Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
18 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 15 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,947 Year: 21,983/19,786 Month: 546/1,834 Week: 46/500 Day: 4/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thermodynamics
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15632
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 16 of 27 (391262)
03-24-2007 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Own3D
03-24-2007 12:31 AM


I think that the wikipedia description of a scientific theory is close to being right but a little too restrictive. A theory is a unifying explanation - as evolution provided a unifying explanation of the branching tree structure of taxonomy, the geographical distribution of life forms and the fossil record. Modern evolutionary theory also includes population genetics which certainly includes a significant amount of mathematics. Evolution is also capable of making predictions, even about what evidence of past events we will find, as in the case of the discovery of the Tiktaalik fossils recently.

This page Parts is Parts includes a description of just on experiment in small-scale evolution on bacteria.

quote:

The refrigerator does remove heat energy from one area and releases it at another area. This would contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, however, everyone knows that a fridge has to be plugged into a power point to function as it was designed. This introduction of an outside power source negates your argument

That is absolutely wrong - it doesn't negate my argument at all. My point is that the fridge does NOT violate the 2LoT even though it produces a local decrease in entropy. Your argument doesn't negate my point - it confirms it. Local entroy decreases do not necessarily violate the 2LoT - AS YOU HAVE JUST CONFIRMED - therefore even if evolution produced a local entropy decrease you cannot use that fact alone to claim that evolution violates the 2LoT. So far from negating my argument, in fact you are agreeing with it !

So are you prpeared to produce a more detailed examination which actually shows that evolution does violate the 2LoT ? Are you ready to even try to discuss the details ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Own3D, posted 03-24-2007 12:31 AM Own3D has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15632
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 17 of 27 (391264)
03-24-2007 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by SpongeLikeBattleAxe
03-24-2007 5:34 AM


I see that you are making the usual creationist errors.

Firstly information is not a single quantity. You cannot switch between measuring information by the variety in the gene pool to the content of an individual genome and get a valid answer. They are entirely separate things and need to be treated individually.

Secondly you cannot simply equate increases in information or complexity to decreases in thermodynamic entropy. They are not the same thing. Where, for instance, in your example of a dog growing a horn would there be a decrease in thermodynamic entropy ?

To illustrate my points, consider your claim that natural selection reduces information. Given a mixed population of horned and hornless dogs, if natural selection were to cause the hornless dogs to be replaced with horned dogs that would - according to you - be a decrease in information. But also accordign to you the horned dogs are more complex and contain more genetic information - so surely replacing a hornless dog with a horned dog is an increase in information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by SpongeLikeBattleAxe, posted 03-24-2007 5:34 AM SpongeLikeBattleAxe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by SpongeLikeBattleAxe, posted 03-24-2007 6:54 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 21 by Own3D, posted 03-24-2007 8:41 AM PaulK has responded

  
SpongeLikeBattleAxe
Junior Member (Idle past 4552 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-23-2007


Message 18 of 27 (391267)
03-24-2007 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
03-24-2007 6:09 AM


Thank you for your reply.

I think that you are right in the first point you raise:

quote:
information is not a single quantity. You cannot switch between measuring information by the variety in the gene pool to the content of an individual genome and get a valid answer. They are entirely separate things and need to be treated individually.

Perhaps a clear definition would be in order. But that's something I'll have to research and come back to, though perhaps a good one would be along the lines of "an increase in the amount of protein molecules, or overall length of the DNA"? I really can't be sure, I'm not especially knowledgeable in this area (part of the reason I'm following the thread).

My intention was to clarify OWN3D's argument, which some people seemed to be misinterpreting (through no fault of their own). Which brings me to your second point:

quote:
you cannot simply equate increases in information or complexity to decreases in thermodynamic entropy. They are not the same thing. Where, for instance, in your example of a dog growing a horn would there be a decrease in thermodynamic entropy ?

I agree entirely, which is why I've been trying, as much as possible to use the term "implies." If fact I was hoping someone else would concisely explain, a few tried to explain why it doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in entropy, though the rebuttals are still going on.

Then there was your final point:

quote:
To illustrate my points, consider your claim that natural selection reduces information. Given a mixed population of horned and hornless dogs, if natural selection were to cause the hornless dogs to be replaced with horned dogs that would - according to you - be a decrease in information. But also accordign to you the horned dogs are more complex and contain more genetic information - so surely replacing a hornless dog with a horned dog is an increase in information.

A better thought out argument by me would have been that "natural selection involves a net increase of information no more then 0." A typical example of natural selection would be if there were a species of frogs that had some blue and some green, much like variations in our eye colour. Then a type of snake was introduced that ate only the blue ones. Eventually all the frogs born blue get eaten, and only the green ones remain. The blue frog genes have now been lost.

Your example is fine, except for your statement “surely replacing a hornless dog with a horned dog is an increase in information “. Your forgetting that for natural selection to select the horned dog, the horned dog had to be there to select. So if you have started with both horned dogs and hornless dogs, and end with just the horned ones then there has been neither an increase, nor decrease in genetic information. So in your example natural selection still does not increase the amount of information. Natural selection still works in a generally downward, or at least neutral, direction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2007 6:09 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2007 7:15 AM SpongeLikeBattleAxe has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15632
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 19 of 27 (391269)
03-24-2007 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by SpongeLikeBattleAxe
03-24-2007 6:54 AM


No, I don't see any sign that anyone was misinterpeting Own3d's argument. Excpet perhaps for you. Own3D was quite clearly talking about thermodynamic entropy, not informational entropy.

Your objection to my example simply misses the point. I am comparing information measured by gene diversity with information measured by genome contents (summing up the information content of individual genomes so that it can be applied to a population) and pointing out that a decrease in one can be an increase in the other. Information is NOT a single quantity. The measure you use DOES matter. YOu cannot validly switch from one measure to another. If you want to make a valid argument you have to choose a measure and stick to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by SpongeLikeBattleAxe, posted 03-24-2007 6:54 AM SpongeLikeBattleAxe has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 1035 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 20 of 27 (391270)
03-24-2007 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Own3D
03-24-2007 12:31 AM


Pixies, scientists and the Second Law.
Own3D writes:

[...] how do you know that there are pixies in the vacuum chamber when the air is pumped out?

I don't know this, but it is what my model assumes.

[...] if the pixies are invisible, how do you know that they breathe oxygen, how do you know they breathe at all?

Again, this is what the model assumes.

If this model was true, the experiment designed to "disprove" it would not be valid.

On the contrary, if the model was true, in all its aspects, then the experiment would certainly have disproved it.

Everyone can see the same effects of gravity in the solar system, which is in empty space(a vacuum), as those on Earth.

Well spotted. We didn't even have to bother with a vacuum chamber. But the point I wanted to make is that the assertion you made earlier, namely:

quote:
Because neither model can be "proven" this means that neither model can be "disproven"

is nonsensical. As someone said: it's a non-sequitur. I can't prove the pixy-model of gravity, but that doesn't mean I can't disprove it. The experiment I described clearly shows that I can.

It's all very well to go and reinvent the theory of evolution

Can you provide a better definition? The basic postulate of Evolution is a "law" of increasing organization, which introduces new systems into higher systems.

Of course I can provide a better definition. Your "basic postulate of Evolution" is a bogus representation of what evolution is all about. Here's my definition of evolution: descent with modification by natural selection. It's as simple as that. What you say is evolution's basic postulate is at most a corollary.

First you say that all scientists agree on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and then you say they don't

Wow, you think so? All scientists do accept the Second Law of Thermodynamics as fact, its observable, it can be experimented on, and it’s proven to be a known phenomenon.

Agreed, so far. But...

Not all scientists are, however, Evolutionists.

Well, maybe not, but evolution is a science and the people studying it are scientists. So saying that the theory of evolution - a theory coming from scientists - proposes a contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is tantamount to saying that there are scientists who do not accept the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This contradicts your earlier assertion that all scientists accept it. I merely wanted to point out a flaw in your reasoning.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Own3D, posted 03-24-2007 12:31 AM Own3D has not yet responded

  
Own3D
Junior Member (Idle past 4552 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 03-21-2007


Message 21 of 27 (391274)
03-24-2007 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
03-24-2007 6:09 AM


quote:
Given a mixed population of horned and hornless dogs, if natural selection were to cause the hornless dogs to be replaced with horned dogs that would - according to you - be a decrease in information. But also accordign to you the horned dogs are more complex and contain more genetic information - so surely replacing a hornless dog with a horned dog is an increase in information.

A better example might be the existence of sheep and poll sheep (those that do not develop horns). Poll sheep were specially bred from normal sheep. The fact that they do not have horns does not represent biological evolution, it represents a loss of information from, not only the individual's genes, but also from the poll sheep group as a whole. Check Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems for a definition of evolution. If it is incorrect, perhaps you should consider dropping them an email and correcting them. Here is a definition of Natural selection. The special creation model does not deny the existence of the process of natural selection, because it refers to the choosing between information (DNA coding) already present. During the natural selection process, no new information is added.
quote:
Given a mixed population of horned and hornless dogs, if natural selection were to cause the hornless dogs to be replaced with horned dogs that would - according to you - be a decrease in information. But also accordign to you the horned dogs are more complex and contain more genetic information - so surely replacing a hornless dog with a horned dog is an increase in information.

No. Because both breeds were there to begin with, now new information has been gained. In fact, information has been lost. First there were two breeds of dogs, those with horns and those without. Then, there was only one breed of dog, those with horns. So the information for the hornless dog has been lost. If the horned dog had descended from the hornless dog, then there may be net gain in information. If the hornless dog descended from the horned dog, then there would be a loss of information. The dogs would be able to interbreed, they are both dogs. This would not produce a dog with half a horn, the offspring would either have a dominant gene for horns, or a recessive gene for horns. If the gene is dominant, the dog will have a horn. If the gene is recessive, then the dog will have no horn.
quote:
I see that you are making the usual creationist errors.

Creationists make errors, Evolutionists make errors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2007 6:09 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2007 9:34 AM Own3D has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 22 of 27 (391275)
03-24-2007 9:01 AM


The Second Law of Thermodynamics:

There is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work.

Yes, well done. That is the actual second law of thermodynamics. To be precise, it's the Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law.

What I don't see is why you believe that this law is falsified by evolution.

Which aspect of the theory of evolution do you think disproves the second law of thermodynamics? The laws of genetics? The law of natural selection? What?

Normally when fundies pretend that there's a conflict between evolution and thermodynamics, they don't know what the second law is, or the meaning of the word "thermodynamics". But clearly you do --- so how can you possibly believe that there's a discrepancy? The theory of evolution says nothing at all about the efficiency of heat engines, and you must surely be aware of this.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15632
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 23 of 27 (391280)
03-24-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Own3D
03-24-2007 8:41 AM


quote:

A better example might be the existence of sheep and poll sheep (those that do not develop horns).

It wasn't my example.

quote:

The fact that they do not have horns does not represent biological evolution, it represents a loss of information from, not only the individual's genes, but also from the poll sheep group as a whole.

How do you know this ? Have you measured it ? Perhaps poll sheep have more genetic information than other breeds. And from what point do you measure the loss of information of the "group as a whole" ?
In fact if you are right about the poll sheep individuals having less information in their genes then the birth of the first hornless sheep would represent a loss of information from the perspective of the genome and a gain from the prespective of genetic diversity.

Different measures of information work differently and you can't just swap between them to get the result you want - not honestly.

quote:

No. Because both breeds were there to begin with, now new information has been gained. In fact, information has been lost.

Who said anything about "new" information (whatever that means). And information has only been lost if you use genetic diversity as your measure. But you won't stick to that definiton, will you ? If you did then you'd have to admit that mutations create information - any mutation. The creationist information arguments are not only wrong - they are dishonest. You really need to think about the arguments carefully - creationism is all about deception. Don't let them fool you.

But still this thread is supposed to be about thermodynamics. These information arguments aren't based on thermodynamics. They aren't even based on information theory. If you want to honestly discuss information arguments start a new thread - and choose as single measure of information and stick to it. Don't just change to a different measure just to get the result you want. That isn't honest - I know you're just copying common arguments but you really need to understand what you are saying rather than copying lies if you want a good discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Own3D, posted 03-24-2007 8:41 AM Own3D has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6833
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 24 of 27 (391282)
03-24-2007 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Own3D
03-24-2007 12:31 AM


Hello, Own.

quote:
Both models postulate that conditions were different in the past.

But a scientific model like the theory of evolution uses what is known about the present to make inferences about the past. The same physical laws that operate today have operated in the past, and processes that operate today can be seen to have operated in the past. It really is no different than any other scientific investigation of phenomena that cannot be directly seen with human eyes, like the composition and state of the earth's interior, for example.

-

quote:
The Special Creation Model certainly makes predictions as to what we should see in the world today. In so far that these predictions have always been born out, we may say that Special Creation has been "proven". As much as the Evolutionary model makes predictions that have not been born out, then we can say that Evolution has been disproven.

Except that this statement is not true. For example, if the universe is only 6000 years old, and since the speed of light is finite, we should only see stars that are nearer than 6000 years. This is a fatal flaw for young earth creationism. Now creationists try to get out of this by postulating changes in the physical laws in the past; however the changes that they propose would lead to other effects that we should see in the present, effects that are not seen.

There are other problems with the young earth scenario and with the global flood scenario; this is simply one example. There is a reason that it was scientists in Christian Europe long before Darwin who realized that the earth was far older than a few thousand years, and that a global flood never happened.

Meanwhile, the theory of evolution has passed the majority of tests put to it. When there was a problem here, the solutions proposed, unlike the creationist ad hoc explanations, were such that they could be tested by further observations.

-

quote:
Both models have shortfalls

The main shortfall of the theory of evolution is that it seems to violate some very dearly held beliefs of a certain religious sect.

-

quote:
Special Creation postulates that although God created everything pure, perfect, and complete. Man chose to disobey God's commands and thus God changed the laws by which the universe runs on. (Through the curse) He changed them from laws of conservation into laws of disintegration.

This is getting beside the point. Your statement was that Special Creation predicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That means that someone in 1800 could have read Genesis and said, "Oh, according to this, there is no process possible whose only result is to take a quantity of heat from a heat resevoir and convert it into work." No one did, and no one could. In fact, the "Special Creation Model" was formulated in the 20th century. In that case, the "theory" could have been formulated so that the second law is a prediction (or, in this case, a retrodiction). But they didn't; the second law was simply added to Special Creation; it cannot be predicted from the theory because the theory explicitly says that the second law is the result of the fall.

-

Added by edit:

One thing that I noticed is that you are no longer arguing, at least not directly, that the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. If so, then we can move on to another point that you tried to make to Parasomnium:

quote:
The basic postulate of Evolution is a "law" of increasing organization, which introduces new systems into higher systems. That’s what evolution proposes to do, develop lower things into higher things, disorganized things into organized things, simple things into complex things.

Just to add a little bit to what Parasomnium said, the basic postulates of the theory of evolution are:

(1) Organisms produce more offspring than the environment can support (and so a lot of organisms must die without successfully reproducing),

(2) organisms in a population vary in their physical characteristics, much of which are heritable,

(3) some heritable characteristics make the organism more likely to reproduce and others make the organism less likely to reproduce, and

(4) new variations of physical characteristics (that is, variations that were not present in the organism's parent) arise in a more or less random manner.

These are all the postulates of the theory of evolution.

Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Own3D, posted 03-24-2007 12:31 AM Own3D has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 25 of 27 (391331)
03-24-2007 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by SpongeLikeBattleAxe
03-24-2007 12:30 AM


Enjoy.
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:

ig·no·rance –nounthe state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

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.

For this evidence please see Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall’s experiments and pay particular attention to Message 7 (and the same argument in Message 69, if you need more information - but it is a "Great Debate" and you are asked not to reply to that thread).

Another possibility is that you have seen the evidence but are in denial about it:

de·lu·sion –noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

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.

Enjoy.

ps and welcome to the fray.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by SpongeLikeBattleAxe, posted 03-24-2007 12:30 AM SpongeLikeBattleAxe has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 26 of 27 (391333)
03-24-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Own3D
03-24-2007 12:31 AM


the logic applies to both arguments
Hello RAZD.
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.

See Message 25 for a more complete answer.

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.

Enjoy.

ps - and welcome to the fray.

Edited by RAZD, : it's that simple

Edited by RAZD, : ps


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Own3D, posted 03-24-2007 12:31 AM Own3D has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3859 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 27 of 27 (391345)
03-24-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Own3D
03-24-2007 12:31 AM


In my first post I calld your logic "cranky" which means refractory to any logic arguments that disprove your point of view.

Your second post has pretty much proved me right in that account

You did not address any of the arguments presented to you. Really, all you did was stick your fingers in your ears and chant to yourself

"I`m right -- you`re wrong -- I`m right -- you`re wrong -- I`m right -- you`re wrong -- I`m right -- you`re wrong -- ..."

That makes for a very poor begining here at EvC, in my opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Own3D, posted 03-24-2007 12:31 AM Own3D has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019