And what is the example you gave below?
Let us consider an analogy for a moment. Science would tell us that babies come about when the father fertilizes an egg inside the mother, and the fertilized egg is implanted in the womb, whereupon the fertilized egg develops into an embryo, and eventually into a baby. A simplified version, to be sure, but not the only theory on where babies come from. An alternate theory might be that babies come from storks. Hey, why not? My daughter's current theory about my wife's impending birth is that Santa Claus will be bringing a baby brother or sister for her - it is due around Christmas, after all. Medieval investigators believed that a sperm was a tiny homonculus, a complete human, for which the mother's only contribution was as a vessel for development.
Reproduction facts are not demonstrable, or provable?
Biogenesis, life must come from life. There is no such "law" in biology, except in the fevered imaginings of creationists. Strike one. Really?
So you have some evidence of life coming from non-life?
The two laws of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created. That's one law of thermodynamics, and it only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system - perhaps you've noticed that big, hot ball of flaming gas in the sky? Strike two.
Well, the Universe is a closed system and it is winding down.
Nice try.
The natural trend is to decay and disorder, not order and growth. And these are just figments of our imagination, I suppose:
And dying must be a figment of your imagination, or do you think you are not going to 'age'and 'decay'.
Everything in the Universe that is material will decay and eventually end.
Now tell me you deny that fact.
You know something that exists that will not eventually decay.
I think that's a whiff. Strike three, you're out.
Only in the imagination of evolution.
It must be nice not to have to deal with reality
“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Louis Bounoure. The Advocate, 8 March 1984, p. 17. Ahem. Anything else?
The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist.
So, evolution is both a fairy tale but is accepted.
So you guys have accepted the fairy tale?
It would seem so from what I read above.
And when did I claim that evolution should not be demonstrable, as you say I did? I did not, ergo, the claim that at some point I "state[d] that no such demands be made for evolution itself" is completely and totally false. None of that Ninth Commandment for us, eh?
So you have some evidence of life coming from non-life?
Here we are. Anyway, it's completely irrelevant - there is no such "law of biogenesis" in biology. You done been hoodwinked, son. Bamboozled. Sold a bill of goods.
Well, the Universe is a closed system and it is winding down.
Nothing about the second law prevents local decreases in entropy - all it says is that entropy for the entire system is increasing. The existence of snowflakes and planets and rocks and people is perfectly in accord with the second law, because a local decrease in entropy simply implies an increase somewhere else. As long as the overall entropy of the system continues to increase, it's perfectly possible to decrease it somewhere - all you need is energy, which is what the big, hot ball of flaming gas gives us.
Everything in the Universe that is material will decay and eventually end.
Now tell me you deny that fact.
I've said no such thing. Again, you resort to distortion to try to make your specious argument. If you're not careful, folks will start thinking that's the only arrow you've got in your quiver there.
The fact that the heat death of the universe is the inevitable outcome is irrelevant - in the mean time, here we are. You seem to think that the second law says that order can never, ever arise from chaos, that entropy can never ever decrease. How then do you explain something as simple as a snowflake, which has less entropy, and more order, than the drop of water it comes from?
So you guys have accepted the fairy tale?
It would seem so from what I read above.
Hey, you're the one finding yourself in agreement with off-the-cuff statements from French atheists. When you two figure out what else you agree on, be sure to let us all know - in the mean time, I'll leave you to your little lovefest without me.
As for the big, hot ball of flaming gas in the sky, did you know it will one day burn out?
So what? As I said, in the mean time, here we are, and there's nothing in thermodynamics that says we shouldn't be.
Completly unsettled - is the universe open or closed? Nobody knows! And recent observations that indicate that universal expansion is accelerating are evidence against a closed universe.