what you have been told is wrong. if you take your head out of apologetic texts and have a desire to study real science the answers are there. its that willfull ignorance thing getting in the way again. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNG6gYGYLBs&NR=1
Wow. This is truly a semantic mess. It does have some entertainment value, I suppose Another train wreck as the evolutionists attempt to frame their faith-based beliefs in quasi-scientific terms, in order stem the tide of secular, fact-based thinking. Thank goodness that Obama had the common sense to reverse the disastrous, radical Christian-informed ban on vital stem cell research imposed by the previous administration. Obviously, the highlighted word 'evolutionists' should be 'creationists'. Can you change that for me? It's pretty important for the meaning of the para, as you can see. Thanks
'morning Lord Vader. May you invite another ? I respectfully suggest you don't Darth dude, you seem to be having enough difficulty with this one as it is. This is not to do with "macro-evolutionists believe" ..... it's ....macroevolution is scientifically evidentiary. So is gravity. That's a big problem for creationists. Fundamental criteria are present in ALL life form (4 criteria). All life form thereby is capable of descent from one ancestor. That's another big problem for creationists. There are overwhelming problems for creationists. They are unable to surmount any of it with any kind of substantial evidence.Like for instance, some substantial scientific evidence which demonstrates all this stuff so comprehensively. Trying to defend the indefensible with a "science may know this, but it doesn't know that, so something else altogether ridiculous is therefore true" routine argument is creationism. It's a silly and ignorant one and bleongs to the dark ages, not the 21st century.
The "chemical soup" part is still being worked on, but its just a matter of time, so biological is fine.
I'm sure you've heard of Copernican Theory (earth goes around the sun, not the other way around). By now it's pretty well documented and supported by accumulated scientific evidence. The same goes for the theory of evolution. In fact it is one of the most documented theories in all of science. Laughable, don't think so. You just need to do some homework.
Vhehn gave you some good links on this. The basic mistake you and others are making with the 2nd Law of Thermo is, evolution is not an isolated system. It has energy applied and that makes all the difference.
Why is Macroevolution so hard to stomach, when it comes from different areas of science (molecular biology, paleontology, embryology, etc.)? Also supported by vestigial features, homologous features, convergance, etc. Speciation can even be observed with your own two eyes!
Evolution is science because it is based on verifiable hypotheses. Creationism is not science because it is based on dogma, and what prophet so and so said. Evolution could be flawed but it is still scientific.
Sorry for the delay......Every Saturday we go to the grocery market. I have come to understand that if I do not provide energy [food] for a biological system [me] it will reach a state of equilibrium or maximum entropy [death] So where were we.......oh yes, open systems. The second law of thermodynamics is an empirical law, directly observable in nature and in experimentation. To my knowledge [ I will admit that I am more familiar with the philosophical perspectives of science than the actual mechanics], the vast majority of scientific experimentation is conducted upon "isolated or closed" systems. To argue for macro-evolution based upon the results of observation on isolated systems would be a severe handicap to the macro thesis, especially when entropy is the object of the experimentation. Biological systems are open systems, as you have intimated, as their boundarys' are crossed by matter, such as my food intake example [ I spared the board any example of waste output !] To argue that it is possible for macro-evolution to occur in open systems, would require that these systems show immunity to the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and furthermore, we should be able to observe the negative entropy causation in operational effect as we speak. I am not familiar that this has been observed. To follow your argument of open systems receiving a get out of jail free card from the empirical demands of the second law, which would require these systems to be systems of negative entropy change [ not just conservation], which obviously requires the energy source to be of such magnitude and quality to produce a positive entropy change in the surroundings of the biological system. In other words, the energy source for the open system must have "ordering" production capabilities. Simple energy from the sun, for example, is not sufficient to explain the "order enhancement" required for the macro-evoluntionary thesis to produce a surrounding that enables order from dis-order [especially as it relates to the first law], especially when we consider the primordal starting ground that these super microbes began their ascent. It would appear, that at the end of the day, creation advocates and macro advocates must walk upon the field of speculation and faith. For me, the Creator has provided the order for our existence, and the laws which science observes. Science has yet to observe macro-evolution or its uncanny presumed ability to escape the "order" and "laws" contained in the creation itself.