Evolution

[genkaus]

I see what point you are trying to make, but you can't just throw out a very crucial law of physics because evolutionists think evolution does not, somehow, need it. I chose to state this "answer" as an attempt for a very good reason, simply because it still does not explain anything. And neither does your "answer". There is a very good reason why the second law is to be applied: the mutation of DNA, in which requires energy for the mutation to take place. And where there is energy, there is the second law, which needs to be applied, regardless of whether you think physics has nothing to do with evolution.

And what exactly doesn't it explain?

All that you are showing here is that you are either incapable of reading or incapable of understanding what is being said. Physics has everything to do with evolution and the second law of thermodynamics is very much active if the decrease in entropy in life-forms is being accompanied by its increase elsewhere. Read my statement again - The second law is not applicable as a proof or disproof of evolution. In the same way, the laws of particle physics do not stop working during open-heart surgery, they are simply not relevant.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

But that was the basis of my question, that if the universe is heading for doom based on the inevitable process of entropy, and the universe is "creating" creatures (based on evolution) with physical bodies (energy conversion devices) that are accumulating less and less entropy, then how can this be?

The closest attempt to answer this question was when a scientist tried to prove how sub-systems (evolution on earth) can lose entropy while "inside" the larger system (the universe, which is a closed system because the overall entropy is increasing.) But that's very contradictory, applying the second law of thermodynamics in order to prove evolution, but attempting to disprove claims from creationists because apparently we are applying the second law to evolution and we shouldn't be doing that because it cannot be applied.

Closest attempt? That is the fucking answer.

As to your accusation, the "evolutionists" aren't the ones who bring up the second law of thermodynamics. They know that it is not applicable and cannot be used to prove or disprove evolution. The reason it is not applicable is the very same reason you gave here. It is the creationists who consistently bring up this failed argument to "disprove" evolution and the scientists are simply setting them straight.

Once again, for clarity. The second law of thermodynamics does not prove evolution. That the entropy in sub-systems can decrease does not prove that it necessarily does decrease or increase or stays the same. Therefore, application of the second law towards either proof or disproof of evolution is incorrect. Which is why, the creationist claim that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution is wrong.

The other thing that creotards refuse to get it that even if they were to disprove evolutionary theory, that would still do nothing toward proving their own bullshit fairytale. And their bullshit fairy tale was a bullshit fairy tale long before Darwin showed up on the scene. The whole notion of attempting to "disprove evolution" is a red herring.

[Mister Agenda]

So let me get this straight. According to evolutionists, species on earth have been taking energy from the sun for millions of years, and as a result, the sun has lost energy in a result of this transfer. But random energy never produces organization. The laws of physics proves that it speeds up the process of entropy. Entropy proves the universe is losing organization and is heading towards chaos, like "the heat death of the universe", so why is the universe full of species that add more and more organized, complex systems?

After demonstrating that you can't think of a possible energy source for life and think the sun isn't losing energy, maybe a little humility regarding what you think the laws of physics prove is in order. As far as 'random energy never produces organization', read up on how snowflakes are formed in the context of the 2nd Law.

The universe is mostly full of empty space, living creatures are virtually nonexistant in comparison to the volume of the universe, even if every planet was covered with life.

[Cyberman]

Thing is, in trying to reduce the second law to absurdity, SLG is so very close to the answer he seeks it's almost painful to watch. To the best of my understanding - and I concede once again that I am no authority on this - localised pockets of organisation such as here on Earth do indeed speed up the process of entropy in the longer term. That in no way impedes local temporary entropic order, as long as enough energy is being pumped into the system. And we just happen to have a huge fuck-off fusion reactor on our doorstep. Yes, we as biological entities are storing up a whole passal of hurt for whatever will be around at such an unimaginagle future time, but for the here-and-now we're getting a free ride.

[Minimalist]

So let me get this straight. According to evolutionists, species on earth have been taking energy from the sun for millions of years, and as a result, the sun has lost energy in a result of this transfer. But random energy never produces organization. The laws of physics proves that it speeds up the process of entropy. Entropy proves the universe is losing organization and is heading towards chaos, like "the heat death of the universe", so why is the universe full of species that add more and more organized, complex systems?

Your understanding of thermodynamics is so warped and convoluted I don't know it will ever be possible for you to understand.

I'll state this as simply as possible, the second law of thermodynamics, dealing with the spontaneous change in entropy, ONLY APPLIES IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. If the system is no longer closed (say, adding energy to the earth due to the sun) the whole law no longer applies, and can have nothing to say on changes in entropy.

---

Also, sciencelovesgod, your ramble on how "random energy" never produces organization can be shown to be bs from pure observation. If it were true, then a lot of other things shouldn't be occurring because there are a lot of cases where random processes increase organization.

He, and the creatards he is parroting are living, breathing, proof of the adage " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

[Epimethean]

The fun in it is that, in fighting against scientific advances while pretending to be intellectual, they seem almost a shadow puppet propaganda tool for their imaginary dark lord. I think we should develop a new nomenclature for the ones who stick around. Not trolls, but "orcs."

[Welsh cake]

I'm glad the idiot shot himself in the foot. Saves me the time I'd otherwise waste responding to his underwhelmingly ignorant assertions.

I'm so glad you know everything. Care to fill me in?

Well done. You've worked your way down from underwhelmingly ignorant assertions to underwhelmingly idiotic assertions.

Fucking hell you have no idea how close you are to winding up in my ignore list.

[Brian37]

Why do Atheist believe evolution cancels out creationism?

Holly crap I didn't read this post before I jumped into this thread until now.

Really? This is how you start off the thread?

Does Harry Potter flying on a broom trump the Write Brothers because some people like that fictional character?

Creationism is fucking myth, evolution is fact BACKED UP BY

Adenine
Guanine
Thymine
Cytosine

BETTER KNOWN AS DNA.

Can't dumb it down for you any further than this.

[Minimalist]

Referencing the other thread - I'd love Richard Leakey to come see what he is up against when he thinks creatards will throw in the towel in 15-30 years because of scientific evidence.

The talking snake crowd does not want to see evidence. What they want is for someone in a lab coat to tell them that their fairy tales are true.

They demand affirmation not education.

[Zen Badger]

@ SLG....

Before you go babbling on about the 2LOT and allll the rest of the creationist garbage.

You first need to prove that the universe is only 6000 years old.

Until you do that, all the rest is utterly irrelevant.