You'd first have to demonstrate that God is required. As of now nobody's been able to prove that it's even possible for a God to exist, depending on the type of God you're describing.

(May 21, 2015 at 10:59 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, do you know, like, literally anything about the second law of thermodynamics? Or did you just hear some creationist wiffle on about it, and decided it must be a slam dunk argument against evolution because it sounds so important? Because your misrepresentation of what the second law actually is, is so profound and complete that I have trouble believing that you even know what it is, and the idea that you just heard that it disproves evolution from some yokel and decided to repeat it is better, simply because it means you're ignorant, rather than straight up lying.

The second law refers to closed systems, which the universe is, but the Earth is not.


Yes, there are actual comic strips that debunk what you just said. The overall entropy of a closed system always increases, but the Earth is not a closed system, since it has energy entering it from outside, most prominently from the sun, but from other sources too. Therefore, the arrival of life on Earth in no way contradicts the second law, because that refers to closed systems, which the Earth is not. I'd suggest reading a physics textbook before you decide you know everything you need to about the laws of physics, in future.

I'll tell you a true story that might explain my (fairly ignorant) views on abiogenesis and the second law. When I was about 9 or 10 years old, I asked my dad to buy me a baseball glove. Eventually he did, and before he did he told me that he would buy me a baseball glove only if I promise to bring it in the house and put it away after each use. It was not acceptable to leave it outside on the ground. My dad didn't need to explain the second law to me. I already understood that whether our planet is an open system or a closed system, my 20 dollar glove wasn't going to gradually (or suddenly) become a 20 million dollar glove simply by allowing the forces of nature to begin working their magic on my baseball glove. Instead, my 20 dollar glove was going to become a 20 cent glove by allowing the effects of time and the somewhat unpredictable forces of nature to act upon it.

Post withdrawn: irrelevant

(May 21, 2015 at 12:23 pm)Freedom4me Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 7:29 am)Bad Wolf Wrote:  Evolution is not a story about creation. It only adresses the changes over time of organisms that exist or existed. The theory you are talking about abiogenesis.

Yes, I guess you're right.  But it is kind of fascinating that so many Darwinists seem to think that Darwin's story means that no god is necessary in order to explain the existence of living things.  

This is a conflation that many theists make, that since atheists so often accept evolution, they are doing so in place of god, but that's not true. I accept evolution because over a century of scientific endeavor has proven it to be a truthful representation of how organic life diversifies on this planet. If I were to convert to religion tomorrow, I would still accept that evolution is a real phenomenon because all of that evidence and testing will not suddenly vanish. There are also, of course, many theists- the majority of theists- that manage to accept evolution while still believing in their respective gods, too.

Calling us Darwinists is a reflection of how little you know about evolution too, by the way; Darwin's models have long been known to be flawed in many ways, and the modern theory of evolution, the synthesis model, is far removed, and far more detailed, than anything Darwin could have imagined. Thinking that acceptance of evolution makes one a Darwinist is roughly equivalent to calling all pilots Wrightians; both subjects have come a long, long way from their originators, to the point that it's nonsensical and highly old-fashioned to expect to be able to harken back to the beginning every time you meet someone who accepts either concept as true.

And we're not even touching on the catalysed reactions that came about during the early era of the Earth, through lightning strikes, volcanic activity and mass meteorite bombardment, over the course of a BILLION years (that's a thousand million, Freedom).
But hey, you are confounded by basic principle such as thermodynamics, so I can't say I'm shocked at your moronic delusion that godidit.
What's your next trick, claiming birds don't exist because gravity?

(May 21, 2015 at 12:31 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: I'll tell you a true story that might explain my (fairly ignorant) views on abiogenesis and the second law.  When I was about 9 or 10 years old, I asked my dad to buy me a baseball glove.  Eventually he did, and before he did he told me that he would buy me a baseball glove only if I promise to bring it in the house and put it away after each use.  It was not acceptable to leave it outside on the ground.  My dad didn't need to explain the second law to me.  I already understood that whether our planet is an open system or a closed system, my 20 dollar glove wasn't going to gradually (or suddenly) become a 20 million dollar glove simply by allowing the forces of nature to begin working their magic on my baseball glove.  Instead, my 20 dollar glove was going to become a 20 cent glove by allowing the effects of time and the somewhat unpredictable forces of nature to act upon it.

Seriously? That's your response? You're not even going to acknowledge that you were wrong?

You claimed that the second law of thermodynamics proves that abiogenesis cannot happen, and I showed that the second law doesn't even apply to the planet. In response, without even correcting the error, you tell this ridiculous story that is not relevant in any way to the second law, because the second law doesn't say anything about the "forces of nature" and somehow you think this completely irrelevant gibberish is a cogent rebuttal?

I stand corrected, your actual next trick was to claim evolution is false because baseball gloves aren't alive.
Good grief. You have exceeded even my most mocking expectations.

Great; I just typed out a lengthy post going into as much detail as I understand about evolution and thermodynamics. Then I saw that crap about baseball gloves and had to scrap the lot. Thanks a lot F4M.

(May 21, 2015 at 1:02 pm)Iroscato Wrote: I stand corrected, your actual next trick was to claim evolution is false because baseball gloves aren't alive.
Good grief. You have exceeded even my most mocking expectations.

I thought I made it perfectly clear that my baseball glove story was my attempt to explain my (fairly ignorant) understanding of the second law as it relates to abiogenesis, not how it relates to stuff that is already alive.

(May 21, 2015 at 1:19 pm)Freedom4me Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 1:02 pm)Iroscato Wrote: I stand corrected, your actual next trick was to claim evolution is false because baseball gloves aren't alive.
Good grief. You have exceeded even my most mocking expectations.

I thought I made it perfectly clear that my baseball glove story was my attempt to explain my (fairly ignorant) understanding of the second law as it relates to abiogenesis, not how it relates to stuff that is already alive.

Let's just stick with "fairly ignorant".  Now get your ass to a library and learn about this stuff.