Evolution vs. Thermodynamics

--I agree, I don't know why they just don't reconsile this argument with the trash can. I'm quite sure that current Stellar Evolution theory is more than sufficient at supplying the energy for the Evolution of Life over a 3.5-4.0Ga time span.
--Creationionists need to quite spending their time and putting all their effort into being anti-evolutionary rather than being pro-creationary (as it pertains to YECists).------------------

"Before you dismiss the article at trueorigin.org, why don't you read the whole article first. The usual evolutionist dismissal of thermodynamics vs evolution is that the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system. The evolutionist rationale behind this is that a constant supply of energy can reduce entropy."
--I use a relatively same explanation behind this specific 'area of discordance' but I'm a YEC. I simply find it a bit obvious to my knowledge. But hey, I could be brainwashed, I have an open mind -- convince me otherwise."(i.e., increased organized complexity, or build-up rather than break-down). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropyin fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation)."
--Kinda like saying that letting a car sit there isn't going to evolve on itself, eh? You just can't compare the mechanics of a system of hardware to a biological system."1. a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity"
--The very process of Evolutionary development, mutation."2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.""
--Photosynthesis? And see below."Now, before organisms arose (before abiogenesis), there wouldn't have been such a program of mechanism in place.
--Gosh darn. Well I thought we were talking about Evolution and Thermodynamics. IE, the development, rather than origin."Now, you might take talk.origins example: "In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks."
However, these examples don't have reduced entropy. Their formation is simply a movement towards a lower energy level (thus more stable)."
--"A movement towards a lower energy level"? This developmental process has required the use of environmental energy and has thusly put it to use. In that, your statement seems irrelevant to me."And also, before you knock off the site's articles, why don't you give a proper reason for refusing it? Explain and refute their argument that even in an open system entropy does not decrease.
--Overall, in a closed system, entropy technically does not increase nor decrease. It is, however, transferred by whichever mechanism. The sun's release of energy in the form of heat and light is the necessary example.--Also, this post does reinstate my participation in this forum. If there are any posts which immediately come to someone's mind here which would like response, let me know. Otherwise I'll just look through the topics a bit.------------------

I agree, my post #25 went unresponded. Maybe blitz could chew on that one, it is an on-topic post.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-02-2002]