See this article first:
http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Of-God-atheists-and-believers-20120203
The above – not Steve’s attempt at flying – is the famous second law of
thermodynamics. This phenomenon is better known as entropy.
The fact however remains, for as long as man has been alive dogs have
given birth to dogs and apes have lived and bred without exhibiting any visible
evidence of macro-evolution. We may insist on calling ourselves
homo-sapien-sapiens but we cannot tell the difference between modern man and
homo-sapiens from fifty years ago.
The second law of thermodynamics only applies in
CLOSED SYSTEMS. Thanks for the shining example you gave that you actually have
no damn clue about what you tried to use as the basis for your deliberately
erroneous argument. The earth and all life on it are not closed systems as they
readily receive energy from outside sources (like the sun). Go back to class
and wait for the teacher to finish the chapter before you try to pick holes in
something you don’t even understand. You can get away with it here on news24
where 90% of people probably didn’t even have science as a subject after grade
9, but the other 10% know exactly what you are talking about. You can’t hide
behind the ignorance of the general populous for long.
Evolution does not dictate that a dog will give
birth to a wale or a half dog half whale, the offspring will merely have
incremental changes, which if beneficial to help it better reproduce, will
become the norm across the specie over time. 50 Years will show infinitesimal
changes too small to detect with your lazy eyes (when you try to observe macro
evolution in a large animal), which is why evolution takes millions of years to
morph creatures from land running animals to fully aquatic creatures, the same
way a seal is currently in the transitional state of losing all semblance of it
once being a land dwelling creature. And no you clay pot, you won’t see that
transformation completed in your lifetime. And don’t bark your excuse, if I
can’t see it, I won’t believe it, because then you cannot believe in god or the
claims of the bible, as none can be verified by the naked eye. Your question
can be equated to asking your mum why the cake is not ready to eat after being
in the oven for 5 seconds, and the proclaiming, I DON’T BELIEVE IN BAKED CAKES!
There are indeed stupid questions, thanks for providing evidence of that truth.
I would like to further make the assertion that it takes a very brave man,
maybe even a foolish one, to deny the fact of micro-evolution. Species adapt to
their surroundings to survive. However, can any one man submit material evidence
of an observed and complete alteration of an entire animal species? We’ve
heard enough of the atheist’s muttering that there is no God. And that is fine;
God is democratic – that bit in his word about freewill. So in a sense He’s
allowed us the freedom and opportunity to call Him a human invention. So let
the atheists raise his glass in a toast to his belief. It is however, not
without consequence and Christians need not feel bad about this. God has made
his own determination that “the fool says in his mind there is no god”.
Yes, to see the alteration of an entire
animal species, you can look at any living thing on the earth, the entire
fossil record, genetics, DNA and taxonomy. And what an ancient book says about
the intelligence of modern people (who can do things infinitely more miraculous
than the god of the bible can, even in fantastic scripture) is of no relevance
to anyone and it proves no point; it merely serves as an ad hominem…
The following extract makes the point rather well:
The implications of the
Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly
losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is
not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was
at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up
clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up
and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the
clock?
The theological implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow
commented on these implications when he said, "Theologians generally are
delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are
curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us
do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert
Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)
Jastrow went on to say, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in
the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the
mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls
himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have
been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.) It
seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a
Cosmic Chicken...
Source: www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm
actually
Ah, the old quote mining machine. Nice to see it
still gets used, rusted and decrepit as it is. However, these people and their
comments are well known to mean nothing. Saying someone is wrong, without
providing evidence as to the fact, is called an AD HOMINEM argument. It has no
basis in reality, similar to when Christians reassure themselves, ah it’s all
ok because the bible said, “the fool says in his mind there is no god”. It does
not prove anything except the stupidity of the one making the comment.
If not, we are faced with a question that scientists have yet to answer,
how does biology violate a law that no other branch of science has managed to
violate?
If not, then chance/evolution must be very intelligent and should in the
final analysis turn out to be a type of god as well.
It does not violate the law, your comprehension
of the law violates understanding. You have confused yourself.
Yeah that god is called evidence, and its savior
is science.
Why hasn’t man evolved wings? After all, we have a very strong and
pressing need to cover vast distances and avoid traffic. Now that would be
great of Chance/Evolution if he could, in his kindness, grant us that ability.
Then we would willingly all throw our bibles away and proclaim the genius of
atheism.Of God, atheists and believers
It is hard to believe that
someone can be so willfully oblivious of the most comprehensive theory in
science. I’ll bite though. You didn’t evolve wings for the same reason
elephants didn’t. The whole structure of the body is wrong, it is too far
evolved into a certain shape to simply sprout wings because you don’t want to
pay for an airline ticket. And humans could have evolved wings, in fact any
specie could if it was in an environment when any sort of flight (even a hop
from one tree to the next with enough sustained flight to keep it from crashing
to the ground) would enhance its chance to breed so those traits can be
inherited and further benefits from mutations would again create the next level
(a better flyer, perhaps a glider), and the next level (A creature capable of
sustained flight). Those creatures that were in such environments are around
today as the various flying and gliding creatures we find in nature. Likewise,
creatures that had an environment where a bigger brain, a more erect form, and
a very complex social structure ensured their survival have evolved (the whole
primate bunch, the most evolved of which being a sub-specie the homo sapiens).
Now don’t worry, I know you
don’t understand it, and it makes no sense to you whatsoever. Thus you believe
an explanation where the answer is…. GOD DID IT! But the fact that it boggles
your mind, oh like say how programming boggles the mind of the average
secretary, or how university mathematics boggles the mind of the average
university student, does not mean that if you can’t make sense of it, there is
no sense contained in it. The measurement of accuracy of a theory is not “BUT
WOULD A FOOL UNDERSTAND IT AND AGREE?”.
Next please…
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.