I did not quote any creationist site earlier but I will below.
You are the one who distorts not me. You may, for example state that you have given me adequate responses but you have'nt. They are not at all scientific but "catch phrases" and philosophy.
Most evolutionists expect that life probably exists in outer space and they eagerly look for it. If they found it, they would use it as evidence in their favor. If they do not, they can claim we have not looked hard enough. Or there's always the claim that their theory did not actually predict it. Your position is invulnerable. You have nothing to risk from future observations.
Your illusions extend from biology or physics to cosmology. The universe has extraordinarily improbable properties necessary to support life. Yet such design contradicts naturalism. So, cosmologists created the beloved anthropic principle to explain away this design.
They also created the illusion that the anthropic principle is scientific. The illusion was produced by equivocation and misdirecting our attention onto "man as an observer" The idea actually focuses in another direction entirely, it requires the existence of an infinitude of other universes unlike our own. the anthropic principle is unscientific because we cannot possibly test other universes.
But The Big Bang, the Conservation of Mass-Energy and the Second Law of T. our among mosst firmly established science. But evolutionary cosmologists discard these because in combination these are inconsistent with naturalism. You throw out our best science for no other reason that to protect a philosophical commitment to naturalism.
Yet you call creationists unscientific........I feel sorry for you.
Because if you did understand the 2nd law rather than rely on cosmologists word-plays , you would understand how impossible it really is to defend .
Oh here's some information from those "unscientific creationists sites"
The Second Law in Classical Thermodynamics
The First Law is itself a strong witness against evolution, since it implies a basic condition of stability in the universe. The fundamental structure of the cosmos is one of conservation, not innovation. However, this fact in itself is not impressive to the evolutionist, as he merely assumes that the process of evolution takes place within the framework of energy conservation, never stopping to wonder where all the energy came from in the first place nor how it came to pass that the total energy was constant from then on.
It is the Second law, however, that wipes out the theory of evolution. There is a universal process of change, and it is a directional change, but it is not an upward change.
In so-called classical thermodynamics, the Second Law, like the First, is formulated in terms of energy.
"It is in the transformation process that Nature appears to exact a penalty and this is where the second principle makes its appearance. For every naturally occurring transformation of energy is accompanied, somewhere, by a loss in the availability of energy for the future performance of work."5
In this case, entropy can be expressed mathematically in terms of the total irreversible flow of heat. It expresses quantitatively the amount of energy in an energy conversion process which becomes unavailable for further work. In order for work to be done, the available energy has to "flow" from a higher level to a lower level. When it reaches the lower level, the energy is still in existence, but no longer capable of doing work. Heat will naturally flow from a hot body to a cold body, but not from a cold body to a hot body.
For this reason, no process can be 100% efficient, with all of the available energy converted into work. Some must be deployed to overcome friction and will be degraded to non-recoverable heat energy, which will finally be radiated into space and dispersed. For the same reason a self-contained perpetual motion machine is an impossibility.
Since, as we have noted, everything in the physical universe is energy in some form and, since in every process some energy becomes unavailable, it is obvious that ultimately all energy in the universe will be unavailable energy, if present processes go on long enough. When that happens, presumably all the various forms of energy in the universe will have been gradually converted through a multiplicity of processes into uniformly (that is, randomly) dispersed heat energy. Everything will be at the same low temperature. There will be no "differential" of energy levels, therefore no "gradient" of energy to induce its flow. No more work can be done and the universe will reach what the physicists call its ultimate "heat death."
Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we would reach the beginning point, where available energy equaled total energy. Time could go back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must have come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
The evolutionist will not accept this conclusion, however. He hypothesizes that either: (1) some natural law canceling out the Second Law prevailed far back in time, or (2) some. natural law canceling out the Second Law prevails far out in space.
When he makes such assumptions, however, he is denying his own theory, which says that all things can be explained in terms of presently observable laws and processes. He is really resorting to creationism, but refuses to acknowledge a Creator.
Entropy and Disorder
A second way of stating the entropy law is in terms of statistical thermodynamics. It is recognized today that not only are all scientific laws empirical but also that they are statistical. A great number of individual molecules, in a gas for example, may behave in such a way that the over-all aspects of that gas produce predictable patterns in the aggregate, even though individual molecules may deviate from the norm. Laws describing such behavior must be formulated statistically, or probabilistically, rather than strictly dynamically. The dynamical laws then can theoretically be deduced as limiting cases of the probabilistic statements.
In this context entropy is a probability function related to the degree of disorder in a system. The more disordered a system may be, the more likely it is.
"All real processes go with an increase of entropy. The entropy also measures the randomness, or lack of orderliness of the system; the greater the randomness, the greater the entropy."6
Note again the universality expressed here—all real processes. Isaac Asimov expresses this concept interestingly as follows:
"Another way of stating the Second Law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself and that is what the Second Law is all about."7
Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes, as well as chemical and physical processes. The interesting question is: "How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in evolution. which goes from disorder to order?" Perhaps the evolutionist can ultimately find an answer to this question, but he at least should not ignore it, as most evolutionists do.
Especially is such a question vital, when we are thinking of evolution as a growth process on the grand scale from atom to Adam and from particle to people. This represents in absolutely gigantic increase in order and complexity, and is clearly out of place altogether in the context of the Second Law.
Footnotes
1 . R. B. Lindsay: "Physics—To What Extent Is It Deterministic?" American Scientist, Vol. 56, Summer 1968, p. 100.
2. Julian Huxley: "Evolution and Genetics" in What is Man? (Ed. by J. R. Newman, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1955), p.278.
3. Isaac Asimov: "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Break Even," Smithsonian Institute Journal, June, 1970, p. 6.
4. Ibid.
5. R. B. Lindsay: "Entropy Consumption and Values in Physical Science," American Scientist, Vol. 47, September, 1959, p. 378.
6. Harold Blum: "Perspectives in Evolution," American Scientist, October, 1955, p. 595.
7. Isaac Asimov: op cit, p.10
Please, show me where in this long, drawn-out article, where it is shown that the evolution of life causes an increase in entropy that is incommensurate with the localized entropy increase allowed by the energy contributed by the sun. I don't see it. I only see an attempt to obfuscate this very basic issue by dragging nebulous references to space aliens and the anthropic principle into the picture. I'm sorry you don't find my explanations adequate.
I'm going to try to explain this again. The biosphere is a very, very small part of the earth-sun thermodynamic system. A decrease in entropy in this constituent subsystem is very possible as long as the entropy of the whole system increases. That's all the 2nd law can tell us in this broad sense. If I'm wrong please show me one, just one, instant or discrete step where the 2nd law would have to be violated in a theorized evolutionary process.
The interesting question is "How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in evolution. which goes from disorder to order?"
Apparently this is possible, because when you plant a seed, it transforms water and air (and a bit of soil) into a grown plant. No doubt that there's a localized increase in "order" here. One could just as well ask, : "How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in growth and reproduction, which goes from disorder to order?" Certainly you don't suggest that God intervenes directly to break the laws of nature every time a seed sprouts. Growth, change and hence evolution in the biosphere doesn't break any thermodynamic laws either.
Because if you did understand the 2nd law rather than rely on cosmologists word-plays, you would understand how impossible it really is to defend.
Cosmology is another subject entirely. I thought we were talking evolution here? I do guess it's possible I don't understand the 2nd Law after several undergraduate and graduate courses studying statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. I guess the virtually the entire physics community on Earth doesn't understand it either, then, because they don't seem to draw the same conclusion that creationists do about the 2nd Law, either. Either way, I'm still waiting for that elusive explanation of exactly how evolution works against the 2nd law of thermodynamics - to be sure, the whole world awaits it.