Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

A good example: I've often noted that evolution violates scientific principles such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

real life wrote:

My argument was simply a question

It seems you are being dishonest here RL. Your argument was NOT a question. It was a statement that evolution violates the 2nd law. A statement you admit to having made repeatedly. Now to avoid having to deal with the actual math involved in the 2nd law you pretend you never made the statement.

Again, I have no issue with the 2nd Law. Only with evolutionists who want to selectively apply it.

You are the one trying to selectively apply it. YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.
YOU.

In case you still don't get it.. YOU, real life, are the one that is trying to selectively apply the 2nd law. You have refused to point to the errors in the math proof that showed that evolution does not violate the 2nd law.

thank god for this post

You have refused to point to the errors in the math proof that showed that evolution does not violate the 2nd law.

Is that the best you can do, take an obvious typographical error and use that a pretense to ignore the question? He meant of course that you said it does violate the 2nd law.

So I will give you one more chance to answer the question, show me where thermodynamics disproves evolution. Show me the math, it is a simple question. Don't keep mischaracterising the pros of the term closed system. Show me the math.

You apparently are so unfamiliar with thermodynamics that you can't see you've got yourself in a corner. You now say you have no problem with thermodynamics but are redefining what a closed system is. You cannot do that without negating ALL of thermodynamics. It all fits together, again, anyone who has ever had to do the math knows this. So what is it... is all of thermodynamics wrong or not? You can pull out one leg without it all falling apart.

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Is that the best you can do, take an obvious typographical error and use that a pretense to ignore the question? He meant of course that you said it does violate the 2nd law.

So I will give you one more chance to answer the question, show me where thermodynamics disproves evolution. Show me the math, it is a simple question. Don't keep mischaracterising the pros of the term closed system. Show me the math.

You apparently are so unfamiliar with thermodynamics that you can't see you've got yourself in a corner. You now say you have no problem with thermodynamics but are redefining what a closed system is. You cannot do that without negating ALL of thermodynamics. It all fits together, again, anyone who has ever had to do the math knows this. So what is it... is all of thermodynamics wrong or not? You can pull out one leg without it all falling apart.

I don't know if it was a typo, or if he simply doesn't understand my reply.

He also (as you do) mischaracterizes my position when he says 'show the math errors' when I've never claimed any exist.

What I have consistently said is that you selectively apply the 2nd Law.

All I've received in return is strawmen , 'show us the math errors'.

Is that the best you can do?

So I will give you one more chance to answer the question, show me where thermodynamics disproves evolution.

real life wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Is that the best you can do, take an obvious typographical error and use that a pretense to ignore the question? He meant of course that you said it does violate the 2nd law.

So I will give you one more chance to answer the question, show me where thermodynamics disproves evolution. Show me the math, it is a simple question. Don't keep mischaracterising the pros of the term closed system. Show me the math.

You apparently are so unfamiliar with thermodynamics that you can't see you've got yourself in a corner. You now say you have no problem with thermodynamics but are redefining what a closed system is. You cannot do that without negating ALL of thermodynamics. It all fits together, again, anyone who has ever had to do the math knows this. So what is it... is all of thermodynamics wrong or not? You can pull out one leg without it all falling apart.

I don't know if it was a typo, or if he simply doesn't understand my reply.

He also (as you do) mischaracterizes my position when he says 'show the math errors' when I've never claimed any exist.

What I have consistently said is that you selectively apply the 2nd Law.

All I've received in return is strawmen , 'show us the math errors'.

Is that the best you can do?

Please restate how "evolutionists" are selectively applying the 2nd law.

So do you guys have any idea, is this some 16 year old kid that I'm wasting my time with or is it an adult.....that I'm wasting my time with???

Im convinced that real life is a "beta tester" for outrageous Creationist thinking (or lack thereof).

parados wrote:

You have refused to point to the errors in the math proof that showed that evolution does not violate the 2nd law.

I never claimed this.

I never said there were errors in math.

Neither did I say that evolution does not violate the 2nd law.

and at this point I think it is fair to say you are outright lying and aware you are lying.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

You have refused to point to the errors in the math proof that showed that evolution does not violate the 2nd law.

I never claimed this.

I never said there were errors in math.

Neither did I say that evolution does not violate the 2nd law.

I provided a math proof showing that evolution does NOT violate the 2nd law.

You claim evolution DOES violate the 2nd law (in spite of your attempt to deflect later by claiming you only asked questions.)

You can not provide any evidence of the math being wrong in the proof that shows evolution does NOT violate the 2nd law.

Math shows your statement is wrong. Math shows that evolution does NOT violate the 2nd law. You continue to apply the 2nd incorrectly by claiming evolution violates it. When shown HOW to apply it correctly you don't show the errors in the math because you can't. Instead you accuse others of applying it incorrectly while supplying no math or science to show how it should be applied.

So to repeat.. YOU are the one applying the 2nd incorrectly RL. That would be YOU as in REAL LIFE. You continue to dissemble and at this point I think it is fair to say you are outright lying and aware you are lying.