The Light Time Problem

Page one of the thermodynamics textbook: Thermodynamics is about the movement of heat.You're confused in thinking that the arrangement of "stuff" is relevant. Thermodynamics is not about the organization of stuff. It's about the organization of heat. Thermodynamics does not say that stuff can not become more organized. Thermodynamics says that heat spreads out.A good example of the second law is a cup of hot coffee sitting on the table. Put your hand above it. You can feel the heat moving. Eventually, the heat will spread out to fill the whole room. If you had a sensitive enough thermometer, you could measure the rise in temperature of the room.Now look at a chemical reaction: Water is certainly more orderly than hydrogen or oxygen, so simple observation shows that your idea of thermodynamics is wrong.And guess what. That reaction produces large quantities of heat (hint: the Hindenburg). That means that the water is more stable than the hydrogen and oxygen. The Second Law means that a system will inevitably move toward a more stable configuration - even if it makes the stuff more orderly.Why don't creationists understand that? Why do they tell you nonsense about thermodynamics?

Did you not read my post at all? Hydrogen and oxygen move toward a more orderly system - water.The second law is NOT about order of things. It's about order of energy. A more orderly system of things - e.g. water - certainly CAN come from a less orderly system.You can see that. Why do you deny it?

As I tried to point out to candle, almost all chemical compounds defy his misunderstanding. They are, by definition, more complex than their constituents. By candle's misunderstanding, it would be impossible to make chemical compounds. Not to mention that it would be impossible to crystalize anything. And on and on....

It didn't "have" to take thousands of years to build Rome either - but it did.

Well, lies are taboo everywhere, except in your church, apparently. Evolution-denial is a lie, a bold-faced lie - as Mark Twain would call it, a damned lie. Climate-change-denial is also a lie and a damned lie - damn near a criminal lie.

Everybody who uses their brain does accept it. Dirt is common; it isn't very valuable. By all means yes, do disregard your so-called common sense and look at the evidence. Liar.(You also lied in Message 66 about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and I corrected you in Message 74 and Message 79. I.\'m still waiting for you to acknowledge that you were wrong.) They really do though.

Wrong. And wrong. Wrong again. And wrong again.Do you know what a theory is? Please tell us what you think it is. No. Let's not. Let's call you an ignorant liar instead. The standard response to that silly statement is that you might as well distinguish micro-walking from macro-walking. You might as well say that you can walk to the corner store but you can't walk to New York. That's nonsense, of course. Macro is just made up of a whole lot of micro added together. What do you think "true evolution" is? You think it's something stupid like dogs turning into cats, don't you. That's what those stupid lying creationists have told you, isn't it? Every mutaion produces new information, just like every sentence that somebody types produces new information. And they are different species because they have adapted to different situations. What did you expect them to be? Liar. Who said evolution required an increase in information? A different species of finch has different information but not necessarily "more" information. Again, tell us what you think evolution is. You seem to be thoroughly ignorant on the subject - but tell us what you think it is. Liar. Google "Has one species evolved into another species?" Liar. Google "What is a transitional fossil example?" They're working on it. Be prepared to lie about it when they succeed. Neither is your lying. There is nothing but lies on your side. Do you think lying for Jersus is a good thing? Creationism has nothing to do with science. The THEORY of Evolution wins by a landslide.You didn't respond to anything I said in Message 133. And I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that you lied about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in Message 66.

Well, not "completely" justified. There are (at least) two things against you: But you're not a competent individual. You're thoroughly incompetent to discuss anything related to science.

Your views on thermodynamics are not based on real science. I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that.
​ No you don't. Have you ever observed water? The existence of water proves that your ideas about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are false. If simple structures - e.g. H₂ and O₂ could not spontaneously become more complex - e.g. H₂O, then water could not exist. Your view is 100% opposite from observational science. Your view is 100% wrong.But you won't acknowledge that obvious fact, will you? Because you prefer creationist lies to real science.

You have the time to post lies. And when people expose your lies, instead of responding you post more lies.We don't need any more of your lies. Defend the lies you have already told.

1. Science doesn't deal in proofs. It deals in evidence.
2. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. False dichotomy.

I think everybody understands that that is your belief. We also understand that God "saving" us from Himself is a ridiculous concept.But your religious rubbish has nothing to do with the topic. Stop adding more nonsense and discuss the nonsense that you've already posted.

Proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is just a cute phrase that lawyers use. It has no basis in reality. Courts deal in reasonable doubt.And courts are wrong more often than science. Science is self-correcting. Nothing can prove an idea "beyond a shadow of a doubt". No.Science is a collective procedure. Scientists point out each other's presuppositions. A Christian scientist and a Muslim scientist can cancel out each other's presuppositions.You should get a clue how science works before you parrot the lies that creationists have told you.Now, please respond to Message 74.

Yeah, you pretty much have to use your imagination because there doesn't appear to be any confirmation anywhere on the internet.Just out of curiosity, how long do you think the "stench of death" lingers on bones? No. That is not what they say at all:

quote

---

Data from the fossils collected at Hilda indicate that death and final burial were caused by separate flooding events. For example, many of the ceratopsian carcasses at Hilda were trampled, broken and scavenged by other dinosaurs before final burial. source

---

So the dinosaurs were killed by one flood, the flood receded and then the carcasses were eaten by scavengers and then the bones were buried by another flood. And you think they would still smell? That's a lie.
Scientists Find Soft Tissue in 75-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Bones
Ancient tissue found in 195 million-year-old dinosaur rib You quoted the phrase "monster storm" but you didn't cite any reference. Here's what I found:

quote

---

The dinosaurs may have, apparently been part of a mass die-off resulting from a monster storm, comparable to today's hurricanes, which struck what was then a coastal area. source

---

"Common sense" would suggest that there is evidence for many "geographically isolated" floods - your own quote - but NO evidence for a global flood.

How do you figure a sedimentary layer managed to sneak UNDER an older igneous layer?