Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[coldwx]

Open system/ closed system is just more BS jargon in favor of smoke-screening
reality.

So you are either arguing that the established formal definition of the Second Law is not correct, or your arguing that living creatures, the earth, etc are a closed isolated system. Please explain and cite sources.

[LastPoet]

The bible, duh

[Mr Greene]

Open system/ closed system is just more BS jargon in favor of smoke-screening
reality.
In order for the sun to be beneficial to life, there has to be instructions within the
living cells to utilize it. Otherwise, the sun does nothing, except maybe wreck plastic.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Open system/ closed system is just more BS jargon in favor of smoke-screening
reality.
In order for the sun to be beneficial to life, there has to be instructions within the
living cells to utilize it. Otherwise, the sun does nothing, except maybe wreck plastic.

[LastPoet]

Chlorophyll is an obvious invention from atheist scientists to turm people away from god. Also the heat we feel is not the sun, it's god warming love

[Chas]

Unsourced? Do you not know of Wikipedia?

Yes, but just saying Wikipedia is a little broad, don'tcha think? It's customary to provide a link to the specific article, or at least the article title, so that others can check the context of the quote.

And, yes, it does support my position. It calls into question anything above the gene level.

Look at the parts that I bolded.

"the view that selection on other levels, such as organisms and populations, seldom opposes selection on genes is more controversial."

Your view is that selection on other levels reduces easily to selection on genes, i.e. selection on other levels seldom or never opposes selection on genes. Your own quote says that position is controversial.

There are no mechanisms known for evolution above the gene/phenotype level. That is why "group selection" has failed.

According to your own quote, more sophisticated models of group selection make accurate predictions.

Still no mechanism. Levels above the gene/phenotype level may be useful shortcuts to communication, but they are only that.

[Esquilax]

Open system/ closed system is just more BS jargon in favor of smoke-screening
reality.

Given that the term "closed/isolated system" literally occurs within the formulation of the second law itself, I'd say the only one attempting to obscure reality with BS is you, "professor." Are you actually saying, after using the second law in an attempt to disprove evolution, that the second law is written wrong?

Wouldn't that mean that you were using some arcane new definition of the second law, that wasn't actually the second law, when you made your argument, if you actually believe what you just said? So, you were just making things up?

Do you have the physics degree needed to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics at your own convenience, "professor"?

In order for the sun to be beneficial to life, there has to be instructions within the
living cells to utilize it. Otherwise, the sun does nothing, except maybe wreck plastic.

And there you go, baselessly asserting anthropomorphism with this talk of "instructions." They aren't instructions, they are random mutations, those which allowed an organism better use of the sun's energy conferred a survival advantage, causing the creature to survive and breed more, causing those genes to flourish in the population. There's no instructions, just chemicals that happen to align in certain ways, and are then acted upon by an environment.

I look forward to your next insipid "nuh uh!" response.

[RDK]

Open system/ closed system is just more BS jargon in favor of smoke-screening
reality.

Given that the term "closed/isolated system" literally occurs within the formulation of the second law itself, I'd say the only one attempting to obscure reality with BS is you, "professor." Are you actually saying, after using the second law in an attempt to disprove evolution, that the second law is written wrong?

Wouldn't that mean that you were using some arcane new definition of the second law, that wasn't actually the second law, when you made your argument, if you actually believe what you just said? So, you were just making things up?

Do you have the physics degree needed to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics at your own convenience, "professor"?

In order for the sun to be beneficial to life, there has to be instructions within the
living cells to utilize it. Otherwise, the sun does nothing, except maybe wreck plastic.

And there you go, baselessly asserting anthropomorphism with this talk of "instructions." They aren't instructions, they are random mutations, those which allowed an organism better use of the sun's energy conferred a survival advantage, causing the creature to survive and breed more, causing those genes to flourish in the population. There's no instructions, just chemicals that happen to align in certain ways, and are then acted upon by an environment.

I look forward to your next insipid "nuh uh!" response.

---

There are much simpler answers for the fallacy of evolution.
First, the idea that an organism of any type could just start from nothing, consider this. A creature is a complex system of inter-related parts which must work in harmony for the animal to exist. Take away one working part, the whole animal dies. All of the animals parts had to begin at one time. A creature could not have existed as a whole while waiting for all of the individual parts to assemble over time since that animal could not exist at all without all of them at the same time. This absolutely mean s that no animals are transforming themselves from nonliving collections of unused parts waiting for the installation of the last needed one in order to exist as a LIVING CREATION!

[Esquilax]

There are much simpler answers for the fallacy of evolution.

And as we all know, "simple" is a synonym for "correct"!

First, the idea that an organism of any type could just start from nothing, consider this.

The idea that an organism of any type could just start from nothing... isn't evolution. It's not even abiogenesis, really. Thank you for just lending more credence to my claim in the OP.

A creature is a complex system of inter-related parts which must work in harmony for the animal to exist. Take away one working part, the whole animal dies.

If you take away a human appendix the human keeps living. My wisdom teeth were extracted, and I'm still here. Hell, you can even remove parts of my brain and other organs without killing me, so your claim here is just false to begin with. Doing just real well so far, champ.

All of the animals parts had to begin at one time. A creature could not have existed as a whole while waiting for all of the individual parts to assemble over time since that animal could not exist at all without all of them at the same time.

You do understand that evolution happens over successive generations, and not to single animals, right?

Oh, who am I kidding? Of course you don't.

This absolutely mean s that no animals are transforming themselves from nonliving collections of unused parts waiting for the installation of the last needed one in order to exist as a LIVING CREATION!

[Esquilax]

Okay, I just want to be really clear about exactly how much my theory is paying off, here: we've now had two christians come in here and demonstrate how little they know about evolution, and this is literally a thread about how christians don't know anything about evolution before they argue against it.

They won't even bother looking it up in a scenario in which the chance of them getting caught out and called on it is one hundred percent.