Replies

It has the same moral imperative as does the Pythagorean Theorem or the Electro-weak Theory: none at all.

The Pythagorean Theorem has immense moral imperative! It describes the indisputable truth about the relationship in terms of ratio of the hypoteneuse of a right angled triangle to it's other sides. It would be a violation of our conscience to deny the truth of the Pythagorean Theorem. If you needed to calculate distance within a plane, given the length of two sides, you would never use anything else. It would be an absurd and meaningless sin!

Truth is the only moral imperative in the universe.

To stress the point that open systems allowing macroevolution to violate the second law on such a grand scale (literally trillions of times- life apparently, according to anti-creationists, just thumbed it's nose at the second law while life supposedly evolved, and then, somewhere along the line, all life became mysteriously subject to the second law) is a futile argument:

Open vs. Closed Systems
The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”

The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.

Let's repeat that last line- a line that Doc DENIES with a glib hand-wave and a smile- for everyone to see:

This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.

It is a scientifically observed phenomenon- Not a theory- scientifically observed phenomenon- not simply a hypothesis based on nothing more substantive than an assumption- scientifically observed phenomenon, not some assumption based on dogmatic opinion formed to prop up a failing hypothesis.

Doc apparently doesn't want anyone to read up on established scientific phenomenon, and apparently doesn't want anyone learning the truth about the claims of Macroevolutionists, and the silly idea that an 'open system' allows for serious violations of the second law. It's just simply amazing the level of discourse that crops up everytime someone posts something a macroevolutionist doesn't like- Well done Doc- At least you're consistent, if nothign else