Do the laws of thermodynamics prove that evolution is horse bull?
Scrotumclature and theists
Side Score: 4
|
Facts, Math and Science
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
Nomenclature: As far fetched as you might think it sounds, , the existence of the genetic code makes it a definite possibility. There is something in physics (thermodynamics) called the law of conservation of energy, and what it fundamentally means is that the universe rarely wastes effort unnecessarily. Put simply, the universe has no cause or reason to write instructions to itself. It does not require instructions for gravity, electromagnetism or anything else except biological life... xMathFanx: I've taken courses on Thermodynamics. Evolution does not violate these Laws. We can get into that further if you like. (Are you getting this from reading ID websites/books and/or watching ID lectures/debates? Also, have you read Dawkins books? He addresses exactly this point in multiple books I believe)...I want to know exactly what you are claiming about the conflict between the Laws of Thermodynamics and the 'natural' evolution/construction of the genetic code (don't use a "hand wavy" response, I want you to reference the law and point to where/how it comes into zero-sum conflict)... Nomenclature: Forgive me, but I think it is you who needs to explain why you believe the universe would create a code, encode information, and then not let anything access the information it encoded. Wouldn't that just be a giant waste of time and energy?.. --------------------------------------- Here are links to sources from two separate standard Biology Textbooks concerning the Laws of Thermodynamics as it pertains to Biological Systems for which we have a sample of (i.e. Life on Earth): I. (i) http://s347.photobucket.com/user/ (ii) http://s347.photobucket.com/user/ II. (i) http://s347.photobucket.com/user/ (ii) http://s347.photobucket.com/user/ (iii) http://s347.photobucket.com/user/ --------------------------------------- That is now three of Nomenclature's Conspiracy Theories that have been shut down.. (and counting).. Side: Facts, Math and Science
0
points
xMathFanx: I've taken courses on Thermodynamics. Evolution does not violate these Laws. You have taken no courses in thermodynamics and are so fundamentally stupid that you do not understand evolution is a theory about how biological life became more complex over time, not a theory about the origin of life. What you are is an obnoxiously stupid liar armed with an online thesaurus. The internet is crammed to bursting point with people like you. You have an inferiority complex and want to prove to the world that you're not stupid like you've been told you are all of your life. Side: Scrotumclature and theists
0
points
Here are links to sources from two separate standard Biology Textbooks concerning the Laws of Thermodynamics Thermodynamics is a theory of physics you gigantic moron. Your claim that thermodynamics is standard to any biology textbook is in itself hilarious and stupid. EDIT: And surprise, surprise, your links are bunk. Lol. Side: Scrotumclature and theists
Ummm...no. I'm not a scientist, and I haven't kept up with everything, but I have a pretty good handle on evolution, and the basics of the laws of thermodynamics. As both are pretty much proven (there is the fact of evolution, and there is the theory of evolution - facts being what we know, of course), and from what I know, neither needs revision. Side: Facts, Math and Science
@EldonG Ummm...no. I'm not a scientist, and I haven't kept up with everything, but I have a pretty good handle on evolution, and the basics of the laws of thermodynamics. As both are pretty much proven (there is the fact of evolution, and there is the theory of evolution - facts being what we know, of course), and from what I know, neither needs revision. There is no amount of evidence in the world that would ever convince an "Intelligent Design" advocate or Creationist, ect Side: Scrotumclature and theists
0
points
There is no amount of evidence in the world that would ever convince an "Intelligent Design" advocate or Creationist, ect The irony of this statement is just simply spectacular. You sir, are absolutely unprepared to even consider the possibility that life might be a product of more than cosmic chance, even when it is patently hinted at by the evidence itself. Not only is there the enigma of where exactly the genetic code came from, but you also need to explain the repeated failure of half a century's worth of abiogenesis experiments in animating basic organic life. You have an extraordinary confirmation bias in the matter and apparently believe in the commonality of a process which cannot be replicated even under strict laboratory conditions. Side: Scrotumclature and theists
|