ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
you are full of crap. and using scientific words does not excuse you. Equilibrium is the final state of enthropy, but it is not something ordered. We do not even know where enthropy stops.
The 2nd law is a simple conclusion that engineers came to over a hundred years ago. The
energy source of a system will always introduce more thermodynamic disorder than the output
of the system will created thermodynamic order. If a system is producing barbie dolls and the system fuel source is burning barbie dolls, guess what?, the system will burn more barbie dolls than it creates.
The most crappy is, creationists don't really care abt science (e.g. the 2nd law). They just want to use a sound name to convince/horrify people... Well, can't quite do that in front of scientists, not even a Chemistry undergrad...
If evolution is true (macro evolution) then how were those single celled organisms that all life supposedly came from have so much genetic information? There's no proof that they had such large amounts of genetic information to make evolution possible. It's a belief that they had enough genetic information to make evolution possible. Belief means it's a religion and a false one at that.
I am not sure what side this guy is taking, he's too boring. But for anybody who says evolution breaks the 2nd law of thermnodynamics, well, it doesn't. That law says entropy increases over time in a closed system at standard conditions. Earth is not a closed system and can therefore become more complex.
@Entropy56 What are you talking about?. 1 million monkeys + 1 million typewriters = evolution?. Also how is anything possible with that argument?. Shakespearean play = the most complicated think in the universe and beyond therefor if 1 million monkeys can type it, given enough time THEN ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE?!?!. THE MONKEYS CAN EVEN BUILD A NEW UNIVERSE WITH WOODEN TOOLS CAUSE ALL IS POSSIBLE!. Wow thanks for making things so clear to me.. i have found the light. Please make connections.
@OmfgItsHenu So how many bad mutations do you think will occur before one good mutation would? Hint: A lot! And those bad mutations also accumulate because Natural Selection can't "see" most of them. By the time Natural Selection gets around to selecting out the bad genes, it will also have to throw out the good stuff. Random mutation IS random and IS the very essence of the problem. Natural Selection works best within a species rearranging information it already has.
@OmfgItsHenu "If all the scientific papers refuting Darwinian Evolution could be laid end to end, it would stretch from New York to the moon and back three times."
@Entropy56 (no idea where that quote is from, and frankly dont even care. but you should put the source of a quote if you plan on using that as an argument)
there is not a single fact that would contradict the theory of evolution. they are all just propaganda.
if there were actually a contradiction (which would surely get a nobel), it would be dropped as a theory, and be replaced as another one, that doesnt.
(since a scientific theory must explain all relevant facts and be contradicted by none)
@OmfgItsHenu That quote is actually right ya know. But don't just think because you have never seen something, it means it does not exist. Try this video for example. There is a lot of information the government keeps away from the public.
@realoverfake "But don't just think because you have never seen something,it means it does not exist"
if you cant test it, sense it, logically prove it, mathematically prove it,it means it probably doesnt exist(example: a atom sized teapot is orbiting the earth;cant be proven, but existence is possible. although very,very unlikely)
-but there are logical evidence that make omnipotence impossible
giants. you send me a video link about giants.
and the government is trying to hide giants from us?
@OmfgItsHenu there is logical and philosophical evidence that makes our existence impossible without an all-knowing, timeless, spaceless, and omnipotence entity.(God)
and yeah just listen to what the guy has to say. he's researched this for 30 years. visit his website too.
@OmfgItsHenu Look if you don't want to watch the video, i'm not going to force you. By philosophy, I mean nothing comes from nothing. Watch this for further detail.
@realoverfake "By philosophy, I mean nothing comes from nothing."
thats not philosophy... thats thermodynamics. physics.
and i could give u a few scenerios how it could have happened, but that would use up all of the letters available (so i can pm to u if u want or sumtin :P )
-and yeah ill watch these vids now (am i supposed to watch all 5, because i rly dont have that much time)
@realoverfake but modern day philosophy has nothing to do with physics, mathematics or anything. philosophy isnt counted as science. also have written essays, but only 2 :(
"I'm just trying to get you to convert"
oh, well that makes sense.
so you are those people who are on a one-man-crusade on the internet to feel superior.
youre here to promote your religion in attempt to get the feeling of "doing good".
-my apologies, thought you were here to seek information and to upgrade your views
@OmfgItsHenu trust me this does not make me "feel good" lol. I have already done the research and upgraded my views. Dude just watch this video.. time is running out.
@Entropy56 Ummm, if you took out all the "scientific papers" that had logical fallacies or had inacurracies, there would be no papers that disprove Darwinian evolution.
I believe in the process of evolution, however I don't believe that a primordial soup can just come to life when struck by lightning. We can see that things adapt, but we cannot see what truly started life. If man can't create life with lightning, why would nature be able to?
I'm not a Christian either; I just don't hold on to ideas just because everyone says they're true. Science constantly is changing; hundreds of years ago we believed in spontaneous generation!
The idea that life violates the second law and therefore is intelligently designed is moronic. All systems work by increasing entropy, that's what happens when work is done. No intelligently designed system gets around the 2nd law. The system is intentionally designed to increase entropy. That's what the battery is for. It is an entropy generator. You need an entropy generator for any system to work. Yes, that's right, all power sources are entropy generators.
@TerrencePhillip66 Just to elaborate a little more on all power sources being entropy generators. First, I should
have used the term energy sources, not power sources. All energy sources become much more thermodynamically disordered as they are used. An energy source are more orderly as wood, oil or coal than
as the hot exhaust gases they become when used. Is there as much usable energy in the exhaust gases as there was in the original fuel? Of course not. And therefore entropy has increased.
The reason why he is using non living things is because they exist in THE SAME UNIVERSE AS US (shocking I know) so all those objects follow the laws of the universe. And can be paralleled to how another object in the universe will change.
He quotes examples that are non biological life forms and then tries to relate to living things. This is ridiculous. Creationists are always docked for using immaterial things and equating it to biological life forms for instance the watchmakers argument. This is like comparing apples to plastic oranges. In the same way, ice crystals are not living forms so just "adding energy" will not do anything. The organism needs a mechanism to change the energy into something useful
"quotes examples that are non biological [...] then tries to relate to living things"
No no no. It's not Y I quoted those examples. It's the creationists' argument that, plainly as it reads, disorder ever always increases cause of the 2nd law. Quoting the stupidest of examples, ice, I evidenced the blatant absurdity of the claim.
"The organism needs a mechanism to change the energy into something useful"
So what. Is heat entirely converted in "something useful"? No, END OF STORY
@schrodcat Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@jbenjamin06 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@jbenjamin06 First of all we Religiouse peoples do not need to prove any things about your fuck idiologiy of evolutions because we knows that is totally bullshit but still we gives enough explanations to your stupidity...hahahhahahah 4.3 billion years thesis still uncompleted.....hahahaha
@jbenjamin06 you do not understand... if living matter originated from non-living matter then you have a time when non-living matter become more complex. This violates the second law and talking about life does not change. Evolution is also disproved by the second law of termodynamics as we now lnow that the very same sun rays that allows life to exists also has an tendency that over time (depending on the quantity of radiation) to actually break down DNA coed. DNA follows enthropy
See, maybe it's not about YOU or others being dumb or ignorant, it's more about needing urgent psychological feedback, to have someone explain how come that so many people visit YouTube TO NOT WATCH Videos.
Then, maybe not. You are in fact dumb, and incapable of understanding what I said.
Even some creationists had enough intelligence and patience to understand and protest that my video was a debunking of their claim. So even some creationist must be smarter than you.
Alright, then, it is not as grave as I thought. You only need to learn how to send a message to the person you want to speak to. There are courses, I'm told.
Ah, I was almost forgetting to say that. It is not the case that I approve of it so much - on my comment space here - that you should call anybody a "moron", and "dishonest", and "ignorant", and "plain dumb" (unless, maybe, if it is a reaction to an equal action ...).
"Evolution is based on mutations and natural selection. How does thermodynamics apply to that again ?"
Well, actually that's basically the question I posed to all who say so, right at the end of my video. Show me how evolution leads to increase of free energy at some macroscopic scales, or be silent forever! :)
Einstein was a clear-cut atheist. Read what he actually wrote, and not the stuff taken out of context on Christian science websites.
Secondly, don't believe in something because someone else (who appears to be intelligent) believe in it. That just means that you don't have the capability to think for yourself.
@Peter1992t That's funny you should say that. SO you understand EVERY concept of EVERY one of the three most controversial naturalistic theories? You understand fully what evolution theory states, or abiogenesis, or the big bang? No? Then surely you dont believe that they are true. I mean how could you believe something just because someone else who appears more intelligent says its true. That would be hypocrisy. If you dont understand every concept and still believe youre no different! -Typical
If you think carefully, THAT'S exactly the point of the absurdity of the creationists' claim, when they say that evolution cannot happen because the 2nd Law orders some increase of disorder, while life is ordered. ALL that their thermodynamic argument reduces to is just this; Nothing can get more ordered, ever. As stupid as it reads, it indeed is.
You're right of course, crystal is inert, non living. But it forms. By the bold creationists' argument prima facie, it couldn't.
Very well explained....I hope a common man can get some sense of 2nd law from this. Just for information - free energy is known as exergy...and the exergy of the universe is going on decreasing
a - ) The people who made computers , internet , eletrical power, cars , houses , your birth , money , society , games , clothes , glasses , machines , motors , etc possible.
b - ) in a book of an unknown writer , talking about magic .
people , i dont care about your faith but , the smartest people in the world have proven that evolution exists , you're not that smart , sry...
There was a smart man > He said God might exist > So God exists > And it's a God who matches exactly with my belief of what God should be > And I don't like biology > So neither does God > So Evolution is all a big conspiracy
@CASchram God is very possible. Matter of fact, its probably more likely than not that some sort of Creator exists when you really break down the science. But most naturalists these days dont rely on real science, instead they stick heavily to conjecture filled hopes and dreams. Kinda sad really. Peace
@WatchOutBR Oh so you have to believe in evolution to create computers, cars, houses, etc....? A lot of those things (discluding the electronic items) were created long before evolution was even thought of.
It's not as if I don't believe in evolution, but I don't believe that to not believe in it means that one is automatically unintelligent.
@WatchOutBR Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@WatchOutBR They haven't proven that evolution exists. Where did all the genetic information that makes up all life come from? Did they come from those single celled organisms? How is that possible? Energy cannot b created or destroyed by any means that we know of so where did all this genetic information (energy) come from?
Yes you're right, I could have said that, there's nothing more than that to it. But that would have explained little. I'm not interested in a war of statements, I'm just interested in letting people know as much as they can, and think. Anyway, I doubt if I followed your advice I would have had in excess of 20,000 hits.
@schrodcat One could argue that the universe is a closed system, as it is expanding according to modern theory anyway.. Have you heard of Sean Pitman, he argues that it is only the information that cannot become orderly over time even in an open system. His website is the emperorhas no cloths.. just do a google on him and that term you will find it most intriguing. =)
ahhhh! I see where I was going now... see the creationist argument, is about information in the cell in the form of our genetic code. It works overall like a language that is later translated to form us... and everything alive that we know of; Now the entropy of information also increases, in other words, information decay with time and becomes slowly meaningless, so the DNA is sort of a fish going upstream, so it makes me wonder how the DNA information came to beat the odds and the law.
Well, at 4:30 you have mistaken the pictures, the picture in the right has far less possibilities for each ball than the one in the left, so basically you contradicted your argument.
Second, the creationists do forget to mention that they are using the generalized second law, truly their mistakes no doubt, but still this local drop in the entropy is met with a increase in the surroundings, soooo the law is not really broken man, and life goes on
You're possibly right about my two figures there, but that's because I just had them by hand informally to "tell" the point. Which still stands: if you have hard spheres in a box, then beyond a certain crowding of them (past a critical density) you have more ways to arrange them in order, rather than in disorder, regardless of whether or not I put the a "correct" number of disks in my figures here. As per your second point, I didn't understand it. Did I say anything different?
@schrodcat if you were too put too many spheres inside the box, their entropy would eventually be the same, the point is not how many ways I can order it, but how many possibilities I have to move them. So basically you are incorrect even in your statement in the video. asss the ot
"he point is not how many ways I can order it, but how many possibilities I have to move them"
There's no difference, it doesn't matter, If you have more ways, then you can move them in more ways. It's not a matter of opinion: with hard spheres, at high density, ordered configurations have higher entropy than disordered configurations, and that's all we need. This MEANS that you can move around much more, going from order to order, than the other way round.
@schrodcat Ordered spheres have less movements.... of course it coes make a difference XD.... the higher the density the lower the entropy right ???? but if there is a system with more molecules spread out than the other, then that ONE has MORE entropy got it ?
Here... maybe the movement analogy isn't all that convincing... shame that YT wont let me post links ... well I will PM you just for the sake of the talk
So check out the standard explanation, I guess it will be easier to grasp
I will PM to you in response, I hope, even if by now I'd be 3 months late. BTW, I know the standard explanations, I'm a contributor of standard explanations in these matters, in the real world. Even some professionals admitted to have been wrong about preconceptions on hard spheres, I know what I'm talking about.
In some old comment here, you'll find a Professor who had been teaching thermodynamics all his life, having had to rethink the "disorder" issue with entropy after watching.
Well I do not doubt that you have at least the overall grasp of the subject... or perhaps even more than I do ... XD. But still ... well I think that you have got a bit wrong the spheres thing. Well I will just let you PM me, don't want to drag this whole talk through the 500 comment XD limit.
hahahah ... well really ??? so they actually say that 5 spheres in the left and 2 in the left have more entropy ???
Because that is what your image was showing. After you putted more spheres in it you increased the concentration on some sides and had smaller concentration on other areas... wellll .... as far as I am aware that has less entropy than a fully disordered scenario.
No problem man ... hope your PM has all the literature you talk about.
Frankly, right now I don't get what you're up to. I think I had said the image isn't trustful, it was naive. But it doesn't follow that the statement "in words" is wrong. If you look carefully at the figure, you'll discover those are not spheres, but disks. So, if you want to bring down my argument saying "hey, look at the image", well, just say "they're disks, therefore you're wrong". In fact, I must confess, I'm not even sure the argument applies to disks as it applies to spheres.
Well then I guess I am just being stupid... but bring down your argument ... well not really, I don't really think that the 2 Law necessarily pose a threat to Evolution... it does cause some problems for beginning of life, but that is a whole new matter.
Yet again someone who does NOT understand Thermodynamics I drop some pearls for the pigs:
flow equilibrium
metastable attractors
bifurcation event
Ilya Prigogine
No offense, dear author of this video, but Thermodynamics is THE major, if not only law that DICTATES evolution HAS to happen, simply based on the FACT, that no process can ever produce more entropy than life can. Continiously.
The point of the extent of the leading role of entropy's tendency to increase in matters concerning life is interesting, beyond the level and scope of this video, but also largely speculative. If the 2nd law was THE only law of life, then there would be far less inhabitable places around. Let me give you two examples. Energetically, Venus and Mercury are better than us, and close to us. Certainly live matter has traveled there. Yet, the 2nd law is not doing well there to life. WHY?
Actually, evolution and entropy are perfectly compatible. One cannot exist without the other as is evidenced by all opposites in time and space. Using your logic hot and cold are contradictory and therefore can not exist at the same time, which we know for a fact is not true. Love and hate are also within each human being and exist simultaneously even if one emotion dominates the other for the time being. Your argument has been dismantled using taoism of all things.
Very good video. I was going to argue with your definition of the 2nd law, in saying that because entropy cannot decrease, it must increase. Later you qualified to explain that it can, in fact, stay the same. Or, not only will heat not flow spontaneously from a colder body to a hotter one, it will also not flow spontaneously from one body to another when they are the same temperature.
But life is a chemical process that takes advantage of entropy created by the sun (heat and light) and applies it to reducing entropy. Decreasing entropy leads to new properties which leads to new order and so on, as long as there is applied energy.
We are islands of order swimming in a sea of entropy. Decreasing entropy within our bodies, and increasing it in our environment.
energy --> application --> order --> emergent properties --> Rinse/repeat.
The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, the earth isn't a closed system! The sun provides the energy necessary for evolution.
-460 F can't be achieved on earth, therefore all temperature above this temperature has to be considered potential energy just waiting for a colder (less temperature) matter. This random movement is called "Procyclic Heat Transformation" a theory created by pcht.weebly dot com. E = PE = E or PE = E = PE until fully conserved, of which can't no matter can achieve -460F when surrounded by heated matter....
Life can exist once you can reach 98.6 degree and sustain that temperature through P
The Sun? You mean the energy from the sun that breaks down living tissue? that sun? The energy from the sun does not decrease entropy.Their is no evidence whatsoever, that non living matter can come alive when exposed to energy from the sun. Also, crystals have less energy in them than the liquid from which they are formed. Crystals are in no way and example of decreased entropy.
@mejc2: You know that "breaks down tissue" stuff is a load of bollocks. You simply have to be kidding about this. Study a plant growing from a seed. If you take away the sun, it will shrivel and die. And not just some plants, *all* plants. Why is that? Perhaps because it needs the sunlight, and can make use of it? I was fully aware that creationism attacks biology, but I had no idea that it would attack chemistry as well.
this makes it very clear what you mean when you say "there is no evidence whatsoever", whether about this simple piece of photosynthetic biochemistry or about evolution. It makes your declaration worthless, that you'll apply it in a case where a fifth grader could design an absolutely foolproof experiment. Your arguments aren't worth the effort to read.
1 No other gods before YHWH. 2 Make no idols. 3 Don't take YHWH's name in vain. 4 Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. 5 Honor your father & your mother. 6 Don't murder. 7 Don't commit adultery. 8 Don't steal. 9 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 10 Don't covet your neighbor's house; don't covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.
google '2nd law of thermodynamics'... there is a brilliantly written paper showing that evolution does not break the law, but is required for life to evolve!
Entropy in the Universe cannot decrease, but entropy in a system can decrease at the cost of increasing the entropy in the surroundings (the universe) such that the entropy of the universe + the entropy of the system is greater than or equal to 0. Therefore no thermodynamic laws are disobeyed if life occurs
Thermodynamics disproves DNA! Because complex molecules couldn't exist without a source of energy! God its a sunny today i can hardly see with this glare on my monitor. DERP.
Thank you for this video! If nothing else it goes to show that stupid people are on both sides of the evolution "debate". How many people mistakingly thought this was a creationist video because they won't bother to actually watch it? I'm laughing at the comments here. And your English is fine. Anybody who's been to a public university has probably had at least three TA's with worse accents.
i guarantee if u ask any creationist the equation for this law, they will not know. you can't be bios and except fatcs when u think it help u and not when it doesnt...and btw this law does not disprove evolution in so many ways.
I can only break the second law of themrodynamics if Earth was a closed system, which its not. The earth is bombarded with new energy from the sun which doesnt enthropy to occure.
@peronkop Actually, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only concerned with getting work done via the flow of energy and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution at all.
The confusion comes about when Creationists willfully misread the word "order" in the law and think it means organization when it simply means a level of energy.
People trying to disprove a part of science they don't like with part of science they don't understand would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Nice video, thanks for that. Some of these comments (below) are truly idiotic and embarrassing to their authors, as you know, but in my view your video was very well done, well organized and clear. Thanks!
@fkbryce actually, i think their having some problems with general relativity and quantum physics atm (yay M-theory) but id have to look into it more to see if their were any actual contradictions.
@missjestrum "someone has already brought up the theory that thermodynamics disproves evolution to biologists. "
Absolutely - biologists have. Thermodynamics is basic physics, basic science, and biologists, who are scientists, understand science. Sorry if I sound pedagogic but no one seems to realize that.
The argument of trying to disprove one piece of science creatards don't like with another piece of science they either don't understand or willfully misrepresent is ridiculous.
Thank you for this video. It's silly the number of people who have no idea what a science education involves. Thermodynamics is basic science. All scientists understand basic science. Biologists are scientists.
Hence, they understand thermodynamics, and any hypothesis which breaks a fundamental rule of the universe would never even be submitted, let alone universally accepted within the greater science community.
@missjestrum hey dumb ass. not all theories are correct in scientific fields. they are proven by example and in action. Or do you no know how scientific theory works? So far evolution as a theory has been proven by example but has never been observed in action. Dont you get it. sheep.
@TheReelNeel Given the gradual nature of evolution, one would expect very few significant mutation events to be observed. However, several have been observed, and if you really knew anything about evolution, you would be aware of that.
I'm not sure what your stance is, but it's funny to see laypeople who have such a tiny understanding of science trying to attack a fundamentally accepted principal of science is like trying to tear a building down by hitting it with your fists.
I thought that was a cool vid! I've always wanted to get entropy in perspective, I did know that it was a measure of the relationship of ordered states of a system to disordered states, but didn't realise what part enthalpy played.
can i ask u one last thing?... ok do know what the common cold and the flu is?.... Do u know that ones a person gets the FLU he then creates anti bodies and builds up imunity to that strand of the flu virus.... ok.. hope ur with me to this point.... Do u know why u still get the flu???? well its cuz the flu evolves and changes every time it goes from person to person. Well would u call that EVOLUTION? if yes then how can u not belive in something like this taking place over MILLIONS of years.
@wootmajor Also if life is billions of yeears old- you'd think by now IF a flu is evolving into something else as you seem to say, then it would be more advanced by now. But a flu is a virus- viruses exist today and have always existed, IF they are an example of evolution in your eyes so be it but it doesn't show a species of life form transforming into another. Have you seen this happen?
@jiminiflix "But a flu is a virus- viruses exist today and have always existed, IF they are an example of evolution in your eyes so be it but it doesn't show a species of life form transforming into another"
Flix, you don't understand the Theory of Evolution. This statement is a good example.
If an organism is successful, it doesn't "need" to evolve. That's like asking if people evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys.
Please understand the ToE before you tear it down.
@fkbryce LOL "If an organism is successful, it doesn't "need" to evolve" You know why evolution is a crock is because you are right !Though its unscientific to presume its possible anyway, evolution is dead because its never been needed !! God created life to make life, to reproduce after its kind. The evidence is all around you, just like a cell NEEDS a cell to reproduce- EVOLUTION IS DEAD
@jiminiflix not the best argument. first part, what the hell? if a creature doesnt need to evolve, it wont... yeah... allot of creatures need to evolve, if they didnt, theyd become extinct in their changing environment. and i dont get how you guys, people who specifically avoid science, can say anything else is unscientific. never been needed? isnt even the main issue the issue is why we have now observed it, it not a question of if, its a question of how and why?
@jiminiflix Is this supposed to be any sort of argument, or just a rant? You can wave your arms and scream "EVOLUTION IS DEAD", but if you do that near an institute of higher learning, you'll get some funny laughs and head shakes.
However, given the way you willfully misrepresent science in a pathetic attempt to support your own preconceived dogma demonstrates you've never been near such an institution.
"a cell NEEDS a cell to reproduce" ROFLMAO, thank you for making my point.
@fkbryc " HIgher Learning"...higher learning says a whale larger than a bus evolved from a land dwelling mammal, that a girafe neck evolved over time by stretching up to reach food, that fossils that show no change in species ,prove evolution, that making up imagined pictures of mans evolution from a skull is trustworthy science. I wouldn't rust so much in "higher learning institutions". The great lie keeps a lot of "specialists" employed.
@fkbryce and by the way you laugh at creationists but NOTHING is scientific about evolution- your belief hasn't evidence or scienfic facts, Its a belief system- thats all. I still have never seen or read from any evolutionist books or websites anything that stacks up as proof of evolution explaining life as we know it.
@fkbryce and if a cell NEEDS a cell to reproduce- do you think a cell can survive or live made up of less information than a cell has ? It cannot .. WHat a crock, what a fairy tale- . YOu may not believe in a creator, but belief in evolution isn't scientifically logical, because its impossible.
@jiminiflix you seem to be implying the evolution tends to complexity and "advancement" rather then just what best suited for the environment its in. flu may be simple, but id like you to find a cure to it.
@wootmajor Well the swine flu is a man made virus combination of normal flu and swine flu. Its hardly evolution with man interfearing. In nature this has always happened- ask a bigger question - how did humans evolve to be able to create anti-bodies? They would have died out before they could evolved to combat it. God made man with a complex immune system.
@wootmajor When something mutates it loses information,it doesn't gain anything.The flu bug that becomes immune to an antibiotic already has the information in it's DNA to do this,it just has to lose something for this to happen.Example: If you were to handcuff a criminal and he wants to get away but he has no key,he could cut off his hand and escape,he had to lose something.Humans have lost much information since our creation.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 3 days ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 3 days ago
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 3 days ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 3 days ago
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 days ago
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 days ago
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 days ago
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 3 days ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 3 days ago
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 3 days ago
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 3 days ago
you are full of crap. and using scientific words does not excuse you. Equilibrium is the final state of enthropy, but it is not something ordered. We do not even know where enthropy stops.
nightcrawlercyp 2 weeks ago
The 2nd law is a simple conclusion that engineers came to over a hundred years ago. The
energy source of a system will always introduce more thermodynamic disorder than the output
of the system will created thermodynamic order. If a system is producing barbie dolls and the system fuel source is burning barbie dolls, guess what?, the system will burn more barbie dolls than it creates.
That's right, it's that simple.
TerrencePhillip66 3 weeks ago
The most crappy is, creationists don't really care abt science (e.g. the 2nd law). They just want to use a sound name to convince/horrify people... Well, can't quite do that in front of scientists, not even a Chemistry undergrad...
AkasakaS2000 1 month ago
If evolution is true (macro evolution) then how were those single celled organisms that all life supposedly came from have so much genetic information? There's no proof that they had such large amounts of genetic information to make evolution possible. It's a belief that they had enough genetic information to make evolution possible. Belief means it's a religion and a false one at that.
uppercutter21 1 month ago
Entropy of the system CAN decrease. Entropy of the (System + Surroundings) always increases.
be a gangsta and stop denying evolution with these lame ass reasonings. even your god would not have a problem with the evolution.
Religion is created by man to manipulate man...period!
GM3644 2 months ago
I am not sure what side this guy is taking, he's too boring. But for anybody who says evolution breaks the 2nd law of thermnodynamics, well, it doesn't. That law says entropy increases over time in a closed system at standard conditions. Earth is not a closed system and can therefore become more complex.
travmanbw43 3 months ago
49 thumbs down vote bots >.<
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
"Given enough time, a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters would eventually produce a Shakespearean play." - Julian Huxley.
Anything is possible, therefore Evolution is not falsifiable.
Entropy56 4 months ago
@Entropy56 What are you talking about?. 1 million monkeys + 1 million typewriters = evolution?. Also how is anything possible with that argument?. Shakespearean play = the most complicated think in the universe and beyond therefor if 1 million monkeys can type it, given enough time THEN ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE?!?!. THE MONKEYS CAN EVEN BUILD A NEW UNIVERSE WITH WOODEN TOOLS CAUSE ALL IS POSSIBLE!. Wow thanks for making things so clear to me.. i have found the light. Please make connections.
skarpzor 4 months ago
@Entropy56 that analogy would work, if the concept of evolution would be purely based on the gene mutations.
but there is natural selection, and that is not random.
OmfgItsHenu 4 months ago
@OmfgItsHenu So how many bad mutations do you think will occur before one good mutation would? Hint: A lot! And those bad mutations also accumulate because Natural Selection can't "see" most of them. By the time Natural Selection gets around to selecting out the bad genes, it will also have to throw out the good stuff. Random mutation IS random and IS the very essence of the problem. Natural Selection works best within a species rearranging information it already has.
Entropy56 4 months ago
@Entropy56 "So how many bad mutations do you think will occur before one good mutation would?"
i think the ratio is about 70% bad, 20%neutral and 10% positive.
" it will also have to throw out the good stuff."
true, chance is a factor in this. but mostly the positive mutations stay.
"Natural Selection works best within a species rearranging information it already has."
im going to have to disagree on this. Natural selection is most notable when new species are born.
OmfgItsHenu 4 months ago
@OmfgItsHenu "If all the scientific papers refuting Darwinian Evolution could be laid end to end, it would stretch from New York to the moon and back three times."
Entropy56 4 months ago
@Entropy56 (no idea where that quote is from, and frankly dont even care. but you should put the source of a quote if you plan on using that as an argument)
there is not a single fact that would contradict the theory of evolution. they are all just propaganda.
if there were actually a contradiction (which would surely get a nobel), it would be dropped as a theory, and be replaced as another one, that doesnt.
(since a scientific theory must explain all relevant facts and be contradicted by none)
OmfgItsHenu 4 months ago
@OmfgItsHenu That quote is actually right ya know. But don't just think because you have never seen something, it means it does not exist. Try this video for example. There is a lot of information the government keeps away from the public.
/watch?v=pLBIXq292UM
realoverfake 1 month ago
@realoverfake "But don't just think because you have never seen something,it means it does not exist"
if you cant test it, sense it, logically prove it, mathematically prove it,it means it probably doesnt exist(example: a atom sized teapot is orbiting the earth;cant be proven, but existence is possible. although very,very unlikely)
-but there are logical evidence that make omnipotence impossible
giants. you send me a video link about giants.
and the government is trying to hide giants from us?
OmfgItsHenu 1 month ago
@OmfgItsHenu there is logical and philosophical evidence that makes our existence impossible without an all-knowing, timeless, spaceless, and omnipotence entity.(God)
and yeah just listen to what the guy has to say. he's researched this for 30 years. visit his website too.
realoverfake 1 month ago
@realoverfake there are no philosophical evidence. (assuming you mean like morals with this)
and for the creation thing, also a no. and why would u discard big bang so easily?
"he's researched this for 30 years."
yes, that means it is true. like astronomy, i know a guys website who has done it for 45 years.
does that make it valid? of course not. pseudoscience is pseudoscience, no matter who says it.
OmfgItsHenu 1 month ago
@OmfgItsHenu Look if you don't want to watch the video, i'm not going to force you. By philosophy, I mean nothing comes from nothing. Watch this for further detail.
/watch?v=_EP4JsaLH6Q&list=LLztNvlL47X0Zcd8xrd9-Eeg&index=10&feature=plpp_video
realoverfake 1 month ago
@realoverfake "By philosophy, I mean nothing comes from nothing."
thats not philosophy... thats thermodynamics. physics.
and i could give u a few scenerios how it could have happened, but that would use up all of the letters available (so i can pm to u if u want or sumtin :P )
-and yeah ill watch these vids now (am i supposed to watch all 5, because i rly dont have that much time)
OmfgItsHenu 1 month ago
@OmfgItsHenu Yes that is philosophy, i have written essays on that topic in my philosophy classes.
Watch them whenever brah. I'm just trying to get you to convert before SHTF and the demons come.
realoverfake 1 month ago
@realoverfake but modern day philosophy has nothing to do with physics, mathematics or anything. philosophy isnt counted as science. also have written essays, but only 2 :(
"I'm just trying to get you to convert"
oh, well that makes sense.
so you are those people who are on a one-man-crusade on the internet to feel superior.
youre here to promote your religion in attempt to get the feeling of "doing good".
-my apologies, thought you were here to seek information and to upgrade your views
OmfgItsHenu 1 month ago
@OmfgItsHenu trust me this does not make me "feel good" lol. I have already done the research and upgraded my views. Dude just watch this video.. time is running out.
/watch?v=wjmFm8PIz8M
realoverfake 1 month ago
@Entropy56 Ummm, if you took out all the "scientific papers" that had logical fallacies or had inacurracies, there would be no papers that disprove Darwinian evolution.
travmanbw43 3 months ago
I believe in the process of evolution, however I don't believe that a primordial soup can just come to life when struck by lightning. We can see that things adapt, but we cannot see what truly started life. If man can't create life with lightning, why would nature be able to?
I'm not a Christian either; I just don't hold on to ideas just because everyone says they're true. Science constantly is changing; hundreds of years ago we believed in spontaneous generation!
MedievalAmbient 4 months ago
Creationists, please explain to me how reproduction is possible according to your "understanding" of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
You and your mom is twice as complex compared to your mom alone. How is that possible?
gupsphoo 6 months ago
The laws of thermodynamic remain constant only in a closed system dumb arse. The earth is not a closed system.
salamut2202 6 months ago
The idea that life violates the second law and therefore is intelligently designed is moronic. All systems work by increasing entropy, that's what happens when work is done. No intelligently designed system gets around the 2nd law. The system is intentionally designed to increase entropy. That's what the battery is for. It is an entropy generator. You need an entropy generator for any system to work. Yes, that's right, all power sources are entropy generators.
TerrencePhillip66 6 months ago
@TerrencePhillip66 Just to elaborate a little more on all power sources being entropy generators. First, I should
have used the term energy sources, not power sources. All energy sources become much more thermodynamically disordered as they are used. An energy source are more orderly as wood, oil or coal than
as the hot exhaust gases they become when used. Is there as much usable energy in the exhaust gases as there was in the original fuel? Of course not. And therefore entropy has increased.
TerrencePhillip66 6 months ago
organization can exist, it just creates more disorder leading to a net increase in entropy.
RussellMilton 7 months ago
The reason why he is using non living things is because they exist in THE SAME UNIVERSE AS US (shocking I know) so all those objects follow the laws of the universe. And can be paralleled to how another object in the universe will change.
TheHMD93 7 months ago
He quotes examples that are non biological life forms and then tries to relate to living things. This is ridiculous. Creationists are always docked for using immaterial things and equating it to biological life forms for instance the watchmakers argument. This is like comparing apples to plastic oranges. In the same way, ice crystals are not living forms so just "adding energy" will not do anything. The organism needs a mechanism to change the energy into something useful
jbenjamin06 7 months ago
@jbenjamin06
"quotes examples that are non biological [...] then tries to relate to living things"
No no no. It's not Y I quoted those examples. It's the creationists' argument that, plainly as it reads, disorder ever always increases cause of the 2nd law. Quoting the stupidest of examples, ice, I evidenced the blatant absurdity of the claim.
"The organism needs a mechanism to change the energy into something useful"
So what. Is heat entirely converted in "something useful"? No, END OF STORY
schrodcat 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@schrodcat Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jbenjamin06 Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
@jbenjamin06 First of all we Religiouse peoples do not need to prove any things about your fuck idiologiy of evolutions because we knows that is totally bullshit but still we gives enough explanations to your stupidity...hahahhahahah 4.3 billion years thesis still uncompleted.....hahahaha
strangerlover11 2 months ago
@jbenjamin06 you do not understand... if living matter originated from non-living matter then you have a time when non-living matter become more complex. This violates the second law and talking about life does not change. Evolution is also disproved by the second law of termodynamics as we now lnow that the very same sun rays that allows life to exists also has an tendency that over time (depending on the quantity of radiation) to actually break down DNA coed. DNA follows enthropy
nightcrawlercyp 2 weeks ago
@nightcrawlercyp *breaks DNA chains*
nightcrawlercyp 2 weeks ago
@jbenjamin06 Game set mech! check-mate! Creation wins, evolution fails once again...
nightcrawlercyp 2 weeks ago
Earth is an open system you moron. How much more dishonest, ignorant or plain dumb can you be.
linkuei83 8 months ago
@linkuei83
No, I'm not.
See, maybe it's not about YOU or others being dumb or ignorant, it's more about needing urgent psychological feedback, to have someone explain how come that so many people visit YouTube TO NOT WATCH Videos.
Then, maybe not. You are in fact dumb, and incapable of understanding what I said.
Even some creationists had enough intelligence and patience to understand and protest that my video was a debunking of their claim. So even some creationist must be smarter than you.
schrodcat 8 months ago
@schrodcat lolwut, that was not for you man. Else i wouldn't agree, would i?!
linkuei83 7 months ago
@linkuei83
Alright, then, it is not as grave as I thought. You only need to learn how to send a message to the person you want to speak to. There are courses, I'm told.
Ah, I was almost forgetting to say that. It is not the case that I approve of it so much - on my comment space here - that you should call anybody a "moron", and "dishonest", and "ignorant", and "plain dumb" (unless, maybe, if it is a reaction to an equal action ...).
schrodcat 7 months ago
@schrodcat i know how to, just wrong box.
linkuei83 7 months ago
Evolution is based on mutations and natural selection. How does thermodynamics apply to that again ?
TheMattgician 8 months ago
@TheMattgician
"Evolution is based on mutations and natural selection. How does thermodynamics apply to that again ?"
Well, actually that's basically the question I posed to all who say so, right at the end of my video. Show me how evolution leads to increase of free energy at some macroscopic scales, or be silent forever! :)
schrodcat 8 months ago
The second law of thermodynamics is not in violation with theory of evolution.
We don`t need the religion to explain anything.
Science do not have all the answers, but all the answers comes from science.
There is really no argument. All the evidence is out there, google it :)
Knowledge is power.
TheBlockBreaker 8 months ago
@TheBlockBreaker You're right because the second law of Thermodynamics only aplies in a closed system and the earth isn't a closed system.
DJAnnamarie1993 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheBlockBreaker 8 months ago
@CASchram
Einstein was a clear-cut atheist. Read what he actually wrote, and not the stuff taken out of context on Christian science websites.
Secondly, don't believe in something because someone else (who appears to be intelligent) believe in it. That just means that you don't have the capability to think for yourself.
Peter1992t 9 months ago
@Peter1992t That's funny you should say that. SO you understand EVERY concept of EVERY one of the three most controversial naturalistic theories? You understand fully what evolution theory states, or abiogenesis, or the big bang? No? Then surely you dont believe that they are true. I mean how could you believe something just because someone else who appears more intelligent says its true. That would be hypocrisy. If you dont understand every concept and still believe youre no different! -Typical
psford1 8 months ago
Second law of Thermgodynamics says that the exergy of Jesus is (1+∞)^∞
0299792458 9 months ago
Has a hurricane ever blown through a city and built a fully-functional house? Can a tornado pass over a junk-yard, and formed a 747?
That is essentially what you are asserting. Trying to make a link between the structure of a tornado & upward evolution of biological complexity
is laughable.
sgentlemanjack112 9 months ago
1:45 It is interesting you point to non living, non biological examples of ordered structures. Crystals is the worst possible argument for evolution.
Crystallization occurs because it leads to the lowest energy state possible.
It's the most stable arrangement of atoms for that particular environment.
Crystals are INERT, non living, simple repeating structures that do not function and are not Designed BY function.
sgentlemanjack112 9 months ago 7
@sgentlemanjack112
If you think carefully, THAT'S exactly the point of the absurdity of the creationists' claim, when they say that evolution cannot happen because the 2nd Law orders some increase of disorder, while life is ordered. ALL that their thermodynamic argument reduces to is just this; Nothing can get more ordered, ever. As stupid as it reads, it indeed is.
You're right of course, crystal is inert, non living. But it forms. By the bold creationists' argument prima facie, it couldn't.
schrodcat 8 months ago
Very well explained....I hope a common man can get some sense of 2nd law from this. Just for information - free energy is known as exergy...and the exergy of the universe is going on decreasing
amiyaiitkgp 10 months ago
Very well explained....I hope a common man can get some sense of 2nd law from this
amiyaiitkgp 10 months ago
THE question , are you going to belive in :
a - ) The people who made computers , internet , eletrical power, cars , houses , your birth , money , society , games , clothes , glasses , machines , motors , etc possible.
b - ) in a book of an unknown writer , talking about magic .
people , i dont care about your faith but , the smartest people in the world have proven that evolution exists , you're not that smart , sry...
WatchOutBR 11 months ago 11
@WatchOutBR
No WatchOutBR, THE question is. Would it be of any use if people watching YouTube actually turn on the volume?
schrodcat 11 months ago
@WatchOutBR Evolution is not proven, its is theorized because it can't be duplicated or observed Why do I bother
JesusNonEnviromental 9 months ago
@WatchOutBR
How about thinkers from Plato all the way to Einstein who have stated repeatedly that the possibility of a creator god is very possible.
CASchram 9 months ago
@CASchram
Religious reasoning
There was a smart man > He said God might exist > So God exists > And it's a God who matches exactly with my belief of what God should be > And I don't like biology > So neither does God > So Evolution is all a big conspiracy
0299792458 9 months ago
@CASchram God is very possible. Matter of fact, its probably more likely than not that some sort of Creator exists when you really break down the science. But most naturalists these days dont rely on real science, instead they stick heavily to conjecture filled hopes and dreams. Kinda sad really. Peace
psford1 8 months ago
@WatchOutBR Oh so you have to believe in evolution to create computers, cars, houses, etc....? A lot of those things (discluding the electronic items) were created long before evolution was even thought of.
It's not as if I don't believe in evolution, but I don't believe that to not believe in it means that one is automatically unintelligent.
MedievalAmbient 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WatchOutBR Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 3 months ago
@WatchOutBR They haven't proven that evolution exists. Where did all the genetic information that makes up all life come from? Did they come from those single celled organisms? How is that possible? Energy cannot b created or destroyed by any means that we know of so where did all this genetic information (energy) come from?
uppercutter21 1 month ago
You know, you could have just said that the 2 law of Thermodynamics only aplies in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system.
gulbirk 1 year ago
@gulbirk
Yes you're right, I could have said that, there's nothing more than that to it. But that would have explained little. I'm not interested in a war of statements, I'm just interested in letting people know as much as they can, and think. Anyway, I doubt if I followed your advice I would have had in excess of 20,000 hits.
schrodcat 11 months ago
@schrodcat Yeah :).
Think? Creationists? I hardly doubt so, LOL.
gulbirk 11 months ago
@schrodcat One could argue that the universe is a closed system, as it is expanding according to modern theory anyway.. Have you heard of Sean Pitman, he argues that it is only the information that cannot become orderly over time even in an open system. His website is the emperorhas no cloths.. just do a google on him and that term you will find it most intriguing. =)
Mekelsior 9 months ago
ahhhh! I see where I was going now... see the creationist argument, is about information in the cell in the form of our genetic code. It works overall like a language that is later translated to form us... and everything alive that we know of; Now the entropy of information also increases, in other words, information decay with time and becomes slowly meaningless, so the DNA is sort of a fish going upstream, so it makes me wonder how the DNA information came to beat the odds and the law.
asusp3v4x 1 year ago
Well, at 4:30 you have mistaken the pictures, the picture in the right has far less possibilities for each ball than the one in the left, so basically you contradicted your argument.
Second, the creationists do forget to mention that they are using the generalized second law, truly their mistakes no doubt, but still this local drop in the entropy is met with a increase in the surroundings, soooo the law is not really broken man, and life goes on
asusp3v4x 1 year ago
@asusp3v4x
You're possibly right about my two figures there, but that's because I just had them by hand informally to "tell" the point. Which still stands: if you have hard spheres in a box, then beyond a certain crowding of them (past a critical density) you have more ways to arrange them in order, rather than in disorder, regardless of whether or not I put the a "correct" number of disks in my figures here. As per your second point, I didn't understand it. Did I say anything different?
schrodcat 1 year ago
@schrodcat if you were too put too many spheres inside the box, their entropy would eventually be the same, the point is not how many ways I can order it, but how many possibilities I have to move them. So basically you are incorrect even in your statement in the video. asss the ot
asusp3v4x 1 year ago
@asusp3v4x damn XD sorry, so gonna watch the last part to see where the heck I was going
asusp3v4x 1 year ago
@asusp3v4x
"he point is not how many ways I can order it, but how many possibilities I have to move them"
There's no difference, it doesn't matter, If you have more ways, then you can move them in more ways. It's not a matter of opinion: with hard spheres, at high density, ordered configurations have higher entropy than disordered configurations, and that's all we need. This MEANS that you can move around much more, going from order to order, than the other way round.
schrodcat 11 months ago
@schrodcat Ordered spheres have less movements.... of course it coes make a difference XD.... the higher the density the lower the entropy right ???? but if there is a system with more molecules spread out than the other, then that ONE has MORE entropy got it ?
Here... maybe the movement analogy isn't all that convincing... shame that YT wont let me post links ... well I will PM you just for the sake of the talk
So check out the standard explanation, I guess it will be easier to grasp
asusp3v4x 11 months ago
@asusp3v4x
I will PM to you in response, I hope, even if by now I'd be 3 months late. BTW, I know the standard explanations, I'm a contributor of standard explanations in these matters, in the real world. Even some professionals admitted to have been wrong about preconceptions on hard spheres, I know what I'm talking about.
In some old comment here, you'll find a Professor who had been teaching thermodynamics all his life, having had to rethink the "disorder" issue with entropy after watching.
schrodcat 8 months ago
@schrodcat
Well I do not doubt that you have at least the overall grasp of the subject... or perhaps even more than I do ... XD. But still ... well I think that you have got a bit wrong the spheres thing. Well I will just let you PM me, don't want to drag this whole talk through the 500 comment XD limit.
asusp3v4x 7 months ago
@asusp3v4x
Mmh, Ok, then a whole bunch of literature, of all experts of hard spheres, must be wrong, or their computers running simulations, got all broken. :)
schrodcat 7 months ago
@schrodcat
hahahah ... well really ??? so they actually say that 5 spheres in the left and 2 in the left have more entropy ???
Because that is what your image was showing. After you putted more spheres in it you increased the concentration on some sides and had smaller concentration on other areas... wellll .... as far as I am aware that has less entropy than a fully disordered scenario.
No problem man ... hope your PM has all the literature you talk about.
asusp3v4x 7 months ago
@asusp3v4x
hahahah ... well really ??? so they actually say that 5 spheres in the left and 2 in the right have more entropy ???
Small correction XD
asusp3v4x 7 months ago
@asusp3v4x
Frankly, right now I don't get what you're up to. I think I had said the image isn't trustful, it was naive. But it doesn't follow that the statement "in words" is wrong. If you look carefully at the figure, you'll discover those are not spheres, but disks. So, if you want to bring down my argument saying "hey, look at the image", well, just say "they're disks, therefore you're wrong". In fact, I must confess, I'm not even sure the argument applies to disks as it applies to spheres.
schrodcat 7 months ago
@schrodcat
Well then I guess I am just being stupid... but bring down your argument ... well not really, I don't really think that the 2 Law necessarily pose a threat to Evolution... it does cause some problems for beginning of life, but that is a whole new matter.
Well okay they are disks ...
asusp3v4x 7 months ago
Do people just read the first 3 words of a title and immediately go to the comments?
paulalex19 1 year ago
Yet again someone who does NOT understand Thermodynamics I drop some pearls for the pigs:
flow equilibrium
metastable attractors
bifurcation event
Ilya Prigogine
No offense, dear author of this video, but Thermodynamics is THE major, if not only law that DICTATES evolution HAS to happen, simply based on the FACT, that no process can ever produce more entropy than life can. Continiously.
HerMeggido 1 year ago
@HerMeggido
The point of the extent of the leading role of entropy's tendency to increase in matters concerning life is interesting, beyond the level and scope of this video, but also largely speculative. If the 2nd law was THE only law of life, then there would be far less inhabitable places around. Let me give you two examples. Energetically, Venus and Mercury are better than us, and close to us. Certainly live matter has traveled there. Yet, the 2nd law is not doing well there to life. WHY?
schrodcat 1 year ago
Actually, evolution and entropy are perfectly compatible. One cannot exist without the other as is evidenced by all opposites in time and space. Using your logic hot and cold are contradictory and therefore can not exist at the same time, which we know for a fact is not true. Love and hate are also within each human being and exist simultaneously even if one emotion dominates the other for the time being. Your argument has been dismantled using taoism of all things.
taosimplicity 1 year ago
Very good video. I was going to argue with your definition of the 2nd law, in saying that because entropy cannot decrease, it must increase. Later you qualified to explain that it can, in fact, stay the same. Or, not only will heat not flow spontaneously from a colder body to a hotter one, it will also not flow spontaneously from one body to another when they are the same temperature.
gwprod1 1 year ago
But life is a chemical process that takes advantage of entropy created by the sun (heat and light) and applies it to reducing entropy. Decreasing entropy leads to new properties which leads to new order and so on, as long as there is applied energy.
We are islands of order swimming in a sea of entropy. Decreasing entropy within our bodies, and increasing it in our environment.
energy --> application --> order --> emergent properties --> Rinse/repeat.
lolbroklol 1 year ago
The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, the earth isn't a closed system! The sun provides the energy necessary for evolution.
SMTsquidge 1 year ago
-460 F can't be achieved on earth, therefore all temperature above this temperature has to be considered potential energy just waiting for a colder (less temperature) matter. This random movement is called "Procyclic Heat Transformation" a theory created by pcht.weebly dot com. E = PE = E or PE = E = PE until fully conserved, of which can't no matter can achieve -460F when surrounded by heated matter....
Life can exist once you can reach 98.6 degree and sustain that temperature through P
cptcabo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Sun? You mean the energy from the sun that breaks down living tissue? that sun? The energy from the sun does not decrease entropy.Their is no evidence whatsoever, that non living matter can come alive when exposed to energy from the sun. Also, crystals have less energy in them than the liquid from which they are formed. Crystals are in no way and example of decreased entropy.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2: You know that "breaks down tissue" stuff is a load of bollocks. You simply have to be kidding about this. Study a plant growing from a seed. If you take away the sun, it will shrivel and die. And not just some plants, *all* plants. Why is that? Perhaps because it needs the sunlight, and can make use of it? I was fully aware that creationism attacks biology, but I had no idea that it would attack chemistry as well.
Crystals? What do they have to do with sunlight?
puncheex 1 year ago
this makes it very clear what you mean when you say "there is no evidence whatsoever", whether about this simple piece of photosynthetic biochemistry or about evolution. It makes your declaration worthless, that you'll apply it in a case where a fifth grader could design an absolutely foolproof experiment. Your arguments aren't worth the effort to read.
puncheex 1 year ago
Thermodynamics Disproves Evolution, LULZ. It sounds, good to the uneducated, but totally wrong to the educated.
KevZen2000 1 year ago
It's ironic how they forget about the existence of the sun in this argument when their religion basically started out as a solar cult :p
Arikiel 1 year ago
1 No other gods before YHWH. 2 Make no idols. 3 Don't take YHWH's name in vain. 4 Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. 5 Honor your father & your mother. 6 Don't murder. 7 Don't commit adultery. 8 Don't steal. 9 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 10 Don't covet your neighbor's house; don't covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.
JosephStetson 1 year ago
er, i mean google 'life as a manefestation of the second law of thermodynamics'
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
google '2nd law of thermodynamics'... there is a brilliantly written paper showing that evolution does not break the law, but is required for life to evolve!
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
You sound like my really smart Russian friend Alex. I like you.
NoNameLikeThisOne 1 year ago
I hate the stealing of rigour of an established theory and using it as if it was you're own,
(our rigour, hands off) how can one appeal to evidence in one respect and then flat out deny it in another, it beggars logic. pfffffffff.
JohnnySegment86 1 year ago
Comment removed
JohnnySegment86 1 year ago
Entropy in the Universe cannot decrease, but entropy in a system can decrease at the cost of increasing the entropy in the surroundings (the universe) such that the entropy of the universe + the entropy of the system is greater than or equal to 0. Therefore no thermodynamic laws are disobeyed if life occurs
DaysDX 1 year ago
great vid, always wondered this and you were the first to explain it to me
dirteyphil 1 year ago
One word - Sun.
thismortalsoul 1 year ago 3
He sounds like "MASSIMOOOOO"! (legend)
thevirtuozo 1 year ago
thermodynamics are almost usless at the quantum level dude stfu.
fatmanimpreza 1 year ago
I saw the video in the related videos section
"Thermodynamics disproves evolution!..."
I was like "Not this shit again..."
Turns out your video is a logical one that makes sense, thanks!
PeopleR2sensitive 1 year ago
Thermodynamics disproves DNA! Because complex molecules couldn't exist without a source of energy! God its a sunny today i can hardly see with this glare on my monitor. DERP.
unassumption 1 year ago
Thank you for this video! If nothing else it goes to show that stupid people are on both sides of the evolution "debate". How many people mistakingly thought this was a creationist video because they won't bother to actually watch it? I'm laughing at the comments here. And your English is fine. Anybody who's been to a public university has probably had at least three TA's with worse accents.
burlabear 1 year ago
@burlabear
Thanks!
Indeed, all those people you mention must also be missing the last sentence in my title.
"Anybody who's been to a public university has probably had at least three TA's with worse accents."
That's likely true.
schrodcat 1 year ago
i guarantee if u ask any creationist the equation for this law, they will not know. you can't be bios and except fatcs when u think it help u and not when it doesnt...and btw this law does not disprove evolution in so many ways.
ilovetheview47 1 year ago
and whats the bet, theyll still try use it. silly creationists
demondim5 1 year ago
I can only break the second law of themrodynamics if Earth was a closed system, which its not. The earth is bombarded with new energy from the sun which doesnt enthropy to occure.
peronkop 1 year ago
@peronkop Actually, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only concerned with getting work done via the flow of energy and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution at all.
The confusion comes about when Creationists willfully misread the word "order" in the law and think it means organization when it simply means a level of energy.
People trying to disprove a part of science they don't like with part of science they don't understand would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
fkbryce 1 year ago
I love how this guys, "is" is actually "eez"
lordofwrath88 1 year ago
Nice video, thanks for that. Some of these comments (below) are truly idiotic and embarrassing to their authors, as you know, but in my view your video was very well done, well organized and clear. Thanks!
captaincarbonate 1 year ago
This is a complete non-argument, and even creationist websites have cautioned against using this completely refuted strawman argument.
Fundamental principals of science simply do *NOT* contradict other fundamental principals of science. That would be stupid.
To be blunt, scientists are smarter than that. That includes biologists.
fkbryce 1 year ago 2
@fkbryce actually, i think their having some problems with general relativity and quantum physics atm (yay M-theory) but id have to look into it more to see if their were any actual contradictions.
demondim5 1 year ago
@missjestrum "someone has already brought up the theory that thermodynamics disproves evolution to biologists. "
Absolutely - biologists have. Thermodynamics is basic physics, basic science, and biologists, who are scientists, understand science. Sorry if I sound pedagogic but no one seems to realize that.
The argument of trying to disprove one piece of science creatards don't like with another piece of science they either don't understand or willfully misrepresent is ridiculous.
fkbryce 1 year ago
@missjestrum If evolution were not true that would hardly nullify all of science, but it would sure stand biology on its head.
Am I the only one on Youtube who has any understanding of the science community?
fkbryce 1 year ago
Thank you for this video. It's silly the number of people who have no idea what a science education involves. Thermodynamics is basic science. All scientists understand basic science. Biologists are scientists.
Hence, they understand thermodynamics, and any hypothesis which breaks a fundamental rule of the universe would never even be submitted, let alone universally accepted within the greater science community.
fkbryce 1 year ago
@missjestrum hey dumb ass. not all theories are correct in scientific fields. they are proven by example and in action. Or do you no know how scientific theory works? So far evolution as a theory has been proven by example but has never been observed in action. Dont you get it. sheep.
TheReelNeel 1 year ago
@TheReelNeel Given the gradual nature of evolution, one would expect very few significant mutation events to be observed. However, several have been observed, and if you really knew anything about evolution, you would be aware of that.
I'm not sure what your stance is, but it's funny to see laypeople who have such a tiny understanding of science trying to attack a fundamentally accepted principal of science is like trying to tear a building down by hitting it with your fists.
fkbryce 1 year ago
I thought that was a cool vid! I've always wanted to get entropy in perspective, I did know that it was a measure of the relationship of ordered states of a system to disordered states, but didn't realise what part enthalpy played.
Thanks!
breaneainn 1 year ago
This is hillarious, people are just coming here to troll, don't watch the video, and don't even read THE TITLE of the video.
Alarindris 1 year ago
@missjestrum
Are you sure you actually watched my video?
schrodcat 1 year ago 8
@schrodcat i didnt go to college and i understood the vid
derrick713 1 year ago
can i ask u one last thing?... ok do know what the common cold and the flu is?.... Do u know that ones a person gets the FLU he then creates anti bodies and builds up imunity to that strand of the flu virus.... ok.. hope ur with me to this point.... Do u know why u still get the flu???? well its cuz the flu evolves and changes every time it goes from person to person. Well would u call that EVOLUTION? if yes then how can u not belive in something like this taking place over MILLIONS of years.
wootmajor 1 year ago
@wootmajor
You're English writing is almost as bad as my talking. Anyway, I think you haven't watched my video farthest than 0:02.
schrodcat 1 year ago 20
@wootmajor THE BIG YELLOW ONE IS THE SUN!!!.....THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE IS THE SUN!!!!....THE YELLOW ONE IS THE SUN!!!!
areyouforreal?
breaneainn 1 year ago
@wootmajor If thats true it doesn't help evolution does it
jiminiflix 1 year ago
@wootmajor Also if life is billions of yeears old- you'd think by now IF a flu is evolving into something else as you seem to say, then it would be more advanced by now. But a flu is a virus- viruses exist today and have always existed, IF they are an example of evolution in your eyes so be it but it doesn't show a species of life form transforming into another. Have you seen this happen?
jiminiflix 1 year ago
@jiminiflix "But a flu is a virus- viruses exist today and have always existed, IF they are an example of evolution in your eyes so be it but it doesn't show a species of life form transforming into another"
Flix, you don't understand the Theory of Evolution. This statement is a good example.
If an organism is successful, it doesn't "need" to evolve. That's like asking if people evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys.
Please understand the ToE before you tear it down.
fkbryce 1 year ago
@fkbryce LOL "If an organism is successful, it doesn't "need" to evolve" You know why evolution is a crock is because you are right !Though its unscientific to presume its possible anyway, evolution is dead because its never been needed !! God created life to make life, to reproduce after its kind. The evidence is all around you, just like a cell NEEDS a cell to reproduce- EVOLUTION IS DEAD
jiminiflix 1 year ago
@jiminiflix not the best argument. first part, what the hell? if a creature doesnt need to evolve, it wont... yeah... allot of creatures need to evolve, if they didnt, theyd become extinct in their changing environment. and i dont get how you guys, people who specifically avoid science, can say anything else is unscientific. never been needed? isnt even the main issue the issue is why we have now observed it, it not a question of if, its a question of how and why?
troll harder son.
demondim5 1 year ago
@jiminiflix Is this supposed to be any sort of argument, or just a rant? You can wave your arms and scream "EVOLUTION IS DEAD", but if you do that near an institute of higher learning, you'll get some funny laughs and head shakes.
However, given the way you willfully misrepresent science in a pathetic attempt to support your own preconceived dogma demonstrates you've never been near such an institution.
"a cell NEEDS a cell to reproduce" ROFLMAO, thank you for making my point.
fkbryce 1 year ago
@fkbryc " HIgher Learning"...higher learning says a whale larger than a bus evolved from a land dwelling mammal, that a girafe neck evolved over time by stretching up to reach food, that fossils that show no change in species ,prove evolution, that making up imagined pictures of mans evolution from a skull is trustworthy science. I wouldn't rust so much in "higher learning institutions". The great lie keeps a lot of "specialists" employed.
jiminiflix 1 year ago
@fkbryce and by the way you laugh at creationists but NOTHING is scientific about evolution- your belief hasn't evidence or scienfic facts, Its a belief system- thats all. I still have never seen or read from any evolutionist books or websites anything that stacks up as proof of evolution explaining life as we know it.
jiminiflix 1 year ago
@fkbryce and if a cell NEEDS a cell to reproduce- do you think a cell can survive or live made up of less information than a cell has ? It cannot .. WHat a crock, what a fairy tale- . YOu may not believe in a creator, but belief in evolution isn't scientifically logical, because its impossible.
jiminiflix 1 year ago
@jiminiflix you seem to be implying the evolution tends to complexity and "advancement" rather then just what best suited for the environment its in. flu may be simple, but id like you to find a cure to it.
demondim5 1 year ago
@wootmajor Well the swine flu is a man made virus combination of normal flu and swine flu. Its hardly evolution with man interfearing. In nature this has always happened- ask a bigger question - how did humans evolve to be able to create anti-bodies? They would have died out before they could evolved to combat it. God made man with a complex immune system.
jiminiflix 1 year ago
@jiminiflix Because the animals they were before they were human also had antibodies! Seriously, did you even think before typping?
wendighoul 1 year ago
@wendighoul Can you write a sentence?Before they were human? Seriously do you know what you're saying?
jiminiflix 1 year ago
@wootmajor When something mutates it loses information,it doesn't gain anything.The flu bug that becomes immune to an antibiotic already has the information in it's DNA to do this,it just has to lose something for this to happen.Example: If you were to handcuff a criminal and he wants to get away but he has no key,he could cut off his hand and escape,he had to lose something.Humans have lost much information since our creation.
CBALLEN 1 year ago