[Ichneumon]

I was putting Mike's credentials up against your's, and he has graduate degrees in physics as a rocket scientist (engineer). He currently works on Tomahawk missiles.

That's sweet, but if he says that the laws of thermodynamics make evolution and other kinds of self-ordering processes impossible, he's still wrong.

What's especially funny about this bogus creationist argument is that if it *were* true, it would make INTELLIGENT DESIGN IMPOSSIBLE as well. Humans and other designers don't get to "break the law" (of physics) just because we can plan the things we do. If the laws of physics actually *did* make it impossible for order to arise on Earth, then it would be impossible for it to arise by ANY means, *including* conscious design.

It's either physically possible (i.e., allowed by laws of physics) or it's not. You can't have it both ways. Physical laws don't apply *only* to Mother Nature. They apply to *us*, and to all of our works, as well. That's why you can't build a perpetual-motion car which never needs gas, either, no matter how much "Intelligent Design" you try to apply to the task.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

This is the simplest, non-technical explanation I've ever seen to explain the error in the creationist/ID'er 2nd law argument.

Very nice!

(And I'll probably steal it.)

Any chance we can see Mike's math attempting to prove his case?

[PatrickHenry]

That's good. I hadn't seen that argument used in connection with the 2d Law canard. But then, I've never seen anyone take as much time to correct such errors as you do.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . but if he says that the laws of thermodynamics make evolution and other kinds of self-ordering processes impossible, he's still wrong.

As I understand it, the second law applies in both a positive and negative sense. Regardless, we operate intelligently in an orderly universe under generally constant physical laws that are nevertheless yet to be fully understood. Most observers would agree that where there is order, forces were brought to bear in causing it, and where there is no energy brought to bear on a thing, it will not organize itself.

Meanwhile your blustering, acerbic tone is a continual source of amusemument, but it does nothing to substatiate your notions or those of your pals. Frankly, with all the emotion you invest in debating the subject I am inclined to believe you kiss Darwin's bust both eve and morn.

As long as you fail to recognize the difference between reasonable conjecture and certifiable fact you will continue to cut off whatever legs you might otherwise enjoy in propping up a weak philosophy that has somehow gained the status of "scientific." Apparently both scientists and the general public are beginning to realize as much.

But that's okay. You have a choir, and you have cheerleaders. Enjoy yourself.