The Armor Games website will be down for maintenance on Monday 10/7/2024
starting at 10:00 AM Pacific time. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Forums → WEPR → Intelligent design Vs Evolution
| 388 | 55555 |
I just now found out about this forum and didn't notice a I.D. Vs E. thread so I decided to make one.
I am a Christian and believe in intelligent design is the way the world came to be.
What does everyone else think about this subject?
- 388 Replies
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.
In the things you mentioned you won't find hardly any pro-creation stuff.
That's because people who do research again and again and re-create experiments and think logically -scientists- do not support creationism...
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3648
Take this for example.
It has many references, it's not his personal thoughts about the subject.
-scientists- do not support creationism...
Actually, All major branches of science were either:
1. Founded by a creationist
2. Co-founded by a creationist
3. Majorly Helped by a creationist
Actually, All major branches of science were either:
1. Founded by a creationist
2. Co-founded by a creationist
3. Majorly Helped by a creationist
Really? Where did you hear this?
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...
Really? Where did you hear this?
Here's one thing.
http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner#creationist
And another thing from the same source.
http://creation.com/creation-scientists
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 think we could all agree that our solar system is a closed environment right?
idk... is it? or do we lose/gain energy from other solar systems in the galaxy/universe?
that finding a bird fossil with teeth means nothing for evolution? How many birds today have teeth?
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.
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...
Things we are still trying to figure out I guess
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.
"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.
From your article:
stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time,
You must be logged in to post a reply!