.
I just want a proper conclusion to the thread so I can refer back to it whenever someone brings up the topic again.
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI wouldn't bother, I'm still waiting for a thesis on creationism since a year last November. dj runs when he's wrong instead of doing what any real christian would do and accept his error and atone for his lies.
I will be waiting. I've been busy too this week.
I just want a proper conclusion to the thread so I can refer back to it whenever someone brings up the topic again.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Mar 07
1 edit
Evolutionary theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began.
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerHigh school scientific definitions in this thread!
Evolutionary theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began.
06 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerFirstly evolution itself is not a close system so on its own is not subject to the second law. (and therefore cannot be said to violate it).
Evolutionary theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began.
Secondly, you are wrong about your interpretation of the second law and simply lying about empirical observation.
You say things tend towards 'simplicity' and 'disorganization'. But these are two conflicting terms. A disorganized system is more complex than a well ordered one.
Things do not 'tend towards randomness'. Things simply are random. They cannot get more or less random. Probability theory and that inherent randomness results in the Second Law.
The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about what has happened 'since the universe began' but only about what has happened here on earth since life began.
I notice you are still shying away from your claim about abiogenesis.
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhy do you avoid technical terms? What kind of science major are you?
Evolutionary theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began.