Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Over time that the universe existed the entropy level would have increased to a point complexity and order could have never arose.
You have a problem with the fact that while entropy is increasing, across the universe, order can increase locally. It makes you look silly.
It's possible BUT does not confirm it actually happened on this planet the way you claim.
It's possible
Increased local order is possible? Thanks for finally admitting your error.
I mean, claiming the 2nd Law makes evolution impossible has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
BUT does not confirm it actually happened on this planet the way you claim.
You haven't seen increased local order? Are you a blind cave salamander?
It's possible BUT does not confirm it actually happened on this planet the way you claim.
It's possible
Increased local order is possible? Thanks for finally admitting your error.
I mean, claiming the 2nd Law makes evolution impossible has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
BUT does not confirm it actually happened on this planet the way you claim.
You haven't seen increased local order? Are you a blind cave salamander?
I admit your claim is possible but unlikely. No I see order slowly moving towards disorder as the 2nd law claims now if that has been going on for 14 billion years we would not be here.
Look at the big picture. My theory is in complete agreement of the 2nd law yours is not, got it ?
That would be devolution not evolution.
Scientifically, explain the difference.
You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.
Find some examples living outside of caves and your silly point might have some merit.
You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell
Can you try that again, in English?
They may be the result bad genetics.
They may be in their environment because they are blind. They are having a hard time surviving that is why they are endangered.
You're making your point off conjecture by not knowing if they have always been that way or a product of devolution.
Do you know they have very little data on this species ,and you are trying to make an argument solely on this species being blind ?
You're making your point off conjecture by not knowing if they have always been that way or a product of devolution.
You never explained the difference between evolution and devolution.
If you don't mention the 2nd Law, there is a slight chance you won't look like an idiot.
That would be devolution not evolution. You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.
You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell.
YWC just proved that he doesn't even know what the term "devolution" means let alone understand the concepts of evolution. But to give YWC his due credit he is doing a magnificent job at destroying his own credibility thus saving us all the time and trouble.
You really are so biased it clouds your thinking. look up devolution and follow the conversation nitwit.
That would be devolution not evolution.
Scientifically, explain the difference.
You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.
Find some examples living outside of caves and your silly point might have some merit.
You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell
Can you try that again, in English?
They may be the result bad genetics.
They may be in their environment because they are blind. They are having a hard time surviving that is why they are endangered.
You're making your point off conjecture by not knowing if they have always been that way or a product of devolution.
Do you know they have very little data on this species ,and you are trying to make an argument solely on this species being blind ?
They may be in their environment because they are blind.
Right. The blind salamanders just happened to find their way to a cave.
Did they use little canes? Seeing eye dogs?
I think you should just sit there, you're being stupid again.
They may be the result bad genetics.
They may be in their environment because they are blind. They are having a hard time surviving that is why they are endangered.
You're making your point off conjecture by not knowing if they have always been that way or a product of devolution.
Do you know they have very little data on this species ,and you are trying to make an argument solely on this species being blind ?
They may be in their environment because they are blind.
Right. The blind salamanders just happened to find their way to a cave.
Did they use little canes? Seeing eye dogs?
I think you should just sit there, you're being stupid again.
Why should I just sit back ? because I actually cause you to think, is that the problem ?
It's possible
Increased local order is possible? Thanks for finally admitting your error.
I mean, claiming the 2nd Law makes evolution impossible has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
BUT does not confirm it actually happened on this planet the way you claim.
You haven't seen increased local order? Are you a blind cave salamander?
I admit your claim is possible but unlikely. No I see order slowly moving towards disorder as the 2nd law claims now if that has been going on for 14 billion years we would not be here.
Look at the big picture. My theory is in complete agreement of the 2nd law yours is not, got it ?
I admit your claim is possible but unlikely.
Increased local order is unlikely?
YWC just proved that he doesn't even know what the term "devolution" means let alone understand the concepts of evolution. But to give YWC his due credit he is doing a magnificent job at destroying his own credibility thus saving us all the time and trouble.
You really are so biased it clouds your thinking. look up devolution and follow the conversation nitwit.
Take your own advice and discover that you misused the term "devolution" because you erroneously assumed it to mean the opposite of evolution.
They may be in their environment because they are blind.
Right. The blind salamanders just happened to find their way to a cave.
Did they use little canes? Seeing eye dogs?
I think you should just sit there, you're being stupid again.
Why should I just sit back ? because I actually cause you to think, is that the problem ?
Pointing out your errors requires almost no thinking.
Which is still much more thinking than you've done on this thread.
Why should I just sit back ? because I actually cause you to think, is that the problem ?
Pointing out your errors requires almost no thinking.
Which is still much more thinking than you've done on this thread.
Pat yourself on your back. I am not the one feeling threatened to where I need to resort to insults. You have an ego problem and don't take correction well.
Pointing out your errors requires almost no thinking.
Which is still much more thinking than you've done on this thread.
Pat yourself on your back. I am not the one feeling threatened to where I need to resort to insults. You have an ego problem and don't take correction well.
Let me know where you ever corrected me. LOL!
Your idiocy doesn't threaten me, it tires me.
Pat yourself on your back. I am not the one feeling threatened to where I need to resort to insults. You have an ego problem and don't take correction well.
Let me know where you ever corrected me. LOL!
Your idiocy doesn't threaten me, it tires me.
Aw you were corrected just not willing to admit it.
Why do you keep posting if that is the case ?
Let me know where you ever corrected me. LOL!
Your idiocy doesn't threaten me, it tires me.
Aw you were corrected just not willing to admit it.
Why do you keep posting if that is the case ?
Show me.
For some reason, I think even the dumbest can learn.
You're beginning to change my mind.
They may be the result bad genetics.
They may be in their environment because they are blind. They are having a hard time surviving that is why they are endangered.
You're making your point off conjecture by not knowing if they have always been that way or a product of devolution.
Do you know they have very little data on this species ,and you are trying to make an argument solely on this species being blind ?
You're making your point off conjecture by not knowing if they have always been that way or a product of devolution.
You never explained the difference between evolution and devolution.
If you don't mention the 2nd Law, there is a slight chance you won't look like an idiot.
The term evolution only adds confusion. The definition of evolution supports my claim for evolution having an arrow pointing towards complexity.
ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.
The difference between micro-adaptations which is what is observed is an aid to survival of ones environment.
dev·o·lu·tion
/ˌdevəˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun
The transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, esp. by central government to local or regional administration.
Descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.
Synonyms
transfer - degeneration
Devolution is what is observed in the whole universe in agreement with the 2nd law.
Actually, no. Berlinski is just another cult member of the Discotute.
#24: David Berlinski
Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Berlinski
Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here: Disco. ?tute: Evolution is a ?terrifying cripple,? ?bang[ing] its crutches throughâ¦Hell? ? Thoughts from Kansas (sums up this guy pretty well):
He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative cows cannot evolve into whales argument.
Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.
Likes to play the skeptic (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).
Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks thats the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).
Indeed. His arguments are about as insane as the looney stuff that Pat Robertson spews. He claims that evolution is not real because women don't have tails. He also has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science for that matter.
Conspiracy theorists are always ripe for the picking with youtube videos. The producers of these silly videos (often fundamentalist creation ministries), can take "quotes", images, collections of 1950's vintage newsreels and snippets of out of context comments and combine it all into a five minute info-mercial to get the message "the gawds did it".
I posted the sworn statements from 4 hrs of testimony from the disclosure project which included Apollo astronauts ,defense minister and top ranking military and high level NASA employees who have petitioned congress and have stated their willingness to testify before congress under oath ..there was nothing from the 1950s newsreels..nothing was out of context and not one of these people said the gawds did it...this nonsense you spew is only you cognitive dissonance because this information challenges your belief system
The fallacy lies in the name of that video. "Science v's God"? What utter nonsense. The first minute or so is clips from 1950's newsreels about the TofR. Granted no one in the video said anything about God but the believers are taking the statement "Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it" as if this is somehow "proof" of the existence of their deity.
The indisputable facts are that there is an issue with the mathematical reconciliation between Einstein's TofR and Quantum mathematics. This does NOT equate to a "Science v's God" showdown at all. It is just an acknowledgement that we still need to figure out what is happening inside a singularity. 500 years ago the believers persecuted those who said that the earth was not the center of the universe. 25 years ago we had no evidence that there were planets around other stars. Given time this problem will be solved without the need for any "supernatural entity".
In summary the limitations of our knowledge do NOT equate to proof that there is a God. That superstition was the foundation of religion. Religion is never going to provide the answer to this problem. Hard working scientists will eventually do so given enough time.
You really are so biased it clouds your thinking. look up devolution and follow the conversation nitwit.
Take your own advice and discover that you misused the term "devolution" because you erroneously assumed it to mean the opposite of evolution.
Evolution
The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form
Devolution
Descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.
Yep they are the opposite. Is that not what Todd was inferring with his blind salamander species ?
Take your own advice and discover that you misused the term "devolution" because you erroneously assumed it to mean the opposite of evolution.
Evolution
The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form
Devolution
Descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.
Yep they are the opposite. Is that not what Todd was inferring with his blind salamander species ?
Thank you for conceding your ignorance. Simply because a subspecies of salamander has EVOLVED by adapting to an environment where there is no light and therefore no need for eyes is NOT "devolution" or even "degeneration to a lower or worse state" for that matter. The physical toll of maintaining an expensive organ like the eyes when they provide no survival benefit in that environment is simply not worth it so these salamanders have EVOLVED to make better use of their bodies physical resources.
Before descending from the trees mankind had tails. We still have vestigal remnants of them. By ridding ourselves of our tails you would allege that we have "devolved" and "degenerated to a lower or worse state". Instead our bodies EVOLVED because we no longer needed our tails and those resources were better utilized elsewhere.
As usual you have no grasp of the subject matter that you claim to have "expert" knowledge about from your "education" at the University of Arizona.
