Real Science Friday: The Energy Order of the Universe

[serpentdove]

Arguing that entropy is somehow a problem for evolution is like saying that airplanes cannot fly due to the laws of physics, while they are zooming over our heads.

Yet another Wrong Science Friday classic

Worshipping yourself as usual, Alate_One? Thank you for another false analogy.

The show is called real science. For those who trust God and his truth not your best guess. Let's just throw out that second law of thermodynamics for you. :hammer:

"You believe God (revelation) or you believe man (speculation)." J. Vernon McGee

This universe is winding down. You'd better find yourself a place in the new one (Isa 65:17).

 

[Alate_One]

Similar sort of creature. Are they not similar?

Uhh one is a velvet worm that's about 6 inches long and one is an arthropod sort of thing that's about a meter long. They're in entirely different phyla, they're entirely different sizes. One is soft bodied the other is hard.

You may as well say whales are the same thing as a starfish. They are both animals that live in the water and that's it.

You're clearly being dishonest in this whole conversation, but that's standard operating procedure from creationists. I told you how to falsify evolution yet you deny it over and over.

I've seen no deposits that have "uniform creatures" and apparently you have no idea what "uniform" is if you think Anomalocaris is the same thing as a velvet worm. All of the famous deposits I'm aware of have entire assemblages of creatures.

 

[Lighthouse]

Huh? If I posted ALL of the data supporting evolution, well it would take up the entire forum.

I'm only asking for enough to prove the idea that entropy is a problem for evolution wrong. Nothing more. Also, nothing less.

I mentioned ONE period. However what I asked for has nothing to do with accepting periods or not. I asked for organisms being found together, in the SAME rock layers. If everything lived at the same time, there should be absolutely no difficulty in finding a deer, bird or snake skull alongside tiktaalik, or ichthyostega, or dimetrodon or any of the others.

Why would everything live at the same time?

 

[serpentdove]

I'm only asking for enough to prove the idea that entropy is a problem for evolution wrong. Nothing more. Also, nothing less...

For the benefit of Alate_One (so interested in truth).

"Entropy and disorder? In countless publications, examples are given which illustrate that when the entropy of a system increases, the amount of disorder also increases; in other words, the orderliness is diminished. This idea has unfortunately also been extended to biological systems..." full text: Energy http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/energy

"A very important concept in physics is the conservation of energy. This principle states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. There are a lot of different kinds of energy; heat, light, sound, and electricity are all forms of energy. We can change one type of energy into another and we can move energy from one place to another, but the total quantity of energy in the universe is constant and cannot be changed.

There is also a conservation principle of mass. Mass is the property of an object to resist a change in its motion. Things that possess a lot of mass are very heavy; things with little mass are light. We can move mass from place to place, and transform one kind of mass into another (by a chemical reaction for example), but, just like energy, mass cannot be created nor destroyed. So both mass and energy are conserved. In fact, Einstein was able to demonstrate that all energy possesses an equivalent mass, and vice versa. To put it another way, mass and energy are really the same thing manifesting in different ways. This is the meaning of Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2. We can combine these principles into the conservation of mass-energy. Colloquially speaking, the amount of “stuff” in the universe is constant.

Conservation of mass-energy is exactly what we would expect on the basis of Scripture. First, the Bible indicates that no new material can come into existence. This is indicated in John 1:3 and Genesis 2:2. John 1:3 states that all things were made by God, and nothing has come into existence apart from Him. Furthermore, God ended His work of creation by the seventh day of the creation week, according to Genesis 2:2. Since only God can bring new things into existence from nothing, and since God ended His work of creation by the seventh day, no new material will come into existence today.
Second, the Bible suggests that nothing will cease to exist. This is because God is upholding all things by His sustaining power (Hebrews 1:3) and by Him all things consist (Colossians 1:17). Neither matter nor energy will cease to exist, because God is sustaining them, and since nothing new will come into existence, we can conclude that the amount of material in the universe is constant. Of course, the Bible makes room for miracles—supernatural interventions by God, but miracles (by definition) do not conform to the laws of physics; they are exceptions by their very nature. The universe itself obeys the law of conservation of mass-energy..."
The Universe Confirms the Bible http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/universe-confirms-bible

 

[PlastikBuddha]

For the benefit of Alate_One (so interested in truth).

"Entropy and disorder? In countless publications, examples are given which illustrate that when the entropy of a system increases, the amount of disorder also increases; in other words, the orderliness is diminished. This idea has unfortunately also been extended to biological systems..." full text: Energy http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/energy

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
Not that I expect you to read it, Serpent:duh:. Still having fun whitewashing those sepulchres?

 

[Memento Mori]

I'm only asking for enough to prove the idea that entropy is a problem for evolution wrong. Nothing more. Also, nothing less.


Why would everything live at the same time?

For your first statement, entropy is not a problem for evolution. Entropy says that heat is wasted and closed systems become more disorder. However, the Earth is not a closed system. In fact, there is a giant energy source pumping the Earth full of energy. It's even around today!

For the second, some Christians claim that dinosaurs existed alongside humans and all current animals. If this is true, we should find people in the same strata of rock as dinosaurs. This would falsify evolution.

 

[serpentdove]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
Not that I expect you to read it, Serpent:duh:. Still having fun whitewashing those sepulchres?

Always on the wrong side of truth aren't you, PB? Remember?--Those Pharisees who were offended by the truth of the Bible? (Mt 15:12; 21:45; Luk 16:14). Who is the white-washed sepulcher? Who is the lawless, unclean, hypocrite? (Mt 23:27-28)--Let the reader decide:

"Circular reasoning:

One answer is circular reasoning: many scientists believe the world is old because they believe most other scientists think the world is old..."

The evolution connection:

It is noteworthy that most (though not all) of the scientists who believe in billions of years also believe in particles-to-people evolution. Evolution requires vast ages. It couldn’t possibly have happened on a mere 6,000-year time scale, because such profound changes would then have to be happening so rapidly that we would not only see massive transformations all around us, we would have historical records of many examples. Yet, we have never seen life evolve from non-life, nor have we ever seen a living organism evolve into another kind with greater specified complexity. These “uphill” changes just aren’t observed; indeed, they seem to be impossible..."

The big-bang connection:

I have found that most people who believe in billions of years also believe in the “big-bang theory.” The big bang is a secular speculation about the origin of the universe; it is an alternative to the Bible. The big bang attempts to explain the origin of the universe without God. It can be considered the cosmic equivalent of particles-to-people evolution. Sadly, a lot of Christians have bought into the idea of the big bang, without realizing that it is based on the anti-biblical philosophy of naturalism (there is no God, nature is all there is or ever was). Furthermore, they are generally not aware that the big bang contradicts the Bible on a number of points and has many scientific problems as well.

According to the big bang idea, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old; whereas the Bible indicates that the universe is about 6,000 years old. For those who claim to believe the Bible, this difference alone should be sufficient reason to reject the big bang. It is wrong about the age of the universe by a factor of over two million! But it is not just a problem of time scale; the Bible gives a different order of events than the current secular opinion...

Future of the Universe:

The big bang is a story about the alleged past, but it is also a story about the alleged future. According to the currently favored version of the big bang, the universe will continue to expand indefinitely and grow colder. Usable energy will become increasingly scarce, and will eventually cease altogether, at which point the universe will die a “heat death.” At this point, no “heat” will be left, so the universe will have a temperature close to absolute zero everywhere. No life will be possible at that point since no usable energy will exist.

Heat death is a rather bleak scenario, and quite different from the future the Bible teaches...

The Assumptions of Naturalism and Uniformitarianism:

A belief in naturalism and uniformitarianism can cause a person to make a vastly inflated estimate of the age of the earth and universe. Recall that naturalism is the belief that nothing exists outside of nature. In this view, the universe and everything in it came about by the same kinds of processes observed within the universe.

Naturalism is, of course, an unbiblical concept since the Bible makes it clear that God created the universe supernaturally...Naturalism often leads to exaggerated age estimates when applied to supernaturally created things...

The distant starlight problem:

...The argument that distant starlight disproves the biblical account of creation and supports an old “big-bang” universe is based on faulty reasoning.

First, notice that the distant starlight argument is based on the fallacious assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. It assumes that the light got here entirely by natural means, and traveled at a constant rate, over a constant distance, with time also being constant. Of course, it is possible that God may indeed have used “natural means” to get the light here. It may also be that some of the things assumed to be constant in time (such as the speed of light) are indeed constant, but is there any logical reason why we would automatically know beforehand that these must be the case? Remember that God created the lights in the sky to give light upon the earth. This happened during the creation week where God was creating in a supernatural way...

Light travel-time: a problem for the big bang:

There is another fatal flaw in using a light travel-time argument like distant starlight to reject the Bible in favor of the big bang. Such an argument is subtly self-refuting. This is because the big bang also has a light travel-time problem!...

Attempts at compromise:

The belief in billions of years has a stranglehold on our culture today—even within the church. Many professing Christians have been taken in by the fallacious distant starlight argument or other eisegetical claims involving anti-biblical assumptions. As a result, many Christians have compromised; they have attempted to “add” the billions of years to the Bible...

...Ultimately, the Bible teaches that God created in six days and the secular opinion is that the universe evolved over billions of years. Each of us must decide whether we are going to trust the secular opinions of human beings, or the clear teaching of the Bible...[T]he Bible has always been correct when it touches upon astronomy...

The evidence confirms a young universe:

Even now, the scientific evidence is very consistent with what the Bible teaches about the age of the universe. Why then do many secular scientists believe that the evidence points to a multi-billion-year-old universe? People who believe in the big bang generally interpret the evidence according to the big bang (sometimes without even realizing it). In other words, they simply assume that the big bang is true and they interpret the evidence to match their beliefs...

The Horizon Problem:

In the big-bang model, the universe begins in an infinitely small state called a singularity, which then rapidly expands. According to the big-bang model, when the universe was still very small it would have developed different temperatures in different locations. Let’s suppose that point A is hot and point B is cold. Today, the universe has expanded and points A and B are now widely separated.

However, the universe has an extremely uniform temperature at great distance—beyond the farthest known galaxies. In other words, points A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today.
The critic may suggest that the big bang is a better explanation of origins than the Bible since biblical creation has a light travel-time problem—distant starlight. Such an argument is not rational since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. If both models have the same problem in essence, then that problem cannot be used to support one model over the other. Therefore, distant starlight cannot be used to dismiss the Bible in favor of the big bang..." full text: The Age of the Universe Pt. 1 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/age-of-the-universe-1

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Always on the wrong side of truth aren't you, PB?

How would you know? YOu have no interest in Truth, only convenient soundbites that support your ill-conceived preconceptions.

Remember?--Those Pharisees who were offended by the truth of the Bible? (Mt 15:12; 21:45; Luk 16:14).

They were offended by grace, by that which rises above the Law and accomplishes what it cannot.

Who is the white-washed sepulcher? Who is the lawless, unclean, hypocrite? (Mt 23:27-28)--Let the reader decide:

Let God decide, Serpent:duh:- He isn't fooled by your misdirection and outright dishonesty.

"Circular reasoning:

One answer is circular reasoning: many scientists believe the world is old because they believe most other scientists think the world is old..."

Um, no- they believe the world is old because that is what the evidence points to. I know you wouldn't know, because things like "evidence" and "facts" are so much less gripping than blurbs from AiG, but that's how science works.

The evolution connection:

It is noteworthy that most (though not all) of the scientists who believe in billions of years also believe in particles-to-people evolution.

Weird- it's almost as if scientists don't view science as a buffet in which you can grab what you want and discard that which makes you uncomfortable.

Evolution requires vast ages. It couldn’t possibly have happened on a mere 6,000-year time scale, because such profound changes would then have to be happening so rapidly that we would not only see massive transformations all around us, we would have historical records of many examples. Yet, we have never seen life evolve from non-life, nor have we ever seen a living organism evolve into another kind with greater specified complexity. These “uphill” changes just aren’t observed; indeed, they seem to be impossible..."

Hogwash. Evolution has been observed. Sticking your fingers in your ears won't make it go away.

The big-bang connection:

I have found that most people who believe in billions of years also believe in the “big-bang theory.” The big bang is a secular speculation about the origin of the universe; it is an alternative to the Bible. The big bang attempts to explain the origin of the universe without God. It can be considered the cosmic equivalent of particles-to-people evolution. Sadly, a lot of Christians have bought into the idea of the big bang, without realizing that it is based on the anti-biblical philosophy of naturalism (there is no God, nature is all there is or ever was). Furthermore, they are generally not aware that the big bang contradicts the Bible on a number of points and has many scientific problems as well.

According to the big bang idea, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old; whereas the Bible indicates that the universe is about 6,000 years old. For those who claim to believe the Bible, this difference alone should be sufficient reason to reject the big bang. It is wrong about the age of the universe by a factor of over two million! But it is not just a problem of time scale; the Bible gives a different order of events than the current secular opinion...

Is history an "opinion"? Or only when it disagrees with what you want to hear?

Future of the Universe:

The big bang is a story about the alleged past, but it is also a story about the alleged future. According to the currently favored version of the big bang, the universe will continue to expand indefinitely and grow colder. Usable energy will become increasingly scarce, and will eventually cease altogether, at which point the universe will die a “heat death.” At this point, no “heat” will be left, so the universe will have a temperature close to absolute zero everywhere. No life will be possible at that point since no usable energy will exist.

Heat death is a rather bleak scenario, and quite different from the future the Bible teaches...

Praise God that we are not meant solely for the natural world, then.

The Assumptions of Naturalism and Uniformitarianism:

A belief in naturalism and uniformitarianism can cause a person to make a vastly inflated estimate of the age of the earth and universe. Recall that naturalism is the belief that nothing exists outside of nature. In this view, the universe and everything in it came about by the same kinds of processes observed within the universe.

Naturalism is, of course, an unbiblical concept since the Bible makes it clear that God created the universe supernaturally...Naturalism often leads to exaggerated age estimates when applied to supernaturally created things...

How? Can you demonstrate how believing that science should focus on the natural (which is axiomatic, btw) would lead to someone to "overestimate" the age of the universe? Or do you mean simply that it wil lead people to actually examine the physical evidence and come to that conclusion "naturally"?

The distant starlight problem:

...The argument that distant starlight disproves the biblical account of creation and supports an old “big-bang” universe is based on faulty reasoning.

First, notice that the distant starlight argument is based on the fallacious assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. It assumes that the light got here entirely by natural means, and traveled at a constant rate, over a constant distance, with time also being constant. Of course, it is possible that God may indeed have used “natural means” to get the light here. It may also be that some of the things assumed to be constant in time (such as the speed of light) are indeed constant, but is there any logical reason why we would automatically know beforehand that these must be the case? Remember that God created the lights in the sky to give light upon the earth. This happened during the creation week where God was creating in a supernatural way...

So you are saying it is possible that God is a liar who uses the medium of the universe itself to create false assumptions in His creation?
Why do you call yourself a Christian again?

Light travel-time: a problem for the big bang:

There is another fatal flaw in using a light travel-time argument like distant starlight to reject the Bible in favor of the big bang. Such an argument is subtly self-refuting. This is because the big bang also has a light travel-time problem!...

Don't leave us hanging- clue us in on this "problem"...

Attempts at compromise:

The belief in billions of years has a stranglehold on our culture today—even within the church.

Facts have a way of doing that.
lain:

Many professing Christians have been taken in by the fallacious distant starlight argument or other eisegetical claims involving anti-biblical assumptions. As a result, many Christians have compromised; they have attempted to “add” the billions of years to the Bible...

...Ultimately, the Bible teaches that God created in six days and the secular opinion is that the universe evolved over billions of years. Each of us must decide whether we are going to trust the secular opinions of human beings, or the clear teaching of the Bible...[T]he Bible has always been correct when it touches upon astronomy...

Particularly when you let go of the problematic literalism that keeps you in the dark ages.

The evidence confirms a young universe:

:ha:

Even now, the scientific evidence is very consistent with what the Bible teaches about the age of the universe. Why then do many secular scientists believe that the evidence points to a multi-billion-year-old universe? People who believe in the big bang generally interpret the evidence according to the big bang (sometimes without even realizing it). In other words, they simply assume that the big bang is true and they interpret the evidence to match their beliefs...

The Horizon Problem:

In the big-bang model, the universe begins in an infinitely small state called a singularity, which then rapidly expands. According to the big-bang model, when the universe was still very small it would have developed different temperatures in different locations. Let’s suppose that point A is hot and point B is cold. Today, the universe has expanded and points A and B are now widely separated.

However, the universe has an extremely uniform temperature at great distance—beyond the farthest known galaxies. In other words, points A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today.
The critic may suggest that the big bang is a better explanation of origins than the Bible since biblical creation has a light travel-time problem—distant starlight. Such an argument is not rational since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. If both models have the same problem in essence, then that problem cannot be used to support one model over the other. Therefore, distant starlight cannot be used to dismiss the Bible in favor of the big bang..." full text: The Age of the Universe Pt. 1 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/age-of-the-universe-1

Out of curiousity, I'd like to see you if you understand that last bit well enought to paraphrase it.
Or are you just cutting and pasting without comprehension, banking on your gut-feeling that it must be true since it's from AiG?
How about it, Serpent:duh:?

 

[Lighthouse]

For your first statement, entropy is not a problem for evolution. Entropy says that heat is wasted and closed systems become more disorder. However, the Earth is not a closed system. In fact, there is a giant energy source pumping the Earth full of energy. It's even around today!

:doh:

Talk about not understanding.

For the second, some Christians claim that dinosaurs existed alongside humans and all current animals. If this is true, we should find people in the same strata of rock as dinosaurs. This would falsify evolution.

And? Your point? The original question was to Alate_One asking him to prove that entropy is not a problem for evolution. His response was to ask me to falsify evolution. I asked first and he refuses to answer.

 

[Alate_One]

:doh:
Talk about not understanding.

No, YOU don't get it. Its not worth arguing entropy with you because you don't understand it yourself. Neither do those creationists that claim entropy is a problem for evolution.

And? Your point? The original question was to Alate_One asking him to prove that entropy is not a problem for evolution. His response was to ask me to falsify evolution. I asked first and he refuses to answer.

We know entropy isn't a problem for evolution because we KNOW evolution occurs. Its a semantic game to claim its a problem. You've no answer for the mountains of evidence for evolution so you grasp at something you don't even understand and pretend that somehow that fixes everything.

Why would everything live at the same time?

Are you a progressive creationist?

 

[Lighthouse]

No, YOU don't get it. Its not worth arguing entropy with you because you don't understand it yourself. Neither do those creationists that claim entropy is a problem for evolution.

If you know so much then teach me something. You claim I don't understand it, so help me understand.

We know entropy isn't a problem for evolution because we KNOW evolution occurs. Its a semantic game to claim its a problem. You've no answer for the mountains of evidence for evolution so you grasp at something you don't even understand and pretend that somehow that fixes everything.

You don't know squat! Evidence does not equal proof. Sometimes evidence is purely circumstantial.

Are you a progressive creationist?

No. I just understand that crossbreeding happens in the animal kingdom.

 

[Stripe]

I've seen no deposits that have "uniform creatures" and apparently you have no idea what "uniform" is if you think Anomalocaris is the same thing as a velvet worm. All of the famous deposits I'm aware of have entire assemblages of creatures.

You need to get out more then.

 

[Alate_One]

If you know so much then teach me something. You claim I don;t understand it, so help me understand.

I don't believe you're capable of it or honestly interested in the discussion. You only want to have something to attack evolution with.

You don't know squat! Evidence does not equal proof. Sometimes evidence is purely circumstantial.

Science is not about proof. But the more evidence we have the less likely it is circumstantial. The fact that we have NO temporal anomalies in the fossil record like the ones I described earlier tells you that something is really changing. And guess what that's just the fossil record . . . we haven't talked about DNA or biogeography or anything else.

No. I just understand that crossbreeding happens in the animal kingdom.

So what animals of today can we crossbreed to get this? Or this? "Crossbreeding" does not explain the vast differences between what we see in many fossil assemblages vs. what we see today. Go back and look at the Burgess Shale I linked. Tell me what animals you recognize.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't believe you're capable of it or honestly interested in the discussion. You only want to have something to attack evolution with.

I'm going to assume you can't, since all you've given me are excuses not to.

Science is not about proof. But the more evidence we have the less likely it is circumstantial. The fact that we have NO temporal anomalies in the fossil record like the ones I described earlier tells you that something is really changing. And guess what that's just the fossil record . . . we haven't talked about DNA or biogeography or anything else.

Just because none have been found does not mean none exist.

So what animals of today can we crossbreed to get this? Or this? "Crossbreeding" does not explain the vast differences between what we see in many fossil assemblages vs. what we see today. Go back and look at the Burgess Shale I linked. Tell me what animals you recognize.

Who said we could crossbreed animals of today to get animals of the past? Some animals have gone extinct, you know.

 

[Alate_One]

I'm going to assume you can't, since all you've given me are excuses not to.

I can but it would take a considerable amount of time on my part and have essentially no value to anyone since you intend to reject evolution regardless. What Memento Mori has already said is more than enough explanation for you, and you still didn't understand it.

And as I said, entropy is not one of the main lines of evidence supporting evolution, it is a red herring.

You can't falsify evolution with an entropy calculation (that's being generous considering creationist discussions of entropy are smoke and mirrors at best), any more than you can negate the Bumblebee's flying with a calculation.

Creationists are arguing over something completely out of left field while the rest of the world is moving on still accumulating still more evidence for evolution. Attack the evidence, figure out how it works in a creationist context or go home.

Just because none have been found does not mean none exist.

If the fossil record is primarily the result of the flood, as standard creationist thinking states, then the combination of different animals in impossible evolutionary relationships should be COMMON. In the thousands of fossils that have been found you'd expect to find quite a number of these combinations. We find plenty of transitional fossils but no evolutionarily impossible anachronisms.

Who said we could crossbreed animals of today to get animals of the past? Some animals have gone extinct, you know.

Then I'll ask the question again since you're clearly not getting it. Why, when we look at fossil beds like the Burgess shale, the Gogo formation do we see primarily organisms that are all extinct? We don't see any of the familiar modern organisms in these locations, why is that? Your job is to explain this fact.

 

[Memento Mori]

:doh:

Talk about not understanding.


And? Your point? The original question was to Alate_One asking him to prove that entropy is not a problem for evolution. His response was to ask me to falsify evolution. I asked first and he refuses to answer.

Eh, I tried. Was it too simple or too complex for you? Do you want me to get out my Physics notes and layout some equations?

Ok, let's say you have a big ol' lump of energy lying around. You want to do work. So you change the form of the energy and unfortunately, you lose a piece (depending on efficiency) to heat. Now, in a closed system eventually all energy would be lost to heat and become useless. This is the movement towards disorder or entropy. This is where most Creationists argue that according to entropy, things can't evolve because there is a limited amount of energy. The assumption is that Earth is a closed system. The assumption is untrue however. Go outside during the day and you will see the energy source which is pumping ever more energy to Earth. In effect, the need for more energy is not a valid argument in evolution. (I'm being somewhat facetious in regards to how I answered but the actual information is correct to my knowledge.)

Well, there's your answer. I'm sorry that I'm not AO.

I noted however that Bob was talking about entropy in regards to the origin of the universe. I have never heard this argument nor do I have the knowledge to answer it. However, I do know that it is theorized that the universe will end in a "big freeze" which is the culmination of entropy. Last I heard the final temperature of the universe is calculated to be about 2 Kelvin. So, it's logical that the universe began in an organized state.

 

[Lighthouse]

I can but it would take a considerable amount of time on my part and have essentially no value to anyone since you intend to reject evolution regardless. What Memento Mori has already said is more than enough explanation for you, and you still didn't understand it.

And as I said, entropy is not one of the main lines of evidence supporting evolution, it is a red herring.

You can't falsify evolution with an entropy calculation (that's being generous considering creationist discussions of entropy are smoke and mirrors at best), any more than you can negate the Bumblebee's flying with a calculation.

Creationists are arguing over something completely out of left field while the rest of the world is moving on still accumulating still more evidence for evolution. Attack the evidence, figure out how it works in a creationist context or go home.

If the fossil record is primarily the result of the flood, as standard creationist thinking states, then the combination of different animals in impossible evolutionary relationships should be COMMON. In the thousands of fossils that have been found you'd expect to find quite a number of these combinations. We find plenty of transitional fossils but no evolutionarily impossible anachronisms.

Then I'll ask the question again since you're clearly not getting it. Why, when we look at fossil beds like the Burgess shale, the Gogo formation do we see primarily organisms that are all extinct? We don't see any of the familiar modern organisms in these locations, why is that? Your job is to explain this fact.

Coward.

Eh, I tried. Was it too simple or too complex for you? Do you want me to get out my Physics notes and layout some equations?

Ok, let's say you have a big ol' lump of energy lying around. You want to do work. So you change the form of the energy and unfortunately, you lose a piece (depending on efficiency) to heat. Now, in a closed system eventually all energy would be lost to heat and become useless. This is the movement towards disorder or entropy. This is where most Creationists argue that according to entropy, things can't evolve because there is a limited amount of energy. The assumption is that Earth is a closed system. The assumption is untrue however. Go outside during the day and you will see the energy source which is pumping ever more energy to Earth. In effect, the need for more energy is not a valid argument in evolution. (I'm being somewhat facetious in regards to how I answered but the actual information is correct to my knowledge.)

Well, there's your answer. I'm sorry that I'm not AO.

I noted however that Bob was talking about entropy in regards to the origin of the universe. I have never heard this argument nor do I have the knowledge to answer it. However, I do know that it is theorized that the universe will end in a "big freeze" which is the culmination of entropy. Last I heard the final temperature of the universe is calculated to be about 2 Kelvin. So, it's logical that the universe began in an organized state.

Where does the sun keep getting its energy?

 

[Alate_One]

Coward.

No, you want to play games instead of disproving evolution.

Where does the sun keep getting its energy?

Ever heard of nuclear fusion?

 

[Vendergood]

Coward.

Evidently, you are either ignorant of logical fallacies, or you care nothing for them, and I am willing to assume both judging by the way through which you defend your position. However, I may be guilty of hasty generalization.

 

[Lighthouse]

No, you want to play games instead of disproving evolution.

How would you know? You've never even tried.

Ever heard of nuclear fusion?

What about it?

Evidently, you are either ignorant of logical fallacies, or you care nothing for them, and I am willing to assume both judging by the way through which you defend your position. However, I may be guilty of hasty generalization.

I haven't defended anything in this discussion, yet.