Changes

:: I'm surprised by your population argument, because I've seen analysis that says the population levels today are just what one would expect from having just a few people in 3000 BC.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

:: I'm surprised by your population argument, because I've seen analysis that says the population levels today are just what one would expect from having just a few people in 3000 BC.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Now I'm confused.  Our critic here is claiming that the First Law (it's a law, mind you) of Thermodynamics states that energy may not be created or destroyed.  It contradicts Genesis.  Okay...got that.  Thermodynamics One contradicts Genesis.  But at the same time, how did his big bang theory happen?  You can't create or destroy energy, that's what he said.  But there had to have been energy created (from nothing, I might add) in order to get a great big bang for his big bang theory, and that's a lot of energy of which he says can't be created or destroyed.  And, while he's defending that little law in science, I'll bet he's ''denying'' Thermodynamics Two because its statements about entropy and energy left to itself seem to contradict evolution.  In short, he's stating something came from nothing, leading to things getting better, both of which contradict each of those laws of Thermodynamics.

:::Now I'm confused.  Our critic here is claiming that the First Law (it's a law, mind you) of Thermodynamics states that energy may not be created or destroyed.  It contradicts Genesis.  Okay...got that.  Thermodynamics One contradicts Genesis.  But at the same time, how did his big bang theory happen?  You can't create or destroy energy, that's what he said.  But there had to have been energy created (from nothing, I might add) in order to get a great big bang for his big bang theory, and that's a lot of energy created ''and'' destroyed of which he says can't be created or destroyed.  And, while he's defending that little law in science, I'll bet he's ''denying'' Thermodynamics Two because its statements about entropy and energy left to itself seem to contradict evolution.  In short, he's stating something came from nothing, leading to things getting better, both of which contradict each of those laws of Thermodynamics.

:::Makes the case for "In the beginning, God created..." even stronger, doesn't it?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:33, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Makes the case for "In the beginning, God created..." even stronger, doesn't it?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:33, 11 August 2010 (EDT)