Ok, here are the first two Laws of Thermodynamics.
So?
The basic postulate of Special Creation is that in the beggining God formed a complete and perfect, as well as purposeful, primeaval world. God then set in place laws and principles of conservation.
The Special Creation model postulates a running down of the universe (Any change in an originally perfect environment must be in the direction of imperfection).
So when new species are observed to evolve, how does this not violate the second law for Special Creation?
But then I came down to the "argument" (probably better labelled "cat vomit") posted by RAZD. RAZD, please, learn to present a logical argument before blighting intelligent discussion. Not only did you not explain or lay out your thoughts but you start by trying to poke fun at OWN3D for doing exactly that. Then there was your attempt at argument:
So you claim. But there is no substantiation for that claim. Poking fun? No, the question was posed to make Own3D think about his answer. Apparently you would rather characterize a post as ""cat-vomit"" (in "scare" quotes yet) than deal with the question. The full quote from my post is:
Ok, here are the first two Laws of Thermodynamics.
So?
The laws of thermodynamics {A} apply to closed systems and {B} do not rule out pockets of decreased entropy within the overall system that is increasing entropy. Anyone who understands thermodynamics knows this. The original post did not establish that neither {A} or {B} applied to the case in discussion, thus we are left with a VOID in the argument between
Ok, here are the first two Laws of Thermodynamics.
and the comments regarding evolution. To fill that void I have to ask
So?
I hope this brings the argument to your level of understanding. I'm waiting for the rest of the information to be provided.
In the mean time I give this advice to anyone else who wishes to make unsupported statements then use a smart-alicy finisher like:
Enjoy
It better to stay quite and look like a fool, then to open your mouth and confirm it.
Please note that the forum guidelines ask you to address the post, not the poster. If you have a problem with the way I posted then I suggest you take it up with the administrators - there is a thread to do that: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0.
But I could suggest that you think first and act second. Particularly before opening your mouth. "Enjoy" is my signature, as anyone should enjoy being encouraged to think more about things - wouldn't you agree?
So when new species are observed to evolve, how does this not violate the second law for Special Creation?
I would like farther explanation of exactly what that’s supposed to mean, as the second law of thermodynamics is the same for both evolution and special creation. The implications (namely the decrease in entropy) of any observed evolution of new species are the same regardless of weather evolution, special creation or neither were the origin of life on this planet. If a decrease of entropy is a direct result of evolution, then either evolution or the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. If a decrease in entropy is not a necessary result of evolution, then the ideas are reconciled. If new species are observed to evolve, that does not violate the second law for Special Creation, not any more then it violates the second law for evolution, because both laws are the same: entropy will increase.
Again, this is a very simple concept, but you missed part of it. If the process of evolution violates the 2nd law then either the 2nd law is invalid OR it does not apply to the situation (see {A} and {B} above). If it DOES apply to the situation then it must ALSO be violated in the case of special creation and this means it is violated when we see evolution occurring today.
Because we do see evolution occurring today this means that the second case must be correct: the 2nd law does not apply to the situation. In other words the whole argument is invalid, and invoking the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not invalidate evolution.
I hope this brings the argument to your level of understanding. Again, it was phrased to make Own3D think about the answer, which is always good advice eh?
If the aim of that statement of yours was actually supposed to be the age old argument, "but evolution HAS been observed!" then I think its time for you to explain the statement with proof. IF evolution has been observed no one told me about it, and I would appreciate knowing the “whos”, “whens”, “weres” and “whats” involved in this much mentioned, yet never described observation.
That no one told you about it doesn't mean it has not happened. Your personal ignorance has nothing to do with the facts of "life, the universe and everything" (Don Adams, Hitchhiker "trilogy"). All you have here is the argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. Notice that I use "ignorance" to mean having a lack of knowledge on the topic at hand, and not in a derogatory manner implying stupidity or general level of education:
The evidence that evolution has occurred is rather overwhelming at this point. It is documented in several studies. To make the point relevant to this argument we can also include a condition whereby "information" as used by creationists and IDologists must also have increased during the observed evolution OR the concept is irrelevant. Thus we avoid that argument with this one case and can see that (a) evolution has in fact occurred and (b) the "information" argument can not be used to argue that only "loss" occurred in this event.
Another possibility is that you have seen the evidence but are in denial about it:
The level of denial involved in your case depends on how much you are willing to learn and change your opinion, based on rational evaluation of the evidence, versus a blanket rejection of the evidence.
quote:So when new species are observed to evolve, how does this not violate the second law for Special Creation?
So what are you calling the Second law for Special Creation? Is it the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The same Second Law of Thermodynamics that is scientifically verified as known and proven FACT? WOW! That statement would support Special Creation. With observed evolution, tell me when it was observed, what was observed to be evolving, and who observed it. Then you would have a valid argument.
Of course it would be the same law, otherwise we would not have developed it from the evidence IF special creation were the root cause.
We do see evolution occurring, thus whether special creation is the root cause OR evolution is the root cause, the apparent "violation" of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not proof that it cannot occur, and thus the laws of thermodynamics cannot be used to argue against evolution.
It's very simple logic. What it shows is that your argument is totally invalid. Falsified. Refuted.
™ Version 4.2