Replies

The Bible says don't cast your pearls before swine .... Or putting it another way, argue with fools but I'll give this one more shot.
I said : BTW, Agnostic Scientist have now also changed the second law to imply it never stated disorder. They had to do that because Evolution violated the 2nd law.

Your reply:
Please explain how evolution "violated" the 2nd law. Be specific. State the 2nd law and explain exactly what evolution does that is in violation of it.
Answer ------ This is a joke right? You can't be serious! How? The second Law, Entropy, as it was originally written, states that all of nature seeks simplicity / disorder where simplicity means less complex. Another way to look at that would be to give an example. If we had a cube of water, divvied in half. One half of the water was yellow, the other half blue. Both are the same temperature. No outside influence a perfect environment. If you then very carefully pull up the divider so that the halves of water are now allowed to intermingle, the law states that over time, the water will become of one color, in this case green (because blue and yellow make green) Evolution violates this law because organisms, came from nothing, simple to more complex. We evolved from simple one cell organisms to complex organisms. A violation of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

I wrote:
All through nature we see the second law at work, animals becoming less complex ---- man to be specific. Yet, we are to believe everything around us was all by chance? Give me a break!

Your Reply:
Do you have anything of substance to offer, or just irrational rhetoric?
Answer ---- If it's irrational to use science then my answer would be no. If using science is rational, then my answer is yes. Take one example: say a Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund. These dogs were bread to be this from the original Standard Dachshund. Years and years of breeding got the dog to the to become a Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund. The reverse, breeding 2 Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund's has not produced, nor can it produce a Standard Dachshund. The genes for that size dog are no longer present in the Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund's. The complex genes, which are present in every Standard Dachshund are not present in the Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund.

I wrote:
I'm just going to use one example, just one and it's a very simple one. The Human eye. There are 400 parts to the human eye. All 400 hundred must work in perfect harmony and in sequence or it will not work. Now the chances of that happening are pretty remote but just for argument sake let's see how remote. Using the alphabet, 26 letters, and a bowl, what are the chances of pulling an "A", putting the "A" back in the bowl, then pulling out a "B" so on and so forth? According to my calculator, there are 4.032914611 followed by 26 zero's to one chance in completing that feet.

Your reply:
Your analogy is invalid. No one seriously suggests that the human eye simply came together fully functional all at once from nothing as a result of all of the individual "parts" assembling simultaneously. As such, your statistics are totally meaningless.

Answer ------ I never said it happened all at once. I said for it to happen just once the odds would be beyond a mathematical possibility (Statistical math says that if the odds of an event occurring are greater than 1 in 100,000,000,000 it becomes a mathematical impossibility) What people are suggesting is even more remote, ie the odds can't even be computed. There is no way to put together the entirety of the problem. It's simply beyond comprehension. They are suggesting that over time, little by little, the eye evolved from nothing to become a bacteria. That bacteria stayed that way for a time then decided by itself that it needed to get bigger. Getting bigger, it decided it needed to see but since it didn't even know what sight was it tinkered until it found out the right combination of molecules to allow a sensation of the nerve endings (which by some miracle were created by itself earlier) that allowed it to sense light. Etc... Etc.... etc....

I wrote:
Are the leading scientist in the world today saying the world is only 14 billion years old????

Your reply:
Actually the age of the Earth is estimated at 4.5 billion years. If you don't even know this much, how can we trust any knowledge you claim to have about events occurring in even shorter time spans?
That was a mis-type on my part. I was referring to the age of the Universe not the age of earth. Scientist have recently discovered what they believe the oldest light, dawn of the Universe, 14 billion light years away. Bottom line, I do know "this much". Sorry you were unable to make the leap. I guess you were in to big a hurry for the personal attack.

I Wrote:
At any rate, for the human eye to come out perfect just once, the probability is beyond the ability of my calculator to compute but I've been told it's a number with over 100 zero's following it. That's just the human eye, a 1 followed by 100 zero's to 1 chance for it to work just once. And it doesn't have to work once, it has to work twice .... to perpetuate the species.

Your Reply:
Except that, as I said before, your starting premise is faulty. The human eye did not simply spontaneously come together from all of its individual components at once. Your analogy is thus meaningless and your conclusions worthless.

Answer ------ See my answer from your first attack on statistical analysis.

I Wrote:
Evolution vs. Creation, you tell me which one takes greater faith?

Your dazzling come back
Why would it matter, when you clearly don't understand evolution at all?

Answer ------ I understand the so called Evolutionary argument far better than those who stake their very reputations on it, and far better than your feeble grasp of the so called science which is quite evident by your 'dazzling' questions and retorts
Fact: not fiction, not rhetoric, and not a personal attack, Every "So called" piece of evidence which proves evolution has been proven a fake or a mistake. Every Single One!

The Bible says don't cast your pearls before swine .... Or putting it another way, argue with fools but I'll give this one more shot.

While I've not often seen that cop-out used by creationists to duck out of arguments when they are losing, you wouldn't be the first to use that technique.

Answer ------ This is a joke right? You can't be serious! How?

Yes. Every "explanation" I've seen before falls back on a faulty understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Entropy, as it was originally written, states that all of nature seeks simplicity / disorder where simplicity means less complex.

"Seek" is a loaded term, and "simplicity" is not the same as "entropy".

Another way to look at that would be to give an example. If we had a cube of water, divvied in half. One half of the water was yellow, the other half blue. Both are the same temperature. No outside influence a perfect environment. If you then very carefully pull up the divider so that the halves of water are now allowed to intermingle, the law states that over time, the water will become of one color, in this case green (because blue and yellow make green)

That's diffusion, not the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics states, basically, that in a closed system entropy never decreases. That's it. Nothing about "everything becomes less complex.

Evolution violates this law because organisms, came from nothing, simple to more complex.

Organisms did not come from "nothing".

We evolved from simple one cell organisms to complex organisms. A violation of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

In addition to failing to show where the entropy loss occurs, you also fail to understand that the second law only applies in closed systems. Biological life forms are not closed systems. Populations of biological life forms are not closed systems. Earth itself is not a closed system. There is no scientific law that states that entropy cannot decrease in an open system, so a local order decrease of entropy in an open system violates nothing.

Your "logic" would make life itself impossible. How could a zygote, a small cluster of cells, ever become an adult human being? That's a massive increase in "complexity". Based upon your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, humans cannot possibly exist, which means that either humans do not exist or your reasoning is faulty. My money is on the latter.

Answer ---- If it's irrational to use science then my answer would be no. I

But you're not using science. You're using a clear-cut misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics coupled with "but come ON!". That's not science, that's bad reasoning and conjecture.

Take one example: say a Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund. These dogs were bread to be this from the original Standard Dachshund. Years and years of breeding got the dog to the to become a Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund. The reverse, breeding 2 Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund's has not produced, nor can it produce a Standard Dachshund.

Reference of this being attempted with failure every time? Or are you just making this up because you think that it is what would happen?

The genes for that size dog are no longer present in the Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund's. The complex genes, which are present in every Standard Dachshund are not present in the Miniature Wire-haired Dachshund.

References for your claims regarding genetics, please.

Answer ------ I never said it happened all at once. I said for it to happen just once the odds would be beyond a mathematical possibility (Statistical math says that if the odds of an event occurring are greater than 1 in 100,000,000,000 it becomes a mathematical impossibility)

Which, as I pointed out, is irrelevant because no one claims that is what happened. You set up a strawman argument for the development of the eye and knocked it down. You attacked a position that no one takes, and then declared victory. You used a logical fallacy to score a nonexistent point.

What people are suggesting is even more remote, ie the odds can't even be computed.

How would you know? Your argument was founded upon a faulty premise.

There is no way to put together the entirety of the problem.

IOW, you're just making your information up as you go along.

It's simply beyond comprehension. They are suggesting that over time, little by little, the eye evolved from nothing to become a bacteria. That bacteria stayed that way for a time then decided by itself that it needed to get bigger.

This is an extreme oversimplification combined with a strawman implying any sort of conscious choice.

Getting bigger, it decided it needed to see but since it didn't even know what sight was it tinkered until it found out the right combination of molecules to allow a sensation of the nerve endings (which by some miracle were created by itself earlier) that allowed it to sense light. Etc... Etc.... etc....

Except that a photoreceptive cell by itself doesn't need nerve endings to become photoreceptive.

Your problem is that you see what you think is a massive problem and then claim that it's a massive problem for everyone without considering that there are actually biologists out there who have done the research and realised that the "massive" problem can actually be broken down into steps that aren't really so massive and problematic after all. You've decided that you know it to be impossible, so you cut off all inquiry and then arrogantly declare that you've "proven" that it's all impossible. It's a common tactic for creationists to use their ignorance as some kind of barrier that they assert no science can pass.

I understand the so called Evolutionary argument far better than those who stake their very reputations on it,

You tried to claim that the second law of thermodynamics -- which you also demonstrated that you don't understand -- somehow disproves evolution. You also made up a bogus statistic with no foundation in reality and claims that it disproves the evolution of the eye.

No, you don't understand evolution. You're wrong about quite a bit, but you're far too arrogant to admit it, so you declare that 150 years of research and observations in reality should be tossed aside simply because of your own ignorance.

and far better than your feeble grasp of the so called science which is quite evident by your 'dazzling' questions and retorts

Yes, I bow to your superior knowledge of science, through which you have proven that life itself cannot possibly exist because developing from a zygote stage to adulthood violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Fact: not fiction, not rhetoric, and not a personal attack, Every "So called" piece of evidence which proves evolution has been proven a fake or a mistake. Every Single One!

Citations of fakes? Oh, wait, you cited Lucy and Java Man, niether of which are fakes. And I know that you're too arrogant and likely too dishonest to actually support your claims regarding those as "fakes".