User talk:Djacobs

Welcome!

Hello Djacobs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 20:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design

"Some "super-dense ball of energy" was just sitting in nothingness waiting to blow up and form rational, extremely complex humans?" Please, the arguments you are putting forward are not new, and have been discussed already. You seem to be stringing concepts together, hoping they will mean something. I mean no offense, truly, but honestly, the ID and creationism article have seen a lot of people, and a lot of those have tried to argue for creationism/ID. I'm not sure Joshuaschroeder will bother answering you, even. It becomes tiring after a while to explain the same concepts to people.

You mention the Law of Entropy. I'm assuming you are either refering to the notion that the Big Bang violated it, or that life itself does. Both are based on a fallacious interpretation of the Second Law. The Second Law states that all work done within an isolated system, will cause an increase of entropy within that system. Firstly, the Second Law is a physical Lawdraws up by humans, to which no exceptions have ever been found. But it's not impossible that the unique conditions during the Big Bang did allow for some unique occurences. Also, since time did not exist before the Big Bang, the Second Law does not apply.

As for life. The Second Law only applies to closed systems, and it is a feature of the universe, not its ultimate goal. To suggest that life could not have formed, because life is order, and order cannot increase (even locally) is simply wrong.

Again. Please stop using these rediculous arguments. They have been rebutted to death. -- Ec5618 06:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]