Re: this is the time to pray

From: LGC (pro3carp3_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/19/05 

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:53:45 -0600

> > > > There
> > > > are many scientific 'laws' that are used in operational science
today
> > that
> > > > are opposed to evolutionistic theory. (The laws of thermodynamics,
for
> > > > example.)
> > >
> > > Aha, so that means you're talking from a viewpoint of almost complete
> > > ignorance about science then? ......
> >
> > Absolutely not.
>
> Then why does it sound like you wouldn't know the laws of thermodynamics
> if they jumped up and slapped you in the face shouting "I am the laws of
> thermodynamics" repeatedly?

I've copied an article below from this website:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
Point number 3 address the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I've inserted the
entire text of the article as you and others may find it interesting.

==========================================
Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in
this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient
to account for the existence of all natural things.
  1.. Something from nothing?
  The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the
universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of
subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some
helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to
assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being,
what would cause it to explode?
  We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to
disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion
produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the
formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually
people?

  2.. Physical laws an accident?
  We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws,
such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy,
etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a
computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an
instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling
principles developed by accident?
  3.. Order from disorder?
  The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science.
It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is
supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite
has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed
energy. How can this be?
  ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to
closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed
system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all
systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living
organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in
total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has
transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is
a clear violation of the Second Law.

  We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system
is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in
entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts
will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application
of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a
plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's
problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the
Second Law.

  4.. Information from Randomness?
  Information theory states that "information" never arises out of
randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day.
How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple
organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from
the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own act
ual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened.
Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to
an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of
letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet
evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation
of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
  5.. Life from dead chemicals?
  Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals),
so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis")
that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable
replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been
calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than
one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the
entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that
life formed itself?
  6.. Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
  The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA
(the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously
complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent
necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?
  7.. Life is complex.
  We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and
planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of
this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life
form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no
designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.
  8.. Where are the transitional fossils?
  If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the
skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years
of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are
touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are
the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all
species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current
instances of the species?
  ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just
one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true
transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The
next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about
the rest of the creature too!

  Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil
record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number
of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every
one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for
example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no
fossils of a predecessor have been found!.

  9.. Could an intermediate even survive?
  Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual.
And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those
individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an
animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would
it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old
environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence
of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the
while keeping it not only alive, but improved?
  ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all.
But why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for
granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a
spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye
strains all common sense and experience.

  10.. Reproduction without reproduction?
  A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided)
series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for,
keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the
ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even
imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why
would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction
would seem to be more likely and efficient!
  ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT
address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles
of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in
popular discussions.

  11.. Plants without photosynthesis?
  The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the
first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?
  12.. How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
  There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic"
relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain
this?
  13.. It's no good unless it's complete.
  We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful
until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program.
Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or
anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was
completed?
  ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of
any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.

  14.. Explain metamorphosis!
  How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the
caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly
comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
  15.. It should be easy to show evolution.
  If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things
from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be
possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours.
Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies
with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and
still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is
it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments
has not been able to document it?
  ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a
change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order
change, where the information content of the organism has been increased
should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing
information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a
new organ, for example.

  16.. Complex things require intelligent design folks!
  People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a
robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could
carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make
more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel
at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such
a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance,
even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we
are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long
we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would
never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a
"robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are
"nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there
be any other explanation?