I will say it again; we both know that all of science is based on assumptions
You can never prove a scientific theory you can only disprove it.
Repeating the same fallacy over and over again does not make it true.
As far as the thermodynamics misconception please see my post # 50 in this thread
· “You really need to brush up on your talking points
Even one of GGG’s favorite web sites “Creation Minstries International” is advising against using the Thermodynamics argument.
This is listed under “Arguments we think creationist should not use”
‘The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.’ This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
You seem to overlook the fact that the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not.
[[This is listed under “Arguments we think creationist should not use”]]
There’s NO reason to avoid it- The second law PREVENTS evolution- if you care to find out how, lemme know- neither friction nor digestion nor any of those examples eve3n come close to representign hte problems evolution faces concernign hte law as you’;ll find out if you wish to continue this- I warned you that it makes the position that evolution could have escaped the law of entropy look silly, but if you wish to continue- lemme know
[[You seem to overlook the fact that the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not.]]
LOL NO I didn’t overlook this, and as I mentioend in previous post, an open sysytem is even WORSE for evolution, and there is absolutely NO need for creationsits to avoid these arguments because the second law is devestating to Macroevolution when you KNOW what you’re talkign about- As I said Timothy Wallace sent that scientist whining and crying back to his own blog because he was made to look so foolish and obviously had NO answers to the questions which proved entropy was devestating to dynamic living systems DESPITE the silly examples of ‘positive’ ‘disorder’, which again- have absolutely nothign to do with the issue of Macroevolution.
Again- you’re hitchign your wagon to a distant star when the REAL WORLD evidence shows overwhelmingly that Evolution can NOT escape nor ‘turn entropy into a positive situation’ trillions of times- the odds are overhwelming AGAINST Macroevolution- bottom line= impossible
==Even one of GGG’s favorite web sites “Creation Minstries International” is advising against using the Thermodynamics argument.
The argument CMI is advising creationists to avoid is the idea that the Second Law began at the Fall. If I understand CottShop correctly, he’s not making that argument. Rather, he’s pointing out that the Second Law makes Darwinian evolution impossible.