Evolution/Creation

[Jam Cruiser]

Originally posted by North_of_Sanity
Funny you seem to believe the "Adam and Eve" crock with absolutely no evidence other than a book translated and rewritten probably 10 000 times.

Yet, you question the existance of dinosaurs even after discovering bones - absolute physical evidence.

I guess we believe only what we want to believe.

No, I wasn't saying I don't believe dinosaurs... I was saying I don't know where dinosaurs would fit in with creation...

[moldyorangepeel]

"It's a pretty known fact that species adapt, that's not the argument or the problem. It's when you say one species changes into another. Primates to human, dinosaurs to birds, etc.. If Evolution does occur, where does ALL the extra information come from to make these changes? Entropy states we should be decaying, not advancing in Evolution."

This is simple case of you haveing the wrong information. Adaptaion and evolution are NOT very different processes. In fact, adaptation is the very core of evoltuion. This adaptation IS evoltuion, on a smaller scale than changing from one species to another. It's the stepping stone.

The extra information comes from the environment. There adaptations exist, and the environment chooses which adaptations survive. The path of least resistance or least energy waste is through the adaptations that make it easier to survive. Will you acknowledge this much? That some adaptations let a species use less energy to survive? Because understanding that is crucial to understanding that we are not going against Entropy, we're merely carrying out some of entropy's job, like everything that exists.

We have become smarter because it has been easier for us to survive and easier for us to break down energy by becoming smarter. Becomin smarter has made humans more effiecient. It's not a matter of complexity as humans see it, complexity is a human concept.

Oh, and your body adapting to a diet change and the species adapting to an environmental influence actually are two different things. I would think that as a strong evoltuionist at one point you would have know that they are two completely different uses of the word adapt. One means a genetic change, one means a solely physical change.

When you were an evoltionist, were your motives to try to fight christianity, or were they to foster the truth? Did your believeing in evolution come from not wanting to believe christianity?

[Ego Tripping]

Originally posted by user
This is simple case of you haveing the wrong information. Adaptaion and evolution are NOT very different processes. In fact, adaptation is the very core of evoltuion. This adaptation IS evoltuion, on a smaller scale than changing from one species to another. It's the stepping stone.

That's not a stepping stone, that's a giant leap.

The extra information comes from the environment. There adaptations exist, and the environment chooses which adaptations survive. The path of least resistance or least energy waste is through the adaptations that make it easier to survive. Will you acknowledge this much? That some adaptations let a species use less energy to survive? Because understanding that is crucial to understanding that we are not going against Entropy, we're merely carrying out some of entropy's job, like everything that exists.

That assumes the "enviroment" is a sentient being that can actually choose which species will survive and which won't. That creates quite a paradox I'd say. Are you referring to macro and micro evolution?

We have become smarter because it has been easier for us to survive and easier for us to break down energy by becoming smarter. Becomin smarter has made humans more effiecient. It's not a matter of complexity as humans see it, complexity is a human concept.

Then we're back to square one: what made us smarter to even want to break down energy? In fact, I'd say we were better off int he Colonial times, considering how the state of the world and Planet is in now, due to our "adaptation." If anything, we've become less efficient over time.

Oh, and your body adapting to a diet change and the species adapting to an environmental influence actually are two different things. I would think that as a strong evoltuionist at one point you would have know that they are two completely different uses of the word adapt. One means a genetic change, one means a solely physical change.

But my gripe isn't how Evolution works, it's how Evolution RUNS. Not everyone understands how a car works, but it's understood that you need gas to run it. Evolution needs information to run itself, and if you assume the enviroment is providing all that information, you're assuming the enviroment is actually making decisions on which species can exist and which cannot. If you say this is a "natural process", this goes against pretty much everything you know.

When you were an evoltionist, were your motives to try to fight christianity, or were they to foster the truth? Did your believeing in evolution come from not wanting to believe christianity?

Evolution just made sense....on the surface at least. I used to deny the existance of any supernatural, including God. This life was physical, and what I saw is what was there. But the more I studied about it, and other facets and possibilities of our reality, the more I saw the holes in the theory. You must remember, it's only that, a theory. It has not been proven, and still has it's hangups (information, entropy, lack of evolution in our time, "the missing link", etc..)

I've become the kind of person that questions EVERYTHING now, including my own beliefs. If you can argue your own beliefs and ideals and they hold up to the scrutiny, then you have an even better reason to accept them. Unfortunately, without adding in some kind of diety or "force" to drive Evolution, the theory falls apart on chance. As I said before, Evolution is essentially gambling with gigantic odds, and winning, every single time.

I'm not claiming to be a know it all, or saying that Evolution is 100% wrong, not at all. I'm merely stating that I am keeping an open mind to everything. If Evolution does happen, it cannot happen by pure chance alone, it needs something driving it. If Creationism exists, it must account for the striking similarities between the primates and the current homo-sapiens. All I am saying is remain skeptical about everything, because nothing is concrete in this existance. If anything, to me, Evolution and Creationism go hand in hand.

[moldyorangepeel]

Yes, going from one species to another is a giant leap. And that giant leap is covered in many many stepping stones. Not just one.

I don't think you even understand what you're arguing against. for example

" That assumes the "enviroment" is a sentient being that can actually choose which species will survive and which won't. That creates quite a paradox I'd say. Are you referring to macro and micro evolution? "

Where the hell do you get this from? And macro evolution and micro evoltuion are the exact same procersses, only macro evoltion is over more time. People usually differentiate between them so they can discount the evoltuion and adaptation we can observe happen within our lifetime as mere "micro evoltion" when its all evoltion and is the same drivig force.

The envoronment doesnt have to become sentient to choose, give me a break. I am so tempted to just start calling you stupid names at this point. The environment doesnt stop and think 'lets see who will die today', the envronment is simply necesarily more suitable for one adaptaion and less suitable for another.

Why does the theory fall apart on chance? The theory was made by chance! The chance that a certain adaptation will survive or not in a certain environment. Do you understand at all? Is any of this getting through to you? I'm about ready to stop trying to argue when you reply with shit like this.

" But my gripe isn't how Evolution works, it's how Evolution RUNS. Not everyone understands how a car works, but it's understood that you need gas to run it. Evolution needs information to run itself, and if you assume the enviroment is providing all that information, you're assuming the enviroment is actually making decisions on which species can exist and which cannot. If you say this is a "natural process", this goes against pretty much everything you know."

Evolution is just something that has to happen. There is life and death, and environment that helps decide who lives and who dies. I'm starting to think you are putting up blinders, because theses are som simple ideas that you aren't getting. Traits are determined by genes, do you admit this much? A tall mom and tall dad will be much more likely to have a tall child. Understand? If for some reason humans who were taller could reproduce easier or survive easier then there would be more tall people. IS any of this making sense? Please tell me that you at least understand that much.

[Ego Tripping]

Originally posted by user
Where the hell do you get this from? And macro evolution and micro evoltuion are the exact same procersses, only macro evoltion is over more time. People usually differentiate between them so they can discount the evoltuion and adaptation we can observe happen within our lifetime as mere "micro evoltion" when its all evoltion and is the same drivig force.

Wrong, see below. You need to do quite a bit more research, I thought you knew what you were talking about.

The envoronment doesnt have to become sentient to choose, give me a break. I am so tempted to just start calling you stupid names at this point. The environment doesnt stop and think 'lets see who will die today', the envronment is simply necesarily more suitable for one adaptaion and less suitable for another.

So what caused the first land animal? Why did that animal suddenly decide to sprout legs and walk around? Why did the enviroment choose that time, that place, and that animal to evolve? Why not all animals? And you can't really start calling anybody names when you can't even spell them correctly.

“Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation ... Natural Selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than improve it ... Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but simply enables it to ‘track,’ or keep up with, the constantly changing environment” [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist); "Adaptation." Scientific American (and Scientific American Book, Evolution), Sept. 1978]

Why does the theory fall apart on chance? The theory was made by chance! The chance that a certain adaptation will survive or not in a certain environment. Do you understand at all? Is any of this getting through to you? I'm about ready to stop trying to argue when you reply with shit like this.

My thoughts exactly. Your view is obviously far too narrow. You say its run on chance, so why isn't there any losing? Amino acids and their arrangements alone ruin the idea that everything happens on mere chance. Refer back to my analogies of the sand in the tubes. You agree that the chances of both sands becoming perfectly un-mixed is around 0%, so how can you explain when Evolution goes exactly against this probability? How do you account for this, besides saying "Oh well, the enviroment just 'decides' it." Right.

Evolution is just something that has to happen.

Why?

There is life and death, and environment that helps decide who lives and who dies.

So now the Enviroment, which is not sentient, is making decisions? I thought this was based off the animal that is becoming extinct or evolving, not the enviroment? Use the Dinosaurs into birds idea...why did they evolve? What enviromental changes would cause this?

I'm starting to think you are putting up blinders, because theses are som simple ideas that you aren't getting.

I get and understand all of them. You're trying to explain who evolution works, I already KNOW how it works. I'm asking WHY does it work? You still have no answer for this.

Traits are determined by genes, do you admit this much? A tall mom and tall dad will be much more likely to have a tall child. Understand? If for some reason humans who were taller could reproduce easier or survive easier then there would be more tall people. IS any of this making sense? Please tell me that you at least understand that much. [/b]

Simple genetics does not make evolution correct. "If for some reason" doesn't hold up, especially in Science. Everything needs reason (study Cause and Effect sometime). Essentially, Evolution states there is no cause, just an effect. If a certain species "needs" to evolve, it just does. Once again (for the millionth time), I'm merely trying to get you to see that Evolution is lacking one very large and integral piece of the puzzle: the reason it even exists. At least with Creationism, you have a source, an ultimate cause for all the effects. With Evolution, the cause is pure chance. One day, a certain species starts to evolve, with no particular reason why. You say it's all dependent on the enviroment, but that doens't hold up for all evolutionary events. You keep bringing up genetics and simple procreation, but that's not jumping from one species to another. Yes, I understand it's a stepping stone, but the ultimate problem is, there's no reason to take that step! The earth isn't much different than it was millions of years ago, aside from the damage and changes we've done to it.

And once again, where's the evolution now? Where's the stepping stones? Why have we still remain unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years, despite the enviromental changes? Why has every animal around us also remain unchanged? Why aren't new species being created? Why does the fossil record indicate gaps and spaces, where there should not be? Why is the abundance of fossils suddenly decreasing, when it should be increasing? Where are all, if ANY of the Transitional Fossils that were supposed to be found 50 years ago?

You keep saying "I don't get it" when you keep looking past my entire point. I'm not asking you for a step-by-step on Evolution, I'm well aware of how it functions. But instead of going back and forth, here is an excerpt from an article that supplements exactly what I mean:

“Evolution Has Never Been Observed”

Isaak oversimplifies the whole notion of evolutionary change by telling us that, “Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don’t appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.”

Evolution or Variation?
Isaak here conveniently fails to mention whether by “change in a gene pool over time” he means exactly that (i.e., genetic variation, which is often called “micro-evolution”), or whether he means “macro-evolution”—which is something entirely different. The postulation of “macro-evolution” (i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits) is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code. Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them.
Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.

Evolutionists have no basis for extrapolating the concept of genetic variation into Isaak’s claim that a particular “rate” of genetic variation “is all that is required to produce [(macro-)evolution] from a common ancestor.” Isaak apparently wants us to joing him in simplistically believing that because a population’s gene pool will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not science, and the facts of genetic science simply don’t corroborate Isaak’s story.

As for Isaak’s “example” of insects and pesticide resistance, this author knows of no work in genetics that has conclusively shown such changes to be anything more than the natural adaptive variation (described above) arising from the existing genetic potential already present in the population’s existing pool. Again, adaptive (and even non-adaptive) variations abound in the natural world, but they are not the genuine gene pool changes (i.e., additions of unequivocally new and meaningful genetic information) required by true evolutionary theory.

Honestly, I'll continue this when you study both sides of the coin. You sound like me before I started really questioning things.

[Ego Tripping]

Supplemental post:

“Scientists use the term entropy to describe the amount of randomness in a system. The larger the entropy of a system, the less order or more randomness the system has. We could say that the direction of change in diffusion or evaporation is toward a state of higher entropy.”
[D. Callewaert & J. Genya, Basic Chemistry, New York, Worth Publishers, 1980, p. 157]

So, since only more and more animals were created, and only seem to become more and more advanced, that should entail that the perfect systematical process of "Evolution" would decay and break down due to the randomness of the sheer amount of variables added into the system! I really think you're just trying your hardest not to address these points because simple, you can't. You pass everything off as "natural process" and "enviroment" when this contradicts everything around you.

First go here:

http://www.talkorigins.org

Then go here:

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

I think you should really study both sides before shooting your mouth off.

[moldyorangepeel]

I do know what I'm talking about, and anyone who'd telling you that there is a line to be drawn bewtween micro-evolution and macro-evolution is feeding you anti-evoltuionist propaganda. And you are eating that garbage right up.

And there is no creationism side of the coint to be looked at. From what observations, aside from pure philosophy, do you get creationim? Nowhere, thats where. It's pure dogma. No observing necesary.

I am never going to change your mind as your faith depends on it. I won;t even try anymore, I recognize when an agrument is futile, and it often is when dealing with faith. It cannot be proven of disproven, you are just taught that along the way.

I am going to stop agruing with you now in a hope that you will stop exposing the yahookans to such propaganda as this. I think my point is in the facts and has already been laid out there. If you cannot see it then you don't want to, and I'm not even going to try to get you to want to see the truth if it isnt plainly clear to you on your own.

[moldyorangepeel]

All science does, and all I do, is observe what we see and try to explain it. Science doesnt just throw things in to fill in the gaps. You say evolution is ONLY a theory, but you seem to blindly give creationism credibility, which has no theories or explainability at all.

[Ego Tripping]

Originally posted by user
I do know what I'm talking about, and anyone who'd telling you that there is a line to be drawn bewtween micro-evolution and macro-evolution is feeding you anti-evoltuionist propaganda. And you are eating that garbage right up.

How is it propganda? Dude, I WAS an Evolutionist. Did you even read the site? It simply addresses the points, and debunks them, using no Biblical or God references at all. You're too close minded to even read it, that's sad.

And there is no creationism side of the coint to be looked at. From what observations, aside from pure philosophy, do you get creationim? Nowhere, thats where. It's pure dogma. No observing necesary.

Considering we don't witness Evolution either, I'd say you're in the same boat, slick.

I am never going to change your mind as your faith depends on it. I won;t even try anymore, I recognize when an agrument is futile, and it often is when dealing with faith. It cannot be proven of disproven, you are just taught that along the way.

1) I have no Faith or Religion. 2) I taught myself these facts by listening and doing my own research. Not just following and accepting what you read in your Biology book. If anything, you're the one using blind faith, not me.

I am going to stop agruing with you now in a hope that you will stop exposing the yahookans to such propaganda as this.

As what? A legitimate site using legitimate arguments? Once again, did you read it? Did you bother to open your eyes slightly?

I think my point is in the facts and has already been laid out there. If you cannot see it then you don't want to, and I'm not even going to try to get you to want to see the truth if it isnt plainly clear to you on your own. [/b]

What truth? If you knew anything about anything, you'd understand there no absolute "truth." Evolution is still in it's baby stages. You didn't address any of my points, besides calling it "propaganda", so that shows me you simply can't (without doing some more research). I think you should stop arguing, because so far you've given no substantial reasoning on any topics we've discussed. You're trying to pass me off as some Creationist Zealot when I explicitely said earlier I'm not trying to disprove it, I'm trying to see if your beliefs hold up to scrutiny, which they obviously don't, which is why you're cutting this short. Thanks for the fun, you've only re-affirmed the idea that Evolutionists can be just as blind and brainwashed as a Christian or Muslim. Congrats.

[Ego Tripping]

Originally posted by user
All science does, and all I do, is observe what we see and try to explain it. Science doesnt just throw things in to fill in the gaps. You say evolution is ONLY a theory, but you seem to blindly give creationism credibility, which has no theories or explainability at all.

I know the purpose of Science, and I say that all the time myself. But Science doesn't tend to just "fill the gaps?" What about the fact that the current Fossil record does NOT support Darwinism evolution? Transitional Fossils? Entropy in a large system? Natural Selection's flaws? Have you bothered to research the very ideals you believe in?

See, that's where we differ. I started as an Evolutionist. Brought up in a strictly non-religious household. Parents are Atheist, and so was I. I would argue for hours on end (much like now), except on your side of the glass. One day, I decided to REALLY study what I believed in. After all, I can't be the ONLY person that was right. The more I studied, the more I turned my entire world upside down. I've been in your shoes, walked a few (hundred) miles, and now here I am arguing against the very idea that I supported so strongly a few years ago. Don't think it doens't blow my own mind.

But that's the funny thing, you think I'm trying to change your beliefs, and that's the farthest from the truth. I'm simply asking you to really question, and to address the points I bring up. If you know so much about Evolution, my "propaganda" would be EASY to de-bunk and expose it for it's false statements. But you didn't, which shows me you're just taking the easy way out when you know you're in over your head. I'm more than willing to discuss this further, in a civil manner with no name calling or arguing, just simple and adult debate, if you want to. Otherwise, if anything would come out of this, I would hope this motivates you to explore your own beliefs a bit more, and question to see if they truly hold up...so far, they aren't.

P.S. As far as Creationism having no testable theories, that is 100% correct, you can't. But just as Science, you can state what we know by observing the world. Is it so hard to believe that when studying the world, people see intelligent design rather than chance? I know I do now. Cheers man, good times.

[moldyorangepeel]

I expected you to say I was taking the easy way out, and I'm going to have to show you up now.

You don't understand entropy. I have already bebunked your entropy claim. We exist BY creating entropy.

Since you have pissed me off by insisting on holding to false premises, then I will show you the truth about evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. Even though I already have fifty times. If this isn't enough to get your head straight then there's nothing I can do for you.

The second law of thermodynamics does not state that thing always move from order to disorder. And no, it's not the "always" in there that's the catch, there is no catch. The law of entropy isn't about order or disorder.

Here is the second law of thermodynamics "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." Entropy measures the movement of energy. The second law of thermodynamics is like saying that the ice cubes in your drink will never grow, only shrink until they are gone or the water reaches 0 C.

Although energy moving from hotter to cooler is often associated with particles and pieces becoming more random, disorder isn't dependant on energy decreasing and energy decreasing isn't dependant on disorder.

There is a constant huge amount of energy from the sun hitting the earth. This energy has a lower entropy then after the energy has moved through life and been turned into mostly heat. The energy comes from the sun, and rises in entropy while going through plants and animals.

Things don't have to become more disorderly! They have to move from higher energy to lower energy, as a whole.

So your who phony entropy idea is a damn ploy made by hardcore christians such as yourself! (who also made up such things to satisfy their nagging consciences such as the idea that there are no transitional fossils (which is an outright lie) I'll take care of that next post, goddamnit)

[Ego Tripping]

Originally posted by user
I expected you to say I was taking the easy way out, and I'm going to have to show you up now.

You don't understand entropy. I have already bebunked your entropy claim. We exist BY creating entropy.

Since you have pissed me off by insisting on holding to false premises, then I will show you the truth about evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. Even though I already have fifty times. If this isn't enough to get your head straight then there's nothing I can do for you.

The second law of thermodynamics does not state that thing always move from order to disorder. And no, it's not the "always" in there that's the catch, there is no catch. The law of entropy isn't about order or disorder.

http://www.entropylaw.com/

I guess they are wrong ALSO. Too bad they are purely Scientific. (but let me guess, they are conspirators of Creationists trying to corrupt the theory of Evolution! It's just propaganda!)

Here is the second law of thermodynamics "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." Entropy measures the movement of energy. The second law of thermodynamics is like saying that the ice cubes in your drink will never grow, only shrink until they are gone or the water reaches 0 C.

Although energy moving from hotter to cooler is often associated with particles and pieces becoming more random, disorder isn't dependant on energy decreasing and energy decreasing isn't dependant on disorder.

You'd be abslutely right...if there was only one definition.

en·tro·py ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntr-p)
n. pl. en·tro·pies
A) Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
B) A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system. (Universe is a Closed System)
C) A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
D) The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
E) Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society. (But wait...Evolution is a system that doesn't seem to deteriorate...hmmmmm )

Right from the Dictionary...But wait a second...I thought it's not about order from disorder! I guess the Dictionary people must be Creationists also.

there is a constant huge amount of energy from the sun hitting the earth. This energy has a lower entropy then after the energy has moved through life and been turned into mostly heat. The energy comes from the sun, and rises in entropy while going through plants and animals.

Too bad this definition doesn't help Evolution.

Things don't have to become more disorderly! They have to move from higher energy to lower energy, as a whole.

I agree. Doesn't change things though, you're only speaking about transfer of energy, not a species evolving.

So your who phony entropy idea is a damn ploy made by hardcore christians such as yourself! (who also made up such things to satisfy their nagging consciences such as the idea that there are no transitional fossils (which is an outright lie) I'll take care of that next post, goddamnit) [/b]

WTF? You didn't show me anything besides ONE of the Definitions of Entropy. Damn man, you're a disgrace to the Scientific community, all I had to do was hit the Dictionary to get the answer.

Edit - Never said I was a Christian, at all. You keep blowing past everything I say and then taking offense to it. And you still haven't addressed anything besides Entropy. Or given me one reason why the link I posted are "propaganda", considering they mention nothing of Religious background. You're not the sharpest marble in the bag, are you?

[moldyorangepeel]

Thats the definition. Sorry. It's not about disorder, that's only a simplification to try to make it easier to understand. But increased disorder is not what it's about, I'm terribly sorry.

Please don't give me any more bullshit about me not researching the very ideas which I believe, when yours is the case with no proof possible. You simply cannot prove creationism, it's impossible. Why should I try to argue with someone who throws logic aside? Well, I do it for the fans.

Here's a link, I'll post the main pic in case you refuse the link.

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

there are plenty more, this is a good one.

[moldyorangepeel]

Originally posted by Ego Tripping
http://www.entropylaw.com/

I guess they are wrong ALSO. Too bad they are purely Scientific. (but let me guess, they are conspirators of Creationists trying to corrupt the theory of Evolution! It's just propaganda!)

actually, they are very right! I recommend that site to everyone.

You'd be abslutely right...if there was only one definition.

en·tro·py ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntr-p)
n. pl. en·tro·pies
A) Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
B) A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system. (Universe is a Closed System)
C) A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
D) The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
E) Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society. (But wait...Evolution is a system that doesn't seem to deteriorate...hmmmmm )

Right from the Dictionary...But wait a second...I thought it's not about order from disorder! I guess the Dictionary people must be Creationists also.[/b]

You consider that a scientific definition? Its only for explaining things to numbskulls.

I agree. Doesn't change things though, you're only speaking about transfer of energy, not a species evolving.[/b]

I'm only trying to show you that your idea of the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.

You're not the sharpest marble in the bag, are you? [/b]

Please argue with respect. Argue like you're not as desprate as you are.