The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

[Brian37]

It just dawned on me an hour ago that I have not heard this creationist deception for a couple of years, maybe longer.  Have any of you heard it used as a creationist argument recently?  I wonder if it has been mostly discarded.  I used to like that argument.  It was a perfect example of the name-dropping of a scientific term without having any understanding of what the term means, and then introducing a lot of unrelated smoke.

The first time I ever heard it was from a creationist, who was honest enough to say he didn't understand it, but he told me it prevented evolution from being possible.  He didn't even know the name of the law he was talking about, and even if he did, I would not have been prepared to debate him.  He shoveled a bunch of shit to me.  I couldn't respond, and lost the debate.  He didn't know what he was talking about and won the debate.  LOL

In wondering about what happened over there in Wonderland, it occurs to me that the gay marriage thing might be usurping all the energy of the Christian Right for now.  We haven't had many creationists around wanting to dump on evolution for a while.

I have been online dealing with theists for 14 years and have run into this tactic a few times. Don't get distracted if they try to use science to debunk that or evolution or whatever. Here is a better way to counter their crap.

1. If they think Christianity is the only religion to try to debunk science with science they would be wrong.
2. If they think they are the only religion when they cant debunk science with science they try to use science to prop up their holy book. Other religions do that too.

I have run into Muslims, Jews, Hindus and even a Rastafarian who have either tried to debunk science with science, or tried to use science to prop up their books and god claims.

There is no Jesus law of thermodynamics. No Allah based DNA. No Yahweh based physics. Just like there is no Thor theory of lightening, no Poseidon theory of hurricanes, not even a Buddha theory of gravity. There is merely science. Science is not religion dependent, it never has been.

Ocham's razor stipulates that when you have competing claims as to what might fill in a gap, the one with the least superfluous baggage is going to be your most likely answer.

So, if one as these choices, which would be the most likely answer?

1. Religion and god/s are required to explain all this.

Or

2. Humans gap fill an religion is a result of their ignorance of scientific reality? Humans merely make them up as an emotional placebo to placate their own desires.

I don't even like the atheistic religions of the Orient and Asia, they are still full of ritual and superstition and set up social pecking orders based on their social norms.

The truth of all religions are that they are merely a placebo effect that has the real benefit of creating safety in numbers. The problem is that those groups can base that entire society on a false belief. Just like the ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years falsely believing in their polytheistic gods.

The progression I mostly run into over the years looks something like this.

1. Theist will come in, claim science does not get it right.
2. Then claim they are only talking about science and not trying to prove a particular god.

Or,

Will come in trying to sell a god, but when they cant, they first try to debunk science. When they cant do that then they try to co opt science.

But it really is not unique to Christianity. It is merely that is what we mainly deal with in the west the most. You spend enough time exposing yourself to many religions, you will run into those tactics in every camp. They will dress the argument up in science and tradition, and quote their religious apologists and or religious scientists, but it still amounts to crap.

Bottom line is science does not favor any religion, it is why computers work no matter what country they are in. It is why planes fly no matter what boarders they fly over. It is why a cell phone will work in Iran the same way it will work in America.

Religion does not own a patent on science.

[SGOS]

I apologize if this has already been brought up in the previous 7 pages of posts, but I found this explanation of why invoking The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been abandoned by creationists:

http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-second-law

I'm not sure why further clarification of the 2nd Law would make any difference to a creationist because the very explanation of the complexity of life is fully explained to them as a miracle, rather than the outcome of physical principles.  The 2nd Law applies to life and non life over the long term (life on Earth ends when the sun goes and the system runs out of energy).  Traditionally, countering the creationist 2nd Law objections with an educational approach, has always been treated as mere "fiddle faddle" by creationists.

It's possible that over time, creationists have learned that the 2nd Law argument against evolution was completely bogus, because they are teachable after all.  I don't give creationists that much credit.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I know you're banned,but just for posterity.

1) You and I both know what macroevolution is. However, speciation being part of macroevolution just hasn't been proven, because macroevolution itself hasn't been proven. You *wont* find any evidence.

Macro evolution is indistinguishable from evolution. There is no such thing, it's an arbitrary line drawn (usually) by those that want to poke a hole in something they find disagreeable. Speciation = 'macro-evolution' because, as is the greatest test of explaining both the fact and theory of evolution, how would you draw the distinction between two colours on a spectrum? When does red become blue?

Exactly the same thing applies to evolution. You've drawn the line at speciation because you believe that evolution is unsubstantiated. Whereas in reality there is no distinction, it's just one small line in the spectrum.

2) I'll accept it if its indisputable proof. All you need to do is show the evidence. Don't just show anything and expect me to buy it. It's gotta be compelling. If you prove it without a shadow of a doubt, I will not make excuses. I will own up to it and I will apologize to you right here on these forums.

Evolution is a fact and the ToE is an attempt to explain it. The evidence for the fact is so overwhelming that there is literally nothing on any of us could post that would convince you otherwise. Billions of years evidence has been unearthed already, so I'm not sure what else anyone could add here that would tip you over the edge.

Not that it matters. Evolution is a fact regardless of whether people believe it or not.