[xmission]

Can you explain clearly, with examples, exactly how this author does not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics? I would especially like to hear about the "hilarious and embarassing" parts.

For someone who doesn't know enough about this subject to make an informed decision, I see an awful lot of unanswered questions posed to the evolutionists. Most of the replies are insults only.

[editor-surveyor]

" Most ALL of the replies are insults only."

Minor correction, but I believe you've grokked the essence of the church of evolutionism.

[DallasMike]

I see an awful lot of unanswered questions posed to the evolutionists. Most of the replies are insults only.

One problem is that creationists are lumped into a single class. I'm horrified by the idea of a 6,000-year old universe and believe that people who push the idea are misinterpreting both science and the Bible. All truth is God's truth. I personally accept the idea that the universe is around 15 billion years old and that evolution of some sort takes place, yet I'm lumped in with those who believe in a 6,000-year old universe.whale.

Michael Behe's theory of Irreducible Complexity is profound. The bladderwort example he used here is compelling but, as a chemist by training, the most astonishing examples are things that take many different chemicals being in exactly the right place at the time for something to happen. With eyesight, for example, a large number of complex chemicals are involved. If any one of these chemicals are missing, the result is not just the animal seeing slightly less well (and thus slightly more likely to get eaten) but in being totally blind. How did all of these chemicals needed for vision end up in the right place?

If the body creates complex chemicals "by chance" in the hope that they might someday turn out to be useful, then we ought to expect to see hundreds of thousands of chemicals just hanging around in the body, waiting to be used when a species evolves an X-Ray eye or laser tail stinger. However, we don't see this at all. There are chemicals in the human body for which we don't yet know their function, but they're rare. The body is very efficient and doesn't make things that it doesn't use.

[Elsie]

Most of the replies are insults only.

And the REST???

[MarkL]

For someone who doesn't know enough about this subject to make an informed decision, I see an awful lot of unanswered questions posed to the evolutionists. Most of the replies are insults only.

I am in the same boat. While I have no doubt that natural selection does work on the "micro" level (as far as time is concerned), I am also undecided about evolution as the source of live over the long term. I guess my problem is that I find it difficult to take natural selection and interpolate it to affirm evolution, given what I know about "classical" physics, and how it differs from quantum physics.

Mark

[freedumb2003]

For someone who doesn't know enough about this subject to make an informed decision, I see an awful lot of unanswered questions posed to the evolutionists. Most of the replies are insults only.

Point to one unanswered question. A question grounded in an understanding of science and the TOE and not one where htey say "why are there multiple species?" and other specious questions.

Oh, and that has been answered as well.