yes, those dumb creationists - many of whom are your physicians, pharmacists, professors (we'll some, but they are in hiding), physicists, biochemists - yeah, I guess when they point out the big elephant in the room, the absolute truth of conflict between the laws of thermodynamics and evolution, all the evolutionists cultists can say, is well - make up a big lie , using scientific jargon that means absolutely nothing (that's called an illusion) or call names. They sure sound like alot of democrats I know!
...and yet, they keep saying stupid things like these
- yeah, I guess when they point out the big elephant in the room, the absolute truth of conflict between the laws of thermodynamics and evolution,
There is no conflict, sorry, and no amount of confused babbling by the creationists will change that.
I really wish creationists would try to *learn* some science (*real* science, not the cartoon-version they present in the creationist pamphlets) before they attempt to critique it.
Here, read this and gain an actual education on the subject before you try again: Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism
For a short summary, here's part of a post of mine on the subject:
Once again, I see that the creationists are having trouble distinguishing between the concepts of "entropy", "order", "information", and "complexity". They are *NOT* the same, but creationists seem to like to use them interchangeably, leading to all sorts of "fall on their face" fallacies. Hint: This is the fundamental reason why the creationist "argument" attempting to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics in order to "disprove" evolution is completely flawed. The SLoT applies to *entropy*. Evolution applies to *information*. The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes *no* restrictions on whether *information* is "allowed" to increase, decrease, or whatever. So the creationists really need to give it a rest.And:
all the evolutionists cultists can say, is well - make up a big lie , using scientific jargon that means absolutely nothingIn fact, ID is far easier to believe as it doesn't violate other proven laws (conservation of entropy etc)
There's no such law as the "conservation of entropy". You just made that up. Try again.
If you meant to say "the second law of thermodynamics", I'm afraid that your creationist sources are very confused about what it actually says. It is no impediment to evolution. In fact, if the creationist misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics was actually correct, it would be against the laws of physics for snowflakes to form, babies to be born, and so on. Even AnswersInGenesis.org lists the "thermodynamics" argument on their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use page.
...to you, because you don't understand it.
or call names
...says the guy who calls people who actually know the subject, "cultists"...
How does the second law conflict with evolution without also conflicting with simple existence (and reproduction, development and growth) of living things?