Nature's Laws

[Esquilax]

This is the claim that atheists keep making.  But evolution is just another story about creation.  The thing that evolution and creation have in common besides the fact that they are both stories is that they both begin with a supernatural event.  Creation starts with God creating, and evolution begins with raw inorganic matter self-organizing in direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics.

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. In short:


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.

Strictly speaking, neither story is scientific since there is apparently no way to falsify them.

Maybe you should do a google search for the Miller-Urey experiments, or Joan Oro's work in biochemistry, before you start telling us what can and cannot be falsified, because there's actually a lot of experiments out there that would falsify abiogenesis (which is what you're talking about here, not evolution, which has been confirmed by direct observation) had they failed, but instead they have all confirmed and broadened our understanding of the chemical processes behind it.

Can I ask why you felt it okay to come here and make these assertions that you have without looking up the current science on it beforehand? Why did you think you knew everything you needed to about this, when you knew nothing about this?