tgamble

Enjoy!

<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science/2ndlaw.html" target="_blank">http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science/2ndlaw.html</a>

Creationism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: the REAL creationist position

MadMordigan

According to Ratzsch’s book (p. 92), Morris does not actually claim that these criteria are from the 2nd law itself, but rather that we have good empirical basis for accepting them.

So in reality, the 2nd law has nothing to do with Morris' argument.

Automaton

It's hilarious how the creationists squirm and change their nonsensical positions to new nonsensical positions when confronted with reality. I can't believe people are suckered in by this bullshit.

unworthyone

Lets turn that around: Piltdown and Neanderthal Man.

It's hilarious how the evolutionists squirm and change their nonsensical positions to new nonsensical positions when confronted with their own tests and fallacies.

gallo

Piltdown was never given high regard on the Continent and only scant recognition in the U.S. It received most of its acclaim from the British. Many respected scientists thought it was fishy at the time. But even if that were not true, the fraud was researched and revealed by evolutionary scientists, not by creationists or "creation scientists." Generally, there is always a legitimate scientist who is willing to point out the warts on science. Would that creationists were as honest.

But, even at that, science doesn't deny that Piltdown was a hoax. On the other hand, actual hominid fossils that were other than what might have been expected made any creature like Piltdown look strange.

You also mention Neandertal. What fallacies are you talking about? I imagine it will be some long ago discredited story about suits of armor and arthritis - or maybe some crap about how they were really old people (which means that Neandertal children were really old).

unworthyone

Yes. How can one prove these were not human or that they evolved into humans if they weren't?

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]</p>

RufusAtticus

However, as I understand it, Neandertals are considered to be humans (Homo sapiens neandertalensis). They are, however, not considered to be modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) due to distinct skeletal morphologies, cultural remains, and the timeline.

Deb will eventually give us the most accurate answer.

-RvFvS

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

gallo

Yes. No doubt. And Deb will tell us that DNA studies indicate that Neandertals were not ancestral to modern humans but rather shared a common ancestor with them. Is that a difficult concept?

I'm not sure what worthlessone sees as a problem. How can he claim that it is hilarious on the one hand and demand "proof" on the other. Does he not understand science? Where did worthlessone ever see a claim that Neandertals evolved into humans? I believe that Neandertals are currently considered as a separate species of the genus Homo.

Deb?

unworthyone

Your bro called creationists hilarious. So I flipped it around on him.
You must be atheist? Your claim sounds exactly like "You Christians are hilarious, you have no physical proof of God"
Yes I am worthless too, thank you.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: unworthyone ]</p>

RufusAtticus

Gallo, I think that that was uncalled for at this stage of the game. You should consider apologizing.

So far, unworthyone does not appear to be this month's randman. I would very much like to avoid any flame wars.

Thank you for your cooperation.

-RvFvS