Could you tell us with your reasoning why the portion of text shown here is wrong. Use the example used in the text and tell me why they are "hilarious" to you.
I hate it when this happens.... (that ominous extended period of silence)
"Use the example used in the text and tell me why they are "hilarious" to you."
Um, can you tell us why the three stooges are so funny?
Actually it was based on reading the whole thing. Had to take a break for dinner, but ome highlights:
The first formulations of the second law were all about heat:
In fact in its most basic form the second law says that in a closed system there can be no process that has as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body.
With time, the second law came to be interpreted more and more generally, and today most discussions of the second law in physics textbooks offer examples of entropy increases (order decreases) which have nothing to do with heat conduction or diffusion, such as the shattering of a wine glass or the demolition of a building.
This is more an indication of how poorly-written a lot of textbooks are than a support of this guy's case. The basic creationist problem is them directly equating entropy with laymen's notions of "randomness" or "disorder" or "complexity" which is not the case.
Natural forces, such as corrosion, erosion, fire and explosions, do not create order, they destroy it.
The above is probably his silliest claim. There are innumerable natural forces that create "order" my previous example of the formation of hurricanes being a good one....(keep in mind what I previously said about making sure not to assume that your notions of "order" or "disorder" or "complexity" correspond to what the Second Law ACTUALLY says).
alone among all natural forces -- can create order out of disorder
Notice that this obviously ridiculous claim of his is repeated and is central to his argument. There are examples of order out of disorder in the natural world occuring ALL THE TIME other than in evolution or in living things.
Could you tell us with your reasoning why the portion of text shown here is wrong. Use the example used in the text and tell me why they are "hilarious" to you.
I hope you haven't been holding your breath waiting for an answer. ;-)
Condescending and ridicule are the ways faithful true-believers protect their idols from scrutiny.