Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The illusion of organizing energy

Categories
Biophysics
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The 2nd law of statistical thermodynamics states that in a closed system any natural transformation goes towards the more probable states. The states of organization are those more improbable, then transformations spontaneously go towards non-organization, so to speak. Since evolution would be spontaneous organization, evolution disagrees with the 2nd law.

The tendency expressed in the 2nd law rules all physical phenomena and is clearly evident in our everyday life, where e.g. systems that were ok yesterday, today are ko, while systems that are ko, do not self repair and remain ko until an intelligent intervention. In short, things break down and do not self-repair, to greater reason they do not self-organize. All that can be related to the trend of the 2nd law.

Before this evidence an usual objection is that Earth is not a closed system because it receives radiant energy from the Sun, so the 2nd law doesn’t apply. Such energy — evolutionists say — would provide the organizing power for evolution. Here we will see in very simple terms as this is nothing but a naive illusion.

In my previous post I noted how, according to general systems theory, organization shows always two different aspects: power and control. Energy is related to the power that the system needs to work and control is related to all what pertains to the “intelligence” of the system, what governs both energy/matter and information in the system. Notice that control has even to organize the energy itself powering the system. If energy really had the organizing capability evolutionists believe, one would ask why systems theory does such distinction in the first place. (In philosophical terms, in a sense, the above distinction is related to the distinction between action and knowledge. Action without knowledge is only agitation and disorder. We will see below how power/energy without control is even destructive.)

All know what energy is. The capability to do a work. Mechanical work/energy is defined as a force producing a shift. A moving object has kinetic energy, due to its speed. Thermal energy is due to the disordered motions of the molecules making up matter. Electric energy is a flow of electrons. Chemical energy is sort of potential energy able to power chemical reactions. Radiant energy is carried by light and other electromagnetic radiation.

Energy can power the systems, but never can create the organized system in the first place. In short, energy is the fuel, not the engine. Example, in photosynthesis, used by plants to convert light energy into chemical energy, the light energy presupposes a photosynthesis system just in place. The light energy doesn’t create the photosynthesis system, like the photons don’t create the photovoltaic cell that outputs electric current.

In all definitions of “energy” there is nothing that could lead us to think that energy is able to transform improbable states into probable states. Consequently, energy cannot change the situation of the 2nd law: energy cannot create organization, which always implies highly improbable states. Indeed the opposite: per se uncontrolled energy is destructive. Example: an abandoned building is slowly but inexorably destroyed by the natural forces of the environment during some centuries. If we increases the energy by considering a flood, it can be destroyed in some days. With more energy, a tornado can destroy it in minutes. Finally with the energy of a bomb we can destroy the building in few seconds. More the energy, more the speed of destruction.

If we consider the physical principle of mass–energy equivalence we reach the same conclusion as above. Mass per se has nothing to do with real organization. Mass and matter are simply the initial support/substance on which an higher principle — intelligence/essence — must operate to obtain a final organized system.

In general we can say that what energy can do is to speed the processes/transformations. But since the transformations go towards the more probable states, uncontrolled energy, far from helping evolution, it could even worsen its problems, because accelerates the trend towards non-organization. The moral is that to invoke uncontrolled energy to revert the trend of the 2nd law is counterproductive for evolutionists.

An objection that evolutionists could rise is: energy can power and greatly speed the chemical reactions, so they can produce life. In these objection there are two problems.
(1) Usually chemical reactions go towards equilibrium, the more probable state, so they don’t overturn at all the 2nd law.
(2) In this context the alleged naturalistic origin of life stated by evolutionism is a non-sequitur. In the hierarchy of biological organization chemical reactions are at the lowest level. Between this level and the final organization of organisms there are countless layers of complexity, related to increasingly higher kinds of abstractness and formalism, which are unattainable by mere chemistry.

Another similar evolutionist objection is that in 1953 Miller and Urey conducted an experiment where some organic compounds such as amino acids were formed by providing thermal and electric energy to a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water. Again no new organization here. The compounds obtained are exactly the probable transformations that the system was able to produce, under the same circumstances. In fact if one repeats the Miller/Urey experiment he gets again the same results. This shows that nothing improbable happens, rather something of very probable, almost certain. No violation of the 2nd law. Obviously also here there is an abyss between the Miller/Urey amino acids and the organization of life, also if we consider a single unicellular organism.

To sum up, the 2nd law in the context of statistical thermodynamics, provides a fundamental reason why naturalistic origin of life is impossible. To resort to energy doesn’t solve the problem, because energy is not a source of organization, rather the inverse: uncontrolled energy can cause destruction (= non-organization). Only intelligence is source of organization, and as such can explain the arise of life, the more organized thing in the cosmos.

Comments
Box: You keep bringing up your outdated narrow interpretation of the 2nd law which only considers heat. The original post refers to the 2nd law of statistical thermodynamics. It's the proper name of a specific physical law. If the reference was to some other 2nd law, then the reference needs to be corrected.Zachriel
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
H, I stopped at the freshly hatched chick just out of the egg. But indeed, there is a highly informational organisation imposed on the food to make the new chick grow. And it needs more than an egg-ful of food now! KFkairosfocus
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
Zachriel: The term ‘disorder’ has a specific meaning in thermodynamics and refers to available microstates due to thermal fluctuations.
You keep bringing up your outdated narrow interpretation of the 2nd law which only considers heat. Others have a broader understanding of the 2nd law and base their arguments on that understanding. I suggest that either you accept that or withdraw yourself from the discussion. There is no point in participating while acting as if Niwrad, Eric Anderson and others are only talking about heat dispersion.Box
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
niwrad @110
Nobody says the 2nd law is violated. The claim is that unguided evolution *would violate* it, because *would imply* countless systems spontaneously going countless times towards organization, while the 2nd law says they spontaneously go in the opposite direction, towards disorganization.
A nitpicky point, but 'evolution', in the biological rather than chemical sense, implies replication. It is this that protects a system from degradation, by the production of multiple copies. They are not all guaranteed to degrade before being duplicated. As long as a population is maintained, it may collectively evade that which is individually destructive, by weight of numbers. Getting the first copy off the ground is not trivial, but once replication arises, it provides its own hedge against degradation, subject to energetic input to power that replicative process.Hangonasec
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
eng @106
I would rather like to know whether a chicken has [...] than its fertilized egg.
KF @112
The egg is the program/plan and resources plus automated execution machinery, the chick three weeks later is the result. The chick is more organised than the raw materials in the egg and is far more functionally specific.[...]
You can't just separately count microstates in egg and chicken. The entire system, which includes the chick's food, must be considered. The chicken is 'more organised' because its food is less organised - complex carbohydrates have become CO2 and water, with transfer of energy and some losses (hence, increasing entropy). Of course, one can pursue a regress towards the first-ever production of biosynthetic complex carbohydrate. But as we are talking of chickens and eggs ...Hangonasec
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
Box: It’s irrelevant to the argument, which focuses on organization. You should take that up with the original poster, which conflated organization with thermodynamic order. Box: By decreasing entropy we don’t get organization, like — say — by decreasing a rectangle we don’t get the project specifications of the Space Shuttle. You can't organize anything, or disorganize anything, without an increase in overall thermodynamic entropy. Eric Anderson: The question is about their provenance — what is the best explanation for their existence — not whether they exist. That's not correct. The question concerned the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Eric Anderson: So you are quite right, the 2nd Law does not formally, as a matter of sheer possibility, prohibit the formation of a stable, complex, far-from-equilibrium living organism under purely natural conditions. But it sure makes it exceedingly unlikely. The 2nd law does not formally, as a matter of sheer possibility, prohibit the formation of stable highly ordered states, but it sure happens a lot. niwrad: The claim is that unguided evolution *would violate* it, because *would imply* countless systems spontaneously going countless times towards organization, while the 2nd law says they spontaneously go in the opposite direction, towards disorganization. Then tornadoes, crystals, and monsoons violate the the 2nd law as they do in the opposite direction, towards order. Box: Yes, the 2nd law allows for local entropy decreases however this does NOT pertain to, what can be termed, “organizational entropy”. The term ‘disorder’ has a specific meaning in thermodynamics and refers to available microstates due to thermal fluctuations. Box: IOW – under purely natural settings – local decrease in entropy allows for snow, gemstones and so forth, but it does not allow for the formation of spaceships, computers, libraries and the stunning organization that we see in life. That has nothing to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Zachriel
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
The egg is the program/plan and resources plus automated execution machinery, the chick three weeks later is the result. The chick is more organised than the raw materials in the egg and is far more functionally specific. The control program guides the development process, once the egg is properly incubated. KFkairosfocus
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson: (...) the 2nd Law does not formally, as a matter of sheer possibility, prohibit the formation of a stable, complex, far-from-equilibrium living organism under purely natural conditions.
Niwrad, as I understand him, doesn't agree with you. Yes, the 2nd law allows for local entropy decreases however this does NOT pertain to, what can be termed, "organizational entropy".
Niwrad #8: “in average”? Do systems break down “in average”? No. *All* systems crash. *Zero* systems self-repair or self-organize.
IOW - under purely natural settings - local decrease in entropy allows for snow, gemstones and so forth, but it does not allow for the formation of spaceships, computers, libraries and the stunning organization that we see in life. It's not a matter of degree. Organization is a different realm. Snow *Yes*. The sudden coming into existence of a horse in one's room *Never*.Box
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT
keith s Nobody says the 2nd law is violated. The claim is that unguided evolution *would violate* it, because *would imply* countless systems spontaneously going countless times towards organization, while the 2nd law says they spontaneously go in the opposite direction, towards disorganization. Nobody says living organisms violate the 2nd law. They arose by intelligent design (the 2nd law does not prohibit at all intelligent intervention in the systems). They live, use energy etc., only thanks to their designed organization (again the 2nd law does not prohibit at all designed organization). Nothing violates the 2nd law, never.niwrad
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT
I, for one, don't see any sense in applying entropy to living systems.If the 10^14 cells in the human body are rearranged, I get an entropy of kxln(10^14!) = 1.38x10^-23 x (14ln[5] + 14ln[2])! = 8.27x10^12. It makes no sense.Me_Think
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Eric, Do you believe that the 2nd Law is violated? If so, then where, when, and how does this happen?keith s
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT
Eric,
The question is not whether such systems can exist. Obviously they can.
Yet in your "parable" you had your teacher asking:
And what enables such a system to continue to exist over long periods, given the 2nd Law?
The 2nd law neither prohibits such systems from arising nor from continuing to exist. Again, this should be obvious. The 2nd Law wouldn't be a law at all if systems were violating it right and left.
...the 2nd law in and of itself does not absolutely prohibit the formation of such systems. But it most certainly makes their original formation more unlikely under natural conditions.
No. The 2nd Law forbids violations of the 2nd Law, nothing more and nothing less. If you want to argue that the formation of such systems is improbable, fine -- go to it. But it doesn't violate the 2nd Law, and so your reasons will have to lie elsewhere. I repeat: the 2nd Law forbids violations of the 2nd Law -- nothing more and nothing less.
So if we want to assert how living systems came about by purely natural processes, what we are really arguing for is that some unbelievably lucky coincidence happened to overcome the normal trajectory of the 2nd Law...
The 2nd Law doesn't have a "normal trajectory". It simply forbids violations.
So you are quite right, the 2nd Law does not formally, as a matter of sheer possibility, prohibit the formation of a stable, complex, far-from-equilibrium living organism under purely natural conditions. But it sure makes it exceedingly unlikely.
No, the 2nd Law merely prohibits violations of the 2nd Law. Any phenomenon that does not violate the 2nd Law is allowed by the 2nd Law. It might or might not be possible for some other reasons, but it is allowed by the 2nd Law.
And it is an issue that deserves to be addressed, not dismissed with silly assertions that the Earth is an open system, or the decrease in entropy is compensated for (and, thus, the naive implication is, anything goes).
I've never heard anyone claim that "anything goes" in an open system, though some IDers like to pretend that we do.
Yes, we could repose our faith in some stroke of incredible luck. Some cosmic accident that, for a moment, held the 2nd Law at bay so that we could get our nascent living organism off the ground.
Nothing about OOL violates the 2nd Law, so why would it need to be "held at bay"?keith s
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
Which object has more entropy - a fertilized egg or the chicken that hatches from it a few days later? Figuring out the thermodynamic entropy is trivial. I am not sure whether the development process is exothermic or endothermic (whether the egg gives off heat just as any other living thing, or whether it must be actively heated during the development process). It is also clear that the egg reacts with O2 and gives off CO2. I would rather like to know whether a chicken * has more or less "informational entropy" (see dna_jock's comment #92), * is more or less "thermodynamically ordered", has more or less "microstates" (see zachriel's comment #94), * or has more or less “specified complexity” or “functional informational complexity” (see rkhampton7's comment #101) than its fertilized egg.eng
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
Sorry, keith s, but like Johnny, you seem to have misunderstood the questions. The question is not whether such systems can exist. Obviously they can. So that comment is a red herring. The question is about their provenance -- what is the best explanation for their existence -- not whether they exist. Also, the idea that local entropy decreases are magically "compensated" for by increases somewhere else in the universe is irrelevant to the question at hand. In addition to being absurd. So the compensation argument is utterly unhelpful. Your first answer is closer to the mark. Namely, that the 2nd law in and of itself does not absolutely prohibit the formation of such systems. But it most certainly makes their original formation more unlikely under natural conditions. So if we want to assert how living systems came about by purely natural processes, what we are really arguing for is that some unbelievably lucky coincidence happened to overcome the normal trajectory of the 2nd Law -- and not because the Earth is an "open system" [Note, that is what I was addressing]; nor because entropy is somehow magically compensated for by some entropy-compensating-machine that monitors entropy in the universe -- but that life came about simply by dint of sheer luck. A fluke of nature. Something we never see happening around us today, but, hey, who knows? Maybe it could have happened at least once by chance? So you are quite right, the 2nd Law does not formally, as a matter of sheer possibility, prohibit the formation of a stable, complex, far-from-equilibrium living organism under purely natural conditions. But it sure makes it exceedingly unlikely. And it is an issue that deserves to be addressed, not dismissed with silly assertions that the Earth is an open system, or the decrease in entropy is compensated for (and, thus, the naive implication is, anything goes). Yes, we could repose our faith in some stroke of incredible luck. Some cosmic accident that, for a moment, held the 2nd Law at bay so that we could get our nascent living organism off the ground. Hey, after all, the limit of our imagination is the only thing holding us back. And we can always fall back on the Great Evolutionary Explanation: Stuff HappensEric Anderson
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Eric, Here's a better version of your parable: The teacher asks: "How could a stable far-from-equilibrium system arise under purely natural conditions, in light of the 2nd Law?" Johnny answers, "The 2nd law doesn't forbid the arising of stable, far-from-equilibrium systems. If you doubt that such systems can arise, you'll need to find a different reason. The 2nd law by itself doesn't suffice." The teacher asks: "And what enables such a system to continue to exist over long periods, given the 2nd Law?" Johnny answers: "Again, there is nothing about the 2nd law that forbids such systems from arising or continuing to exist. This should be obvious, given that we see such systems all around us. The 2nd law wouldn't be a law at all if it were continually being violated." He continues: "The 2nd law merely says that the overall entropy of isolated systems cannot decrease. Local entropy decreases are not forbidden by the 2nd law, provided that they are compensated for by entropy increases elsewhere." An awkward silence ensues, as everyone in the class realizes that Johnny understands the 2nd law far better than his teacher.keith s
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
A Parable of the 'Open Earth' The teacher explains to her young pupils that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tends to drive things toward equilibrium. She also explains that living organisms are far-from-equilibrium systems and poses the following questions: How could a stable far-from-equilibrium system arise under purely natural conditions, in light of the 2nd Law? And what enables such a system to continue to exist over long periods, given the 2nd Law? From the back of the class Little Johnny excitedly raises his hand, "Oh, I know! I know! Pick me! Pick me!" The teacher calls on Johnny. "The Earth gets energy from the Sun!" he exclaims. An awkward pause ensues, as everyone else in the class realizes Johnny has completely misunderstood the question. Johnny presses on, adamant, "The Earth gets energy from the Sun! It gets energy from the Sun!" Firmly but politely breaking in, the teacher says, "Yes, Johnny, it does. Now go ahead and put your hand down." Turning to the rest of class she asks, "Now, would anyone like to address the questions I posed?"Eric Anderson
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Zachriel
While the overall entropy of a closed system will tend to increase, regional transformations may exhibit a decrease in entropy (and often do!).
Do you believe that your local temporary small fluctuations of entropy could account for e.g. in snowing the production of an ice-watch as mine in 93? Sure not. In fact between your fluctuations and organization there is a discontinuity (as Box rightly said). By decreasing entropy we don’t get organization, like -- say -- by decreasing a rectangle we don’t get the project specifications of the Space Shuttle. Organization is not the limit which decreasing entropy tends to (as also harry says in other words in 91).niwrad
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
A quick reminder. According to Stephen Meyer:
...the kind of “order” that is present in biological systems – which shouldn’t even be classified as “order” in the thermodynamic sense of the term. A better term is “specified complexity” or “functional informational complexity”. This is because there is a difference between meaningful or functional information and “order” in the thermodynamic understanding of order. Meyer pointed out to Charles Marshall, “You’re mixing up two different concepts there.”
rhampton7
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
Zachriel: While the overall entropy of a closed system will tend to increase, regional transformations may exhibit a decrease in entropy (and often do!).
Don't you worry about it. It's irrelevant to the argument, which focuses on organization.Box
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Box: We should keep in mind that the low entropy that Zachriel keeps bringing up is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Indeed, it is the very point. Here's the first line of the original post:
The 2nd law of statistical thermodynamics states that in a closed system any natural transformation goes towards the more probable states.
The statement is false. While the overall entropy of a closed system will tend to increase, regional transformations may exhibit a decrease in entropy (and often do!).Zachriel
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Zachriel: And yet, after billions of years of importing energy, local regions of low entropy occur regularly on Earth, even absent life.
Let's not digress, folks! We should keep in mind that the low entropy that Zachriel keeps bringing up is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Niwrad #84: However such ordering/patterns have nothing to do with organization, which always implies extremely improbable states.
Box
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: an energy importing entity is adding microstates, thereby augmenting forces such as diffusion and degrading reactions. And yet, after billions of years of importing energy, local regions of low entropy occur regularly on Earth, even absent life.Zachriel
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Z, an energy importing entity is adding microstates, thereby augmenting forces such as diffusion and degrading reactions. Complex organised states dependent on highly endothermic molecules become less and less findable by blind forces; relative statistical weight of clusters of relevant microstates gets harder and harder as a search challenge . . . indeed that's what the little story in the Clausius example that sets up 2LOT is telling us: what's giving up energy and what is gaining it, where just the thermal blanket of our atmosphere makes Earth what, 15 K warmer than otherwise, and a no-sun scenario would be a lot colder still; though of course the usual line is hot formation and cooling off, late bombardment then voila in was it a 200 mn y window, cell based life -- not thermodynamically very likely. Indeed, we don't need to guess hard as to why life forms typically have a protected internal environment, starting with cell walls -- to protect delicately balanced subsystems. While at it try, little Oxy, UV irradiation, significant Oxy, all sorts of probs with relevant reactions. Not to mention, what sort of early atmosphere is plausible, and more. KFkairosfocus
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
So nature can't produce a car, nor even something as relatively simple as Stonehenge, yet we are supposed to believe it produced living organisms? Talk about retarded...Joe
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
Box: If those patterns are a descend into “the more probable states in those contexts”, as Niwrad stated in #84, how can they be examples of decreasing entropy? The term 'disorder' has a specific meaning in thermodynamics and refers to available microstates due to thermal fluctuations. A crystal generally has fewer available microstates than a non-crystal as the molecules are bound tightly in the crystal structure. If a rock cools, there are fewer available microstates because the molecules have less thermal energy. A substance at absolute zero is said to have zero thermal entropy because the molecules have no motion. Your notions of organization are dwarfed by the number of possible microstates. If you warm a mole of liquid water by 1 C°, you have thereby increased the available microstates by a factor of about 10^(10^22).Zachriel
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Box @90
"If those patterns are a descend into “the more probable states in those contexts”, as Niwrad stated in #84, how can they be examples of decreasing entropy?"
Thanks, good question. There are many definitions of entropy. If we define sort of "statistical entropy" as something directly proportional to the probability of a state, then in the formation of those very probable patterns there is no decreasing entropy. Differently, if e.g. when it snows, beyond snow flakes, we get -- say -- a functioning mechanical watch entirely made of ice crystal, then we could say that such entropy is decreased (because the probability of that ice-watch state is extremely small).niwrad
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Box seeks clarification thus:
What kind of entropy are you referring to?
Feel free to combine informational entropy with thermodynamic entropy and take the sum (c.f. Landauer). Remember to measure informational entropy in nats, not shannons. It won't change the answer. If you are somehow tempted to include X-entropy, resist the temptation. X-entropies do NOT obey 2LoT.DNA_Jock
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
niwrad @ 84
However such ordering/patterns have nothing to do with organization, which always implies extremely improbable states.
Not only that, but organization consisting of an "extremely improbable state" in no way signifies that functionality is present or will follow from that. An improbable state will likely just "sit there" being improbable until the 2LoT moves it into a more probable state. Even more improbable is functional complexity, which occurs when a particular "extremely improbable state" is the one that was required to bring about the precise functionality being exhibited by that "extremely improbable state." This provides a compelling indication that that state was the result of intentionality.harry
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Zachriel: In other words, entropy can decrease locally and still be consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Other examples include a rock cooling in the mist from a waterfall, a tornado, a blue sky.
If those patterns are a descend into "the more probable states in those contexts", as Niwrad stated in #84, how can they be examples of decreasing entropy?Box
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Joe, "Does the 2LoT prevent a car from spontaneously arising?" CHartsil, "Joe, quit being retarded." Joe's "retarded" statement is what the naturalistic science community is asking us to buy into. The simplest known form of life is more complex than any car. I know, I know, it is conjectured to have precursors, but what were they? 'Don't know, don't ask, that's the job of OOL researchers not evolutionists.bFast
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10