Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Is there a third law?

Untrue. Creationists misunderstand the Second Law if they believe that it's incompatible with evolution. Your understanding of it fails to take into account an exterior source of energy, i.e., the sun, which is a manifestation of the residual energy left from the Big Bang. While, as a whole, energy is decaying in the universe, the earth has been receiving a steady input of energy from the start, i.e., the earth is not an isolated system.

antelope_sniper



You and I looked at the evidence and came to opposite conclusions. It's not about evidence. It about world view. One's world view is not tested by science or life's experiences. It is what we use to interpret evidence and experiences.

Aren't you the guy who said an ape was walking along and God put a soul in him? Then you didn't know if God put an ovum in an ape to get the first woman or exaclty what. Sure. You make a lot of sence.

Now let's look at your energy.

There is no denying energy comes from the sun. Where did the sun get its energy? Nuclear fusion. Never mind that's a different question. Back to the energy coming from the sun. Who was running the energy coming from the sun? No one, it's just a nuclear reaction.

In order for the energy to accomplish something useful there must be a plan.not true In order to generate a plan there must be a mind. To use the energy there must be an energy conversion mechinism to harness the energy otherwise the energy will destroy what it produces.yes, a small amount of matter is destroyed when the fun fuses hydrogen into helium Consider a cake with all the correct ingredience and baking at the right temperature with one caveat. We leave it in the oven too long. We converted the sun's energy to the correct heat but didn't control the length of time it was subject to the controlled energy. Next we need some way to mix the correct chemicals in the correct amounts. That would never happen by chance. This is just an argument from personal incredibility, and a rephrase of an argument I've already debunked.

The Second Law predicts the chance of the correct mixture coming together is never going to happen. No, it does no such thing. The Second Law predicts if the correct mixture came together the energy source would destroy the mixture. Again, it does no such thing.

Your opinions are a result of the Second Law in action.

My world view is based on evidence. Your is based on faith.

Evidence is why a few Ph.D evolutionist scientists become creationist every year. Their world view gets hammered only so long before the have to reject their brainwashing from kindergarten through graduate school and look at the evidence objectively.

Aren't you the guy who said an ape was walking along and God put a soul in him? Then you didn't know if God put an ovum in an ape to get the first woman or exaclty what. Sure. You make a lot of sence.

As for complexity in nature,
Complexity arises from simplicity all the time. The Mandelbrot set is an example (Dewey 1996). Real-life examples include the following: A pan of water with heat applied uniformly to its bottom will develop convection currents that are more complex than the still water; complex hurricanes arise from similar principles; complex planetary ring systems arise from simple laws of gravitation; complex ant nests arise from simple behaviors; and complex organisms arise from simpler seeds and embryos.

In light of that, it's strange that the boundary you talk about -- between life and non-life -- is actually pretty clear. We know life when we see life. Steve.

Are viruses alive? When does life actually start and end? What parameters define what life is?

If you can distinguish between life and nonlife with no exceptions based on a rigid set of characteristics, then you need to write down how to do it and send it to doctors, lawyers, and scientists before you forget it since none of them have been able to do so.

It is, indeed, easy to tell between certain living and dead objects. A piece of cast iron is not alive while a playing puppy is. The problem comes when you search for the boundary between life and nonlife.

Being able to define that boundary is quite relevant to the discussion in this thread since it deals with that boundary.

The fact that it's difficult to distinguish at a certain boundary line, as I guess you know, lends credence to the idea that life gradually came into existence from non-life.

Evidence is the reason 50% of believing Christians become non-believers while obtaining a four year college degree.

I never asserted any such thing. Asked to speculate, I offered some possibilities permissible within the boundaries of both Scripture and scientific discovery, but you grossly mischaracterize one of the possibilities I offered in the above false statement. Quite a low tactic. You must not be very confident in your position if you feel the need to resort to that sort of thing.

The lack of Christian apologetics in the church is why they leave. When they see the evidence they return to their roots.

If you never posted anything like what I ask and are denying it now, I am sorry I mistook you for another poster.

I know what you're referring to, because I can recognize that tactic of argument, but it's a mischaracterization and you know it.

The college students don't know what's going on and get nailed by brainwashed professors ...

why Ph.D evolutionary scientists are becoming creationists