[Genryu]

Well, proof that the evolution is the work of Evil : AIDS. I mean, this dear little viruses are a proof of evolution, since that's why we have problem curing it. The weaker form of the virus are killed of by the medication we try on it, but the stronger form stay, and evolves to get immune against this medication. Survival of the fittest, like this evil, evil  Darwin guy said, against the word of GOD.
/me is going to watch Dogma again, then Back to the future.
In other words : Chill out people. Personnaly, I see science as having made much more than religion to improve the quality of life for all of humanity,which is why i tend to put more faith (oh, the irony ) in scientific explanation than in religious one. Only religious people I respect for their fatih are the Mormon who still live in condition equal to the 18th century, since at least they are not hypocritical enough to use what science has offered to badmouth it later.

[pyro-manic]

Originally posted by jpheu
Pyro,
We can get into a discussion about the existence of God and why He is a involved God in another thread.

You can't take the words of men as the Word of God. Even if the men responsible did have direct contact with god, there's no way they could comprehend everything they were told - that would mean being on the same level of reality as god, which cannot happen. Thus the bible is, and can only ever be an interpretation, the words of men trying to convey what they experienced (contact with god would not be like a conversation) in words.

[jpheu]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
jpheu, the second law of thermodynamics simply cannot be applied like that site mentions, first it does not applies to any case in general that I am aware of and even if it did, they don't even take into consideration all of the entropy (heat, material losses between generations, etc, etc, etc...) which would in essence refute any possible claim of violating that law. In other words, it is the most used fallacy on the face of the Earth and any mention of it grants the speaker of such violation a pair of

Search around the forums, I believe it has been mentioned like a billion times before.

It isn't a case of where the Second Law of Thermodynamics is applied.  A law is a law because it applies to all of science.  From biology, to chemestry, to physics, to botany, etc.
The argument in it's simplest form is: 1) The second Law of thermodynamics says that the universe is going from a state of order to a state of disorder, ie. De-evolution.  2)Evolution says that the universe is going from a state of disorder to order.
3) These two statements cannot be equally true.

There are three ways to argue with it.  1)deny that the second law of thermodynamics says that.  2) deny that evolution says that, or 3)tell me that while the universe is becoming disorganised it is also becoming more organised. (the oxymoron approach)

[jpheu]

Pyro,
If you insist on arguing this here then I must first have definitions.  How do you define God?  (was that flame-baiting?)

[vyper]

A metaphysical concept created by humans living in the early stages of our current form of society, to explain what could not be explained due to the limitations of science at that time.

Also a hell of a way to keep everyone in line.

But that's my definition, not his, so carry on.

[Ghostavo]

No, evolution does not imply order from disorder, when you try to order something you automatically raise the entropy of the system with heat release, etc...

Also straight from wikipedia

Evolution, creationism and the second law

Creationists often claim that biological evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, citing a flawed version of the law that states that entropy never decreases.

Biologists point out that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to a closed system, which the Earth is not, since it receives megajoules per second of energy from the Sun. The flawed version of the law would preclude any decrease in entropy, including things like the formation of a snowflake. This objection is not grounded in any understanding of thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

[jpheu]

vyper,
So... God is a concept? nothing more.  only existing  in the minds of people?

[jpheu]

Ghostavo,
I didn't say imply.  I said says. it changes the meaning entirely.  
Your wikipedia quote is very limited in its grasp.  The Creationist argument, like the evolutionary argument is for the whole universe.  Which is a closed system.

Your responce would seem that you are disagreing with my definition of the second law of thermodynamics and with my definition of Evolution.  Please, supply your own definitions, and we will debate those.

[Ford Prefect]

Evolutionary theory isn't meant to describe the whole universe. It describes how some completely meaningless **** happens on a completely meaningless piece of dust in a completely meaningless universe. It's really quite small in scope when you take a step back.

[Ghostavo]

Evolution doesn't imply, or in words you cannot misunderstand, does not mean, cannot mean and will never mean an decrease of entropy of the system in study (Earth) because of:

1- The system is not closed, therefore throwing the second law off the place you wish it to be.

2- Any site mentioning such a violation of the second law doesn't even consider the release of entropy into the system (which suffers from what I said in 1).

According to your definition of the second law of thermodynamics, you cannot at any time freeze water! Yes, that's right, water is in a much organized state than it was when it was liquid, I have managed to bypass the second law completly! True? No, the heat (or energy) from the water raised the entropy of what's around the frozen water therefore making the overall entropy of the system be like it was before or even greater (depending on other stuff of course).

So concluding, any mentioning of the second law of thermodynamics prohibiting evolution cannot be taken seriously as even those who make such claims do not take the second law seriously as they do not care how the law works, just where the flawed version they try to throw at people's faces takes them.

[Flipside]

Interesting question... is the Universe a closed system? From a religious standpoint it is not, it is effected by an 'external' source, i.e, God, but what about from a Scientific viewpoint?

Personally, I don't think the Universe is 'closed' but not because of any sentient or judging external entity

[Ghostavo]

Even if the universe was closed there is no presently possible way of measuring the entropy of the entire universe, as one cannot even know it's entire extention.

[Ford Prefect]

We don't know enough about the universe to make the conclusion about what kind of system it is.  For instance, some have theorized that electromagnetism is a force from another plane of existence that is manifesting itself in ours.

[Flipside]

The thing is, it's like a hologram, smash a hologram up into minute pieces, and then look into one of those pieces. You will see the whole hologram intact, every tiny grain of a hologram contains an image of the whole thing. The universe can be like that sometimes.

[Gank]

Do holograms exist?

And lol, creation scientists, walking talking oxymorons.

[vyper]

Originally posted by jpheu
vyper,
So... God is a concept? nothing more.  only existing  in the minds of people?

I believe thats what I said, yes.

[jpheu]

Ghostavo,
Your water analogy is where the wikipedia argument comes in.  Water when the heat reduced to 32 degrees F. by an outside source turns to ice.  This implies an outside energy force for in and of itself water cannot turn to ice.  Again thermodynamics, in the creationist argument is universally applied.  

Again, I ask what is your definition of evolution? Part of Mariam-webster puts it: a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state :

[jpheu]

I'll catch up tomorrow guys.  Keep it up.

[Ford Prefect]

You're being pedantic. You know what the scientific process of evolution is, but you're playing with other, broader definitions of the word.

Biological evolution is the process by which individuals of a species either die or survive for long enough to reproduce, causing the gradual change of the species over time depending on the dynamics of the environment.

It should be noted that evolution doesn't always happen if there's no reason for it to happen. The crocodilians are a prime example; they've hardly changed for millions and millions of years.

[Ghostavo]

OMFG.

I am stating a close system where the water and a cold body are close or together.

Also, biological evolution = change in the genetic components of a species over time. The definition you quoted (I assume) is flawed as evolution does not mean that a being goes from a simple being to a complex one, just one that adapts to the enviroment, or else virus wouldn't exist.