Creationist Lies 666 apologies
Out of context: Reply #72
- Started
- Last post
- 173 Responses
- discipler0
"what is it ABOUT this aspect of the 2nd law that supports your argument that the natural processes of physics and chemistry cannot have resulted in living systems ?"
------------------------------
Mikotondria - My issue is that Darwinian evolution states the opposite of this confirmed law by suggesting that irreducibly complex biochemical machines were somehow magically formed from their constituent particles to create something functional and living and that would ultimately become multicellular organisms. Yet science has demonstrated that mindless natural processes cannot make this happen. Biochemists have demonstrated this. And my point is that the 2nd law shows a tendency towards decay and disorder left to natural processes, NOT organization of particles into the super machine that is even a single cell (let alone the insane complexity of a single strand of DNA). There is no science to suggest mindless natural processes could do this. It's a mythical notion.