Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:52 am
Page 8 of 39
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:10 am
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:28 pm
Fucking Dupont, always there to help America. Motherfuckerss, cocksuckers, corporate fucking backstabbing......blah, bllllah..rantrantrant 
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 4:06 pm
I heard on NPR this morning a bit of a discussion on this topic, why or how could the second law of Thermodynamics be proof that evolution cannot occur? I'm not trying to stur the pot but just curious how this argument could be framed.
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:07 pm
On the whole, entropy is increasing, but it can be reversed in isolated locations. (But, of course, by fighting entropy locally, you increase it globally). The answers to the questions "Is evolution possible?" and "Is the inside of a functioning refrigerator colder than the outside?" are the same answer for somewhat related reasons.
The more I think about it, the more it ticks me off that some weasel would try to use the second law of thermodynamics to confuse people about evolution. It strikes me as a total scum-bag trick to play on people.
The more I think about it, the more it ticks me off that some weasel would try to use the second law of thermodynamics to confuse people about evolution. It strikes me as a total scum-bag trick to play on people.
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:55 pm
and I hate scumbags....aand Dupont
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:28 pm
And now you know.......The rest of the story.........page two 
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 am
Yea, it is pretty ironic to use entropy as an argument against evolution when ultimately entropy is a major force that drives it. Entropy means disorder. Things tend to get more disordered on average in the universe so entropy is always increasing. The process of putting a life form together and maintaining it generates more disorder overall than if it didn't happen. If you just take a snapshot of an organism and note how ordered it is you might think it is violating entropy.
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:48 am
I thought that the "new" Theory was called "Intelligent Design" not ICD, or whatever.
The reason that nonreligous people fight religous people so hard is because IF there is a God then that means that they will have to stand before him one day and answer for their moral infractions. That is the simple answer to all of this rhetoric and posturing. It is an attempt to disenfranchise themselves from their moral obligations. Good luck with that......
The reason that nonreligous people fight religous people so hard is because IF there is a God then that means that they will have to stand before him one day and answer for their moral infractions. That is the simple answer to all of this rhetoric and posturing. It is an attempt to disenfranchise themselves from their moral obligations. Good luck with that......
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:05 am
Ultra, lord of lords, i have felt your hand upon my heart and, though i'm a unworthy, you still love me. i turned away from you and tried to ignore you.. but having your everlasting love in my presence is undeniable. i know i am unworthy and a sinner and have denied you some many times.. but i know that is why you love me in your absolute forgiveness. all i have to do is spin around three times with my head on a baseball bat, step on a crack (to break my mother's back), and spit in a friend's eye then say, "ultra, i want you into my life. i want you to take my heart and show me the way back to you. i know you have posted on the board so that my sins may be forgiven. i know that you are risen again so you are the son of the father. i am unworthy but you make me strong because you are my savior. you have signed off so that i may sign on."
thank you, ultra.
..i feel more moral already. maybe i can go find some sinners and persecute them if they don't agree..
thank you, ultra.
..i feel more moral already. maybe i can go find some sinners and persecute them if they don't agree..