Originally posted by Monsoon X
It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.
Again, I am not talking about Creation - I am talking about Evolution. It is not presumptuous to say that all living things evolved into their current state, because there is a wide range of evidence for it. Now, if someone wants to try to formulate a Hypothesis on the Creation of Life, they can do that. It is part of the process that makes scientific knowledge "grow". However, all of the Creation theories (that I know of) have been shot down by the scientific community for lack of evidence. You have to make a strong case to a very intelligent group of people to have such ideas accepted.
Now I ask you this. Has the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics been circumvented? How is it that Evolutionists claim that organisms are becoming more ordered and complicated? Heck man, the universe is falling apart, the sun is getting old, stars colapse but here on Earth, we are getting better? C'mon Danny. Open your heart and see the truth.
Bustin out the 2nd Law, huh?
Old trick, and this is something I found.. written by people that have a firm grasp of the 2nd Law. In this case, "Haynie" is an expert in such matters, and he is commenting on a well known report by Creationists that the 2nd Law strictly prohibits evolution. These first 3 quotes are taken directly from the report, and the rest is his commentary.
Haynie: There are three contentious statements here, it seems to me:
(1) "The fact is: the second law of thermodynamics strictly prohibits organic evolution, Mr. Rennie’s disclaimers notwithstanding,"
(2)"Evolutionists have attempted to downplay the problems in regard to thermodynamics and evolutionary theory. But the problems do exist, and are serious," and
(3)"Thermodynamically speaking, all isolated systems (and the Universe is accepted as an isolated system) proceed toward a state of equilibrium."
Let me speak to the last point first. It is by no means certain that the universe is an isolated system. For as far as I am aware, no one really knows what the universe is, much less whether it is an isolated system (in the sense that these terms are ordinarily defined). However, I believe Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub are correct in saying that the universe, whatever it might be, is (often) accepted as an isolated system, so that it can be treated in a specific way using standard mathematical tools.
The first point is problematic for reasons discussed above. Assuming that the Second law of thermodynamics really does describe, more or less correctly, the nature of the universe that actually exists, which is what I think, it seems to me a non sequitur to say that the Second law "prohibits organic evolution." That is, in my opinion the scientific arguments adduced by Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub are for the most part factually correct, but their conclusion is not entailed by those arguments. Theirs is a very common error in reasoning; the peer-reviewed scientific literature, by the way, is full of additional examples illustrating it.
As to the second point it may well be true, but I cannot say for sure. For how many "evolutionists" have a good grasp of the Second law? Many do not, I suspect, and some of these might therefore be inclined to avoid the subject in a debate or to parrot the view of an assumed scientific authority. Do "problems" exist, however, with regard to the science? None that I am aware of, at least with regard to points of a fundamental nature. It would appear that Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub do not have a good awareness of what their "opponents" actually think about the Second law.
JC, there are a lot of things that we don't understand fully. The universe, creation, I could go on for hours about what we DON'T know for certain. But Evolution is something that happens, even if we don't exactly know how the process got started.
It's sort of like saying, "I built my Trans Am up to run 6.99 @ 100" and another person saying, "Bullshit, it's impossible to do that to a Trans Am because you don't understand how to build a car from metal, plastic, and glass!" Get it? The two ideas are totally seperate.