[Replying to 'if thermodynamics prevented increasing complexity, babies could never be born']Babies being born has nothing to do with 2LoT. Are babies single-celled organisms?
6 comments
At least her first statement is correct. Since mothers aren't closed systems (ie, energy in the form of food is consumed), the second law of thermodynamics is *indeed* completely irrelevant to babies being born.
Dunno where the single-celled organism part came from, tho.
<reads thread>
Ah, ok, she's talking about abiogenesis being impossible due to the second law, someone makes a weird comment about babies, and this is her response (ie, wtf are you talking about, I'm talking about original life). She later actually demonstrates understanding that babies start as zygotes, so this comment is actually more a misphrasing than actual fundie.
Her original premise about abiogenesis, on the other hand, is a little screwy....
Creationists insist that evolution is not possible because according to the 2LoT, everything is subject to a constant growth of entropy.
But if that were true and affected biology, it would also affect the development of babies. We could fertilize an egg, but it would never become a multi-celled creature, much less a Certified Airline Pilot.
SO, either the 2LoT doesn’t apply to EVERYTHING, or it’s not true at all. Either way, babies prove that their argument is bad. Also, the very definition of the 2LoT, which theynever quite grasp, already says it doesn’t apply to the biosphere. So their argument is even worse.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
