syo
Well-Known Member
Honey, all you say is gibberish. I repeat ''evolution is false because of entropy". Prove me wrong.No, accurate. It is rather apparent to all that you have no clue. You have been asked reasonable questions. You ran away.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Honey, all you say is gibberish. I repeat ''evolution is false because of entropy". Prove me wrong.No, accurate. It is rather apparent to all that you have no clue. You have been asked reasonable questions. You ran away.
I agree about posting initial rebuttals, but in most places where EvC is even still a thing, the ratio of E's to C's is significantly skewed to the E side. So most times I don't really feel the need to pile on. I remember one thread where I counted something like 29 E's all responding to one C!I am coming to the conclusion that it may be best just to address the flawed reasoning even if the points are literally the ancient dead for others anyway. Then leave it at that, unless I am in a mood to deal with the insistent denial. It is an interesting phenomenon though. I agree with a certain fascination myself.
Yup. Everything on the Talk Origins index is at least 16 years old and it's been a long time since I've seen any creationist make an argument that wasn't on there.It is all that I can conclude, given how many times I have read "If man descended from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" or similar nonsense. It must be the best that can be found to attack science.
Why, because you say so? Are you expecting folks here to be like, "Well, since Syo said evolution is false because of entropy, I guess it's true"?I repeat ''evolution is false because of entropy". Prove me wrong.
In Wikipedia there's evolution and Darwinism and entropy. What am i supposed to write??? Can't you search???I agree about posting initial rebuttals, but in most places where EvC is even still a thing, the ratio of E's to C's is significantly skewed to the E side. So most times I don't really feel the need to pile on. I remember one thread where I counted something like 29 E's all responding to one C!
Yup. Everything on the Talk Origins index is at least 16 years old and it's been a long time since I've seen any creationist make an argument that wasn't on there.
BTW, to @syo what's your deal? Why are you playing this silly little coy game instead of just stating your point outright? Step up and explain rather than making everyone guess. Not a good look.
LOL! No need. You took on the burden of proof. You appear to lack the education to understand a refutation. You do not understand the burden of proof in this situation.Honey, all you say is gibberish. I repeat ''evolution is false because of entropy". Prove me wrong.
Huh?Why, because you say so? Are you expecting folks here to be like, "Well, since Syo said evolution is false because of entropy, I guess it's true"?
Who do you think you are?
More gibberish.LOL! No need. You took on the burden of proof. You appear to lack the education to understand a refutation. You do not understand the burden of proof in this situation.
When you made your first claim you took on a burden of proof. I do not have to educate every person that comes here and denies reality,.
Darwinism? And yes, entropy is in Wikipedia. So is lap dancing. How does that disprove evolution?In Wikipedia there's evolution and Darwinism and entropy. What am i supposed to write??? Can't you search???
Only to the uneducated.More gibberish.
Can't you even copy and paste? As long as you link, it's generally fine.In Wikipedia there's evolution and Darwinism and entropy. What am i supposed to write??? Can't you search???
You're joking right? Ok i will do it . Wait ok?Can't you even copy and paste? As long as you link, it's generally fine.
Okey doke.You're joking right? Ok i will do it . Wait ok?
You're joking right? Ok i will do it . Wait ok?
from wikipediaOkey doke.
Why?from wikipedia
''Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.''
''Entropy is a scientific concept, as well as a measurable physical property, that is most commonly associated with a state of disorder, randomness, or uncertainty.''
These two combined lead unavoidably in intelligent design.
That makes no sense.What else? I support intelligent design and evolution is like the misleading tip of the iceberg. There is more to evolution. Evolution needs time to show what has always been there before it appears (intelligent design). When fish got their eyes, these eyes weren't invented at the specific time, they were appeared at that time, but they always will exist (intelligent design).
Neither does this.Now, entropy needs intelligent design. By definition. And it leads to a very big chain of ''evolutions'' which again I think ''evolutions'' are the tip of the iceberg.
Without intelligent design, the evolutionary changes wouldn't happen because entropy wouldn't function properly.Why?
So you believe every decrease in entropy in the history of the universe was intelligently designed?Without intelligent design, the evolutionary changes wouldn't happen because entropy wouldn't function properly.
Yes, if I understood correctly.So you believe every decrease in entropy in the history of the universe was intelligently designed?