Changes

::::::Glad that you admit that life is connected to the rest of the universe. Life is very orderly indeed, but e.g. the fusion of hydrogen in the sun leads to such a big increase in entropy, that every decrease on earth accomplished by life can easily be offset. You would be right is the life would have taken over the universe, but as far as we know it confined to small pockets, on the scale of the universe.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:30, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::::::Glad that you admit that life is connected to the rest of the universe. Life is very orderly indeed, but e.g. the fusion of hydrogen in the sun leads to such a big increase in entropy, that every decrease on earth accomplished by life can easily be offset. You would be right is the life would have taken over the universe, but as far as we know it confined to small pockets, on the scale of the universe.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:30, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Well then, tell me this: if increased energy alone were sufficient to reduce entropy in another part of the universe, then why couldn't a [[tornado]] rip through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747? And that's no joke. See Perloff, James, ''Tornado in a Junkyard: the Relentless Myth of Darwinism'', Refuge Books, 1999. ISBN 0966816005.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Well then, tell me this: if increased energy alone were sufficient to reduce entropy in another part of the universe, then why couldn't a [[tornado]] rip through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747? And that's no joke. See Perloff, James, ''Tornado in a Junkyard: the Relentless Myth of Darwinism'', Refuge Books, 1999. ISBN 0966816005.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: This is the good old creationist argument from improbability. Which, confuses random walks again with evolution. And also claims that science beliefs that life came about in an event similar to your tornado. Which it doesn't.  To give your example somecredit, is shows that increased energy alone is not sufficient. But the amounts of energy consumed by life to sustain itself is sufficient to disprove the claim that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: This is the good old creationist argument from improbability. Which, confuses random walks again with evolution. And also claims that science beliefs that life came about in an event similar to your tornado. Which it doesn't.  To give your example some credit, is shows indeed that increased energy alone is not sufficient for life to emerge. Otherwise the universe would be run over by life. But the amounts of energy consumed by life to sustain itself is sufficient to disprove the claim that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. And that was the contested point.[[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

---

---

::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.

::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.