liquid

I'd like to rebut that guy and all the nonsense he is talking, but I can't be bothered to regster at ARN as well! I 'contribute' to quite a few boards, and I'm losing my life and friends! (Well, not really, but it is damaging my exams!)

I'll take a look at the thread and perhaps suummarise a counter-argument that you can pick up if you like. Perhaps.

Edited update...

that topic is 8 pages long and would take hours and hours and hours to address! No way can I be bothered to tackle that! Some of the garbage is unbelievable.

The only thing I would say is that the mathematical form of the 2LoT I presented only indicates why the creationists are wrong to claim that in principle evolution can't happen. In an actual situation, involving irreversibilities and losses, some things that are in principle possible are practically not. That is when the sophisticated analysis comes in. Still, not that physical analysis is actually needed because its evident that organisms overcome these irreversibilities by their mere existance.

As an addendum, I'd just like to mention that it is actually to be expected that order arises in our system. You might have heard the famous phrase 'nature abhors a gradient' - this is the 'cause' of gravity, thermodynamics etc. Nature actively tries to reach the lowest energy highest entropy state as rapidly as it can.

Strangely enough, it appears that by forming ordered methods of dissipating heat (such as the biosphere), the entropic degradation of the the total system is actually improved, and so in certain conditions order tends to form 'spontaneously' on a thermodynamic gradient. Unfortunately, this isn't an area I know much about, so I really can't elaborate any more.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: liquid ]</p>