I think I can try to address some of your questions, with a healthy assist from google for specifics, but it's approaching 01:00 and we've a big game tomorrow...

the development/evolution of life... the more it developed, wouldn't that be less

and less randomness as far as survival?

I would think that survival, required consistent lowering of randomness/entropy/disorder.

Seems that the ability of life, if survival was random, the odds of a generation developing for

very long would be remote.

That's where I get torqued... the entropy/measure of disorder.... and the profound and consistent

development of life. And as far as Adam and Eve goes... seems that there had to be a first man and first woman...

hardly exemplary of random occurence. Biological/reproductive/Neurologic/circulatory/skeletal/musculature...

no way? that was an accident. DNA alone is incredible enough. And to think DNA just occurred... I don't know.....

I just lost an hours worth of typing to take a shot at explaining how the 2nd Law is perfectly consistent with the human brain existing as we know it. Not in the mood to recreate it at 02:45, but here is the cliff notes version.

The Big Bang was a singularity event. It was a burst of pure energy into the cold emptiness of space that occurred nearly 14 billion years ago. In that instant of its occurrence all was pure energy... all was the same. Therefore by definition any process by every accepted principle science has discovered and proven has only acted to increase randomness.

These include:

- Einstein's E=mc**2 by which the energy released could and did convert to matter (quarks);

- the strong force which gathered quarks to from atomic particles and bind nuclei together;

- the electromagnetic force to form atoms by attracting electrons... specifically hydrogen atoms;

- the Higgs Field to give matter mass;

- the gravitational force to cluster mass and ultimately form stars.

Each step increased diversity, or randomness, in the developing universe.

Stars were born, fused hydrogen atoms into helium and, depending on their size, all the other known elements only to die and spread their work back out into space. All increasing randomness.

Stars found each other and formed galaxies... a billion galaxies in all. Each containing an estimated billion stars.

The dust of star explosions formed non-star bodies of all sizes, i.e., planets, asteroids. Some found host stars. Some did not. It was random.

On one we know of, Earth, formed 4.5 billion years ago, there is life. At some point, most likely in its first billion years, single cell life appear. As soon as it did, randomness increased.

Once life existed it mutated. Some mutations thrived, some died, but each attempt increased randomness. Finally the mutation that brought forth photosynthesis occurred. More variation is introduced... and now oxygen generation begins.

Mutation... Natural selection (success or failure) AKA Darwinism. All leads to more or more diversity.

Multi-cell organisms... cell specialization... mutation... selection. Plant species... animal species... man. Walking upright out of Africa to populate the world all the while adapting to the region where ultimately he settled yielding races... more diversity... more randomness.

The fact that our brains are all similar is testament to selection across eons of successive and successful random attempts to live. It is consistent with the 2nd law.

But there are questions yet unanswered.

What was there before the Big Bang? The most recent Big Collapse? Or did something or Someone set off the Bang? Was it God?

How did that first microbe come to be? Was there an element of "design"? Or was it a random lightening strike to the right puddle of primordial ooze at the right moment. Certainly there was time for latter.

Bottom line: There's still room for God even if all do not perceive a need for Him. But for more and more by the day, hour or minute, there is not room for Adam or Eve.

Jesus??? Well, it's late (and this recreation was the Cliff's notes?). Let's save Him for another time...

legitmate sites about it.

I was just asking my question. And bitching that I am wrong doesn't show that I'm wrong...

it could be. But if I'm wrong, it's going to take more than faking the explanation as to why by

personal attacks and bitching about it by you know who.

Experts talk about applying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to the universe, to the age of the earth.

So, my point about the miracle of life is hardly invalid. I don't get how they figure, for theoretical application,

the universe is an isolated system. but I'm no experte', just a beginner.

@calfoxwc said:

The apparent disobedience of the earth with regards to entropy is basically offset by the entropy observed by the sun, which is much more massive and subject to significantly greater entropy as a result. It is burning itself up and will eventually die, but in the mean time it's chucking out energy that we're living on.

@fairhooker11 said:

I did

Hooker is equating evolution to blind faith because we didn't directly observe the entirety of either

And it seems like we need our 27th lesson on what a scientific theory is....

... Anyone want to help me out here? That's too much from a phone at work (inb4 Cal takes that as a victory)

@bbedward said:

on the macro scale human development or specifically as woody put it for human organ evolvement had to take millions

if not billions of years?

that is where I asked - who observed that in real time over ones lifetime?

do you think even Darwin buys this notion?

"Note

The second law of thermodynamics can also be stated that "all spontaneous processes produce an increase in the entropy of the universe"."

Now, the creation of life was a spontaneous process, I believe. God created it. But, if you don't believe that, how else can

you describe the very first occurence of life on our planet? From somewhere else? Then, when was it that IT first became

into existence?

Since entropy is a measurement of DISORDER, and the second law says all spontaneous processes produce MORE DISORDER.....

How the hell can you figure that the magnificence of the creation of life, especially the human brain/dna/etc...

was a result of an abolute random event, as in the big bang (theory)???

If you aren't going to answer this question, try to STFU - you might choke on your shoe.

The SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS state.............that the state of entropy OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE...

as an isolated system, will always increase over time.

Now, do you know that the earth is part of the universe?

Do you finally know what entropy is?

Then my excellent question still stands as valid, and you have no answer to it...yet.

You can't explain why you say you are correct, you just smart off and say you

are, and just did explain....but you don't explain.

You are a fake, and a birdbrain.

STFU and learn something for a change.

********************************************************

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/A_System_And_Its_Surroundings

If it's true that the 2nd law of thermodynamics only apply to isolated systems.....

then it's just a theory, and cannot be proven, since they are rare, if any, in existence.

Of course you can apply it to open systems. You adapt your methodology.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/entropy3.html

AND,

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Laws_of_Thermodynamics/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics

@fairhooker11 said:

my religion faith in Jesus Christ has no qualms with science, it co exists beautifully- actually.

it is majic in the science you speak of is based on supposition of billions of years of evolution....

when who in your world actually observed it?

therefore it is no different than faith except its called a hypothetical by you guys...

and when you guys approach a discussion like this - its attack first, mock and ridicule...

but thats ok because then we can respectfully disagree

There is a giant leap in reasoning here that it looks like Edward already covered. It fits into the same bucket as Cal using the 2nd law when he seems to misunderstand it.

Science is not blind faith. Saying "you didn't observe the entire chain of evolution" and then dragging down this science to blind faith is ridiculous. The key difference here is supporting evidence.

@oldbrownsfan said:

Talking about spiritual things Woody, not physical. The part of man created in the image of God is the spirit of man.

Ok. That's fair.

He didn't do the greatest job designing us then

@mld-woody said:

Talking about spiritual things Woody, not physical. The part of man created in the image of God is the spirit of man.

@fairhooker11 said:

Actually we have observed fossil records of change, anatomical/genetic similarities between species (dogs/wolfs, humans/primates, birds/dinosaurs), the way species are found geographically (for example, fossils of the closest ancestors of an elephant would typically be found nearby where elephants live today).

Also it's observed on a micro scale all the time, such as in bacteria that consistently develops new mutations such as antibiotic resistance, etc.

There's no attacking, mocking, or ridiculing but your assertion that "it hasn't been observed" and it's "hypothetical" is incorrect.

it is majic in the science you speak of is based on supposition of billions of years of evolution....

when who in your world actually observed it?

therefore it is no different than faith except its called a hypothetical by you guys...

and when you guys approach a discussion like this - its attack first, mock and ridicule...

but thats ok because then we can respectfully disagree

@fairhooker11 said:

more evolution vs God....

and woody doubles down on the majic of science proving human organ development

by evolution over the Creator.

also disputes the hole in which humans eat, drink, talk and puke as being a "shitty" design

in other news congress wants to impeach IRS chief Koskinen! huh! well good luck with that

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/10/breaking-house-gop-votes-to-begin-impeachment/

Look, if you think your religion conflicts with evolution, that's your own issue. Of course, if you have a personal belief that conflicts with mountains of scientific evidence, you might want to rethink that belief.

Calling science you don't understand "magic" while supporting creationism is hilarious btw.

We were supposedly made in gods image, right? And I imagine god is "perfect", right? Breathing, talking, eating and drinking, leading to thousands of choking deaths per year, seems like a pretty shitty design. Even dolphins can breathe and eat through separate holes.

@bbedward said:

Many Christians accept ideas of evolution (which has a wild amount of evidence supporting it).

I think a minority are on the extreme young earth evolution is the devil bandwagon, but maybe that numbers bigger than I originally thought.

Welcome to the Political Board...

I have explained why you're wrong. Your own links explained why you're wrong. Life doesn't violate the 2nd law. The human brain doesn't violate the 2nd law. Why? Because the 2nd law of thermodynamics deals with closed systems. Life and the human brain are not this.

Or do you want me to explain to you how the human brain developed and evolved? Even if I did know about that subject we have increasing evidence to say you wouldn't get it.

Google it. Find reputable sources. Find out what we know. And D your best not to jump to the god of the gaps argument...

Are you following along now or are you just going to continue to insult me while you hope people forget about your last couple of posts?

I think a minority are on the extreme young earth evolution is the devil bandwagon, but maybe that numbers bigger than I originally thought.

and woody doubles down on the majic of science proving human organ development

by evolution over the Creator.

also disputes the hole in which humans eat, drink, talk and puke as being a "shitty" design

in other news congress wants to impeach IRS chief Koskinen! huh! well good luck with that

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/10/breaking-house-gop-votes-to-begin-impeachment/

You still haven't answered the question, stupidass.

You want to be gay, and stupid, fine. But I clearly made my point.

Your claim is dubious, since you don't explain anything, you just brag about some kind

of justification for being a wild asswipe woodpecker.

Explain in detail about your stupid claims, or TRY to answer my QUESTION...

or just STFU.