But doesn't that go against the first law of thermodynamics?
After you mentioned this I went and did a little research (really not much) and I really didn't understand it when they this law of thermodynamics to evolution. Something about order to disorder and disorder to order? It didn't really make sense to me? I had no idea how it had to do with evolution. Could someone explain this a little? I really had no idea what they were going on about, how the first (or second) law of thermodynamics seemed to contradict evolution, because I didn't follow that part of it.
After you mentioned this I went and did a little research (really not much) and I really didn't understand it when they this law of thermodynamics to evolution. Something about order to disorder and disorder to order? It didn't really make sense to me? I had no idea how it had to do with evolution. Could someone explain this a little? I really had no idea what they were going on about, how the first (or second) law of thermodynamics seemed to contradict evolution, because I didn't follow that part of it.
The second law of thermodynamics (I think i accidentally said first law before) Is basically: In a closed environment everything runs down, and doesn't get better. For example, you build a building in the middle of the forest. It gets worse than before, Not better.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3648 Take this for example.
It has many references, it's not his personal thoughts about the subject.
I read through this article. It is well documented and most of it isn't his thoughts on the subject. Although he says just because some fish have teeth and some fish don't... that finding a bird fossil with teeth means nothing for evolution? How many birds today have teeth?
Also, because they found different "transitional fossils" (allegedly of course) from millions of years apart, that goes against evolution?? What he doesn't seem to realize is that evolution wouldn't have happened at the same time with every species of dinosaur/bird at the same time. Different needs/geological locations would have made them all evolve differently and at different times in history...
The second law of thermodynamics (I think i accidentally said first law before) Is basically: In a closed environment everything runs down, and doesn't get better. For example, you build a building in the middle of the forest. It gets worse than before, Not better.
Okay so I did understand what they were saying... It just seems silly. The ideas of "worse" and "better" are very human and subjective. Just because things get worse for us ( a building breaking down) doesn't mean it's worse for the environment or something. Things decay and die but that 's not really a bad thing for the earth and nature...
Okay so I did understand what they were saying... It just seems silly. The ideas of "worse" and "better" are very human and subjective. Just because things get worse for us ( a building breaking down) doesn't mean it's worse for the environment or something. Things decay and die but that 's not really a bad thing for the earth and nature...
That was an example.
I think we could all agree that our solar system is a closed environment right?
I agree with him. Finding a bird with teeth doesn't really mean anything.
Maybe there was a species of birds with teeth that went extinct.
This is true, however fossils may help to reaffirm/confirm what we already observe today. Collaborating fossils and modern observations can help reinforce the idea of evolution.
Maybe a bird with teeth went extinct, maybe it was part of evolution...
The second law of thermodynamics (I think i accidentally said first law before) Is basically: In a closed environment everything runs down, and doesn't get better. For example, you build a building in the middle of the forest. It gets worse than before, Not better.
"In a general sense, the second law is that temperature differences between systems in contact with each other tend to equalize" The link
Those laws have to do with heat and energy, your example of an abandoned house deteriorating has nothing to do with thermodynamics.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3648 Take this for example.
It has many references, it's not his personal thoughts about the subject.
I read this and while it does have many references, he is using his thoughts on the subject as well. He is also using outdated ideas, and making assumptions with less evidence than the ones he is arguing against.
Maybe there was a species of birds with teeth that went extinct.
That is entirely possible, but modern evidence suggests otherwise.
