[caffe]

I'm actually going to be busy off and on tonight. But I believe I asked that you or others explain how they DON"T.
Perhaps it's time to give me your best shot and take a stand.

Since your obviously aware of the issue, i'd like to hear what you have to say.....please

[Dimensio]

I'm actually going to be busy off and on tonight.

Cop-out noted.

But I believe I asked that you or others explain how they DON"T.

I certainly didn't see such a claim addressed to me. Moreover, you're the one claiming that the theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. You're the one with the burden of proof to show the discrepency. If evolution contradicts thermodynamics, then demonstrate as much. Your attempt to pass the buck onto me to "prove you wrong" is simply dishonest of you.

Since your obviously aware of the issue, i'd like to hear what you have to say.....please

Fine. The argument from "second law of thermodynamics" always relies on the incorrect assumption that the law states that "entropy always increases", when really it says (well, this is a simplification, but it's a more accurate simplification) "net entropy always increases in a closed system" and, since the earth is not a closed system, it is possible for entropy to decrease without violating the second law of thermodynamics.

Now, if you have a coherent argument to make regarding the 2LoT forbidding evolution that you believe is not subject to my above comments, then please present it. Otherwise I will only be able to conclude that you are simply dishonestly copping out of the issue because you're too much of a coward to admit that you might be mistaken.