tgamble

Hey, have you guys heard the claim that evolution is prevented by thermodynamics?

I read in Dr. Willard Young's book ("Fallacies of creationism") that haveing no death (as creationists claim) is a violation of that the law not existed would prevent light and even free will. That's as much of the argument as I can remember.

If anyone can explain why this is so I'd appretiate it. It's something that's come up on another forum.

bd-from-kg

This is a common creationist argument and definitely in the running for the stupidest one of all. Some good articles on it can be found at talk.origins, specifically <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html" target="_blank">here</a>. (My only complaint is that they are far too respectful of this so-called argument.)

A word of advice: any time you encounter this claim you can be sure that you are dealing with scientific illiterates who are so ignorant that they don't even know that they're scientific illiterates. To think that there's anything to this, you have to believe that all the scientists who believe in evolution (which is to say, virtually all scientists) either don't know about the Second Law or haven't noticed its supposed incompatibility with evolution. Or else you have to believe that all those evil scientists do know, but are determined to foist a demonstrably false theory on an unsuspecting public. Unless you enjoy arguing with idiots, the best policy is to ignore anyone who starts spouting this nonsense.

tgamble

Actually the question was meant as humor.

I know full well that it's a favorite argument of cretinists and I know that it's bullshit.

I don't think it's one of the more stupid ones. It's nothing compared to "the oldest tree is 4000 years old so the earth is young"!

faded_Glory

tgamble,

Are you by chance referring to the <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001887.html" target="_blank">Jeptha gang-bang </a>over on ARN?

fG

tgamble

nope. nothing to do with that board.