Replies

yes, those dumb creationists - many of whom are your physicians, pharmacists, professors (we'll some, but they are in hiding), physicists, biochemists

...and yet, they keep saying stupid things like these

- yeah, I guess when they point out the big elephant in the room, the absolute truth of conflict between the laws of thermodynamics and evolution,

There is no conflict, sorry, and no amount of confused babbling by the creationists will change that.

I really wish creationists would try to *learn* some science (*real* science, not the cartoon-version they present in the creationist pamphlets) before they attempt to critique it.

Here, read this and gain an actual education on the subject before you try again: Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism

For a short summary, here's part of a post of mine on the subject:

Once again, I see that the creationists are having trouble distinguishing between the concepts of "entropy", "order", "information", and "complexity". They are *NOT* the same, but creationists seem to like to use them interchangeably, leading to all sorts of "fall on their face" fallacies. Hint: This is the fundamental reason why the creationist "argument" attempting to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics in order to "disprove" evolution is completely flawed. The SLoT applies to *entropy*. Evolution applies to *information*. The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes *no* restrictions on whether *information* is "allowed" to increase, decrease, or whatever. So the creationists really need to give it a rest.

And:

In fact, ID is far easier to believe as it doesn't violate other proven laws (conservation of entropy etc)
There's no such law as the "conservation of entropy". You just made that up. Try again.
If you meant to say "the second law of thermodynamics", I'm afraid that your creationist sources are very confused about what it actually says. It is no impediment to evolution. In fact, if the creationist misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics was actually correct, it would be against the laws of physics for snowflakes to form, babies to be born, and so on. Even AnswersInGenesis.org lists the "thermodynamics" argument on their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use page.

all the evolutionists cultists can say, is well - make up a big lie , using scientific jargon that means absolutely nothing

...to you, because you don't understand it.

or call names

...says the guy who calls people who actually know the subject, "cultists"...

Guess what? Your post had absolutely nothing NEW or TRUE to say. Again, your contempt for creationists is a tad obvious. You use the word "creationist" like a KKK cultist would say the word nig...r. I'm sorry to say your zealotry leaves you with no scientific knowledge but a re-play of the evolutionary talking points that have no basis in scientific laws.

If you meant to say "the second law of thermodynamics", I'm afraid that your creationist sources are very confused about what it actually says.

There you go again.

Funny thing is, though, whether you go to Wikipedia, or any number of other sources that have no dog in this hunt, you'll find repeated references to how much confusion there is on this issue, including in most of the mainstream science textbooks.

How odd then that you want to slander creationists as the sole source of this supposed pseudo-science.

Once again, more slander and lies from the IchyMonster.

(I try to treat most people on FR with respect and patience, but you've really earned your stripes.)