Evolution's 'Dictatorship' -- Student Struggles to Get Opposite Viewpoint Heard

AgapePress ^ | 16 August 2004 | Ed Vitagliano

[nmh]

Evolutionists are similar to Demoncrats. They're both godless, and believe they must ridicule, vilify or silence opposition that possesses legitimate scientific evidence that states otherwise. It's the credo of the unethical.

[Jaguar1942]

Nah, it's just more fun.

[Jaguar1942]

Wow, well, excuse me while I go hide for a while.

They are crawling out of the woodwork, and are getting a bit too hardcore.

Isn't this supposed to be fun?

[aNYCguy]

I just have a few simple questions, one of which is where did everything come from?

Since your question seems to be directed to the public, I'll pipe in that it's a pretty profound question, and I don't know the answer. Incidentally, I do want to point out that an all-powerful being couldn't have "made everything," because if the all-powerful being exists, it's including in the set of "everything." I'm assuming, of course, that effect cannot precede cause.

[AndrewC]

No, of course not, because your metabolism and muscles have liquidated higher forms of energy into heat.

So throw the equivalent amount of heat at the scattered leaves with a hot plate. Do you end up with a nice pile of leaves?

[aNYCguy]

aNYCguy: No, of course not, because your metabolism and muscles have liquidated higher forms of energy into heat.

AndrewC: So throw the equivalent amount of heat at the scattered leaves with a hot plate. Do you end up with a nice pile of leaves?

Sigh. Before I get into this, I just want to ask you if you think I'm violating the Second Law when I rake the yard.

[Doctor Stochastic]

This is normal. The anti-science new-age-post-modern-creationists neither research nor publish. They truly are the forces of darkness.

[AndrewC]

I just want to ask you if you think I'm violating the Second Law when I rake the yard.

No, because the second law is concerned with the spontaneous direction that heat flows. Leaves get blown into piles. Sand gets blown into piles(dunes or denes), but sand never gets blown into forming the Sears tower.

[Jaguar1942]

Yowsa, now that's a heavy duty prosecutorial statement, come on Doc, tell us how you really feel. ;)

[Jaguar1942]

No, because the second law is concerned with the spontaneous direction that heat flows.

Isn't that just a little bit simplistic?

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's merely an observation.

[AndrewC]

Isn't that just a little bit simplistic?

No. That is the heart of the second law.

[VOA]

bump

[Jaguar1942]

Yes, put a bit simplistically.

[AndrewC]

Yes, put a bit simplistically.

This is pretty simple.

dS = dQ / T

Direction and spontaneous might confuse you however.

[Jaguar1942]

Whatever you say.

[Jaguar1942]

Your basic understanding of the 2nd law and how it relates to atoms and molecular structures is flawed.

Because atoms and molecules do not act like sand or leaves in a windstorm.

As I said, your entire thesis here is rather simplistic.

You are basically saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that according to your definition of the 2nd law, that there would have to be the hand of a creator in order to bring order out of chaos. because it would not and could not happen naturally, because the 2nd law would make it impossible.

Am I way off here, or is that close?

[AndrewC]

Your basic understanding of the 2nd law and how it relates to atoms and molecular structures is flawed.

Where did I mention any relation to atoms or molecular structures? I stated that the second law had to do with heat flow(that statement is simplistic). I then supported that statement by giving you a formula. Now leaves being piled up is very remotely removed from the second law. I argued against an example of raking by pointing out that heat has almost nothing to do with a pile of leaves. Your solipsistic mind has gone down one of your imaginary paths.

[Jaguar1942]

You didn't answer my question, I am off to other things at this point.

I am trying to understand your definition of the 2nd law.

[AndrewC]

You didn't answer my question, I am off to other things at this point.

I am trying to understand your definition of the 2nd law.

I saw your question as not worthy of answer. My definition of the second law is clear(see the formula and dS is always positive or zero for a closed system) and it has almost nothing to do with leaves.