And this kind of debate always shows to me the dangers of people not knowing answers. A chunk of people go and do research to try and understand, another chunk make stuff up and then make silly arguments as to why it is as legitimate as the people that do research. The big bang theory is just that, a theory based on available evidence. Not fact as there is not enough evidence to prove. There are also theories around how the big bang would have come in to being based on various pieces of evidence... however again not fact. You can't just make something up and expect it to be a comparable argument to theories based on research.

There are hypotheses about how the big bang came into being. Not scientific theories. But its also important to note the big bang theory is being changed.

He isn't talking about evolution with the thermodynamics, he's talking about the Big Bang.

OK, the universe is experiencing a total increase of entropy all the time. I see no issues.

No I don't really know what he's talking about, I was hoping you would once you realised he was talking about the Big Bang

[quote]The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy must increase in a closed system.[/quote]Agreed and substantiated.[quote]Earth is not a closed system. We get a steady stream of energy from the sun.[/quote]...which is one of the few youngest suns in our universe that has sustained life on Earth for an acclaimed number of four and a half billion years. Huh...[quote]That being said, that amount of energy the sun gives off, compared to how much is being utilized is still achieving an increase in entropy.[/quote]In black-and-white semantics, this part of the statement doesn't explain why the universe is not considered to be in a closed system. All finite things are finite things; thus, something infinite should have existed because [logic].[quote]So evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics (hence, it's existence).[/quote]Without an explanation as to anything regarding origins, evolution is literally debunked without having an explanation to its own cause, but evolutionists skip that portion of the study because they indulge by remaining [ignorant], saying, "Evolution is not origins. It's about how biological life progresses." *I say* "Then where did all are finite existence come from." *[insert evolutionist's name] reply* "Evolution doesn't talk about it because [excuse backed by nothing]."[quote]As for #2, adaptation, is one of the forces that drive evolution.[/quote]...because [[b]speculated[/b] reasons].[quote]Adaptation is driven by natural selection...[/quote]...which inevitable kills itself in its own thinking.[quote]...and genetics runs underneath all of it, carrying the blue prints along.[/quote]Agreed. At least there is something in here that has not manifested from a sickening form of pseudoscience.[quote]Go read a book, that isn't published by religious zealots.[/quote]Replier thinks Pearson publishers are religious zealots.

I'm not going in circles with you. If you can't understand what I typed, you have bigger issues.

[quote]I'm not going in circles with you.[/quote]Pointing Out: Speechless atheist.[quote]If you can't understand...[/quote]I do understand and found it to be unjustified.[quote]...you have bigger issues.[/quote]I agree you do. Remember what I said about that always evolutionists skip?

How can any of this be real, when are eyes aren't real, CheckM89.

[quote]How can any of this be real when are eyes aren't real, CheckM89?[/quote]What the heck are you talking about?

Exactly.

Then why have humans not adapted? Are their any changes that we can see today?

Human change. Avg overall height of humans is increasing. We've evolved to the point where we no longer need our tonsils, appendix, and wisdom teeth are often more detrimental than beneficial. Its also important to understand that we've developed sufficient technology to not be subject to much of our environments natural selection forces. Modern medicine and our ability to live in vastly different climates means the forces that once shaped us are no longer factors. As for other organisms, bacteria are becoming resistant antibiotics, we have fish becoming resistant to polluted rivers, as well as many other examples of organisms just adapting to pressures that aren't human in origin. [url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/]here's a good example[/url] of animals still evolving to their environment. These things are just a few out of the many, many examples in the world. Ecosystems have niches. As those niches change, new ones arise, and old ones go away, the organisms that live there must evolve to survive and claim those niches, or simply go extinct. Evolution is a simple term to describe a highly dynamic and many faceted phenomenon. If you lack the knowledge of what it consists of, then yes it would seem absurd. But when you understand all the forces at work, even if it didn't have a term, it would be obvious.

But what of the origins. Wouldn't a spontaneous creation of matter be just as unscientific as a god creating the universe? And thank you for giving facts and not being a dick towards others

Yes a spontaneous creation of matter would be unscientific, and nobody who knows what they're talking about claims [u]matter[/u] spontaneously appeared in the form of life. The exact how as to life's origins is still being investigated. There's lots of really detailed and plausible hypothesis on it, but its all still being researched, and tested. But here's something we know. Elements abundant on early earth are capable of creating the basic organic compounds necessary for basic cells, which was once viewed as a paradox. This is all being heavily investigated by chemists in labs, as well as by observing conditions on earth similar to what would have been present around the timeframe life would've began. Its not spontaneous, its chemistry. An important distinction is that the theory of evolution is for how life diversified after its began. Evolution does not address, nor is it about how those first life forms came to be. This is called abiogenesis, a separate field.