The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

[SGOS]

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.

[Mr.Obvious]

Last year on a YouTube comment section. First she claimed it proved evolution was false. I debunked that by pointing out The earth isn't a closed system. Then she suddenly did a 180 on me and claimed that i didn't understand her point. Which apparently tried to show that we had order in The universe in The form of starsystems and milky ways and clusters and what not, unlike The entropy she thought we Should expect by now. I pointed out something allong The lines of other forced like gravity being able to form pockets of energy and matter.  Even if The universe on The whole over a long ass time might be growing entropic, but that due to other forced This could take a while before we have complete entropy. I also made clear i wasn't a physicist nor an astronomer, but that pointing out gaps of knowledge didn't prove her god. Don't think i got through.

[missingnocchi]

[SGOS]

Don't think i got through.

No, I would doubt it.  Countering the "2nd Law prevents evolution" argument, requires explaining the 2nd Law to them, and while it's not overwhelmingly complicated, their attention span wouldn't last long enough to understand why it fails. 

There are maybe four things they think they know about it:

They get goose bumps just saying, "2nd Law of Thermodynamics," because it sounds impressive. 
It may have something to do with rockets in outer space or something.
Developing an understanding of the law isn't necessary.
It disproves evolution.

[GSOgymrat]

I just read Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God by Armin Navabi. This was covered in chapter 1: "Science can't explain the complexity and order of life; God must have designed it to be this way."

[SGOS]

What you're talking about involves an immensely large time segment.  For Creationists, a large time segment is from Adam and Eve to the birth of Christ, which involves a paragraph of ancestors in the "Begats".  An even longer time segment is from the death of Christ to his return, which goes from 2000 years ago to maybe 6 months from now.

[Qchan]

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.

In simple terms, Thermodynamics is the process of objects breaking down. Some creationists, I believe, used this to exclaim that this process, applied to evolution, would mean that certain genomes would break down over time. I don't believe that would ever be the case.

Now, I must inform you that not every atheist or agnostic believes in evolution. I don't even know how evolution became such a heated discussion. I was taught evolution in school. I regarded it exactly how it was taught to me. As a theory and nothing more.

[SGOS]

I just read Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God by Armin Navabi. This was covered in chapter 1: "Science can't explain the complexity and order of life; God must have designed it to be this way."

By the way, after you mentioned the book, Psychopath Test, I got it and just finished it a couple of days a go, and I found it very interesting.

[SGOS]

Now, I must inform you that not every atheist or agnostic believes in evolution.

Believing in evolution is not a requirement to be an atheist or agnostic.

[Qchan]

Believing in evolution is not a requirement to be an atheist or agnostic.

Good. A lot of people seem to think it is, and judging by what you yourself have just said, I assumed you thought this.

I used to believe in both macroevolution and the big bang theory. Then I studied these theories on my own and concluded that they are ridiculous. I wouldn't even call them scientific. Why not?

The scientific method is why. All theories constructed _have_ to abide by the scientific method. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of talk. The main rules of the scientific method are:

1) Observe. You first need to SEE and observe the *thing* you're establishing a theory on.
2) Develop a hypothesis. Essentially, make a guess as to what you are actually observing.
3) Establish a prediction of how if your theory was put into practice, what the end result would be.
4) Experiment. Experiment implies that your results need to be repeatable.
5) Analyze your data and draw a conclusion. Based on everything you've just done, you should have measurable results.

So, as a result?
1) We haven't found any fossils linking up one species to another. All we've observed was speciation, which can be attributed to adaptation. However, macroevolution suggests different family of animals evolved into different families. This has never been observed. Ever. When I say that we found many fossils, I mean we found MANY fossils. When it comes to humans and the fossil record, we only find another species of human (the neanderthal), but nothing else comes even remotely close to it or us. Nothing. We've found many ape skeletons (like the famous Lucy), but then we found that the hip bones and the finger and foot bones resembled that of a chimp, and not that of a human. We've found skeletons that were even more compelling than Lucy, but they were *older* than Lucy. In other words, we found nothing.

2) You can't establish a hypothesis without something to observe. I mean, I can think up of a dragon, but creating a hypothesis on whether it actually existed or not is silly.

3) Can't predict something without observable evidence to go off of. See #2

4) Speciation is all we could come up with. That isn't enough for macroevolution.

5) The probability for macroevolution is so ridiculously overwhelming that its practically impossible.

I would certainly believe in this theory if it abides by the scientific method in which all scientists use to formulate theories. The big bang theory is an entirely different beast altogether.

[Mr.Obvious]

Well actually, the only difference between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' is the timescale. Which means that you can test evolution repeatedly. Scientists do it in the laboratory all the time.
And predictions can be made using the fossil record. Scientists were, in the past, able to predict in which layer they'd find fossils of an animal with certain characteristics.
We can also observe how our DNA is so much alike that of all other living creatures on this world. Hell, we can observe how much certain species have in common with other species.
Of course we haven't 'seen' creatures or plants from one family grow into another. But 'seeing' is not the best term, I feel. For a long time we couldn't 'see' a black hole or certain stars. But we can 'observe' the effects they have on other things. We can't 'see' how the dinosaurs lived, but we can observe how some of their fossils over time grew to be more and more birdlike. That example is a change, over time, in classes. Or at least from subclasses. Which I think is higher up than 'families'. (I must confess I need to brush up my studies in this.)

And I agree that thinking evolution is true is not a necessity to be an atheist. No more than a religious person must shun it to be religious.
And I agree that it's 'just a theory'. At least, if we use the proper meaning of the word 'theory.

[PopeyesPappy]

I was taught evolution in school. I regarded it exactly how it was taught to me. As a theory and nothing more.

Please define the term theory as it applies to evolution when it was taught to you school.

[kilodelta]

Has anyone seen a version of this argument?
"Who wrote those Laws of Thermodynamics? God! That's who! Checkmate."

I die a little inside every time it comes up.

[Atheon]

Wel, my paster sez the 2nd law of thermal dynamics PROOVES evolutionalism is just a theery. Its a LAW, so their must of been a LAWGIVER! And hi's name is JEZEUS! And if munkys evolved from apes, why are they're still humons??

[Qchan]

Well actually, the only difference between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' is the timescale. Which means that you can test evolution repeatedly. Scientists do it in the laboratory all the time.
And predictions can be made using the fossil record. Scientists were, in the past, able to predict in which layer they'd find fossils of an animal with certain characteristics.
We can also observe how our DNA is so much alike that of all other living creatures on this world. Hell, we can observe how much certain species have in common with other species.
Of course we haven't 'seen' creatures or plants from one family grow into another. But 'seeing' is not the best term, I feel. For a long time we couldn't 'see' a black hole or certain stars. But we can 'observe' the effects they have on other things. We can't 'see' how the dinosaurs lived, but we can observe how some of their fossils over time grew to be more and more birdlike. That example is a change, over time, in classes. Or at least from subclasses. Which I think is higher up than 'families'. (I must confess I need to brush up my studies in this.)

And I agree that thinking evolution is true is not a necessity to be an atheist. No more than a religious person must shun it to be religious.
And I agree that it's 'just a theory'. At least, if we use the proper meaning of the word 'theory.

You cannot test macroevolution repeatedly. Time plays a great role in this, and for you to observe this theory, you actually need evidence. Now, I'm not saying you need to actually watch the animal evolve. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that you need something provable that substantiates the theory. We can make a few guesses here and there, but they aren't much more than that; guesses.

Please define the term theory as it applies to evolution when it was taught to you school.

A hypothesis or guess to the reality we see today.