> Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins.
> 1. There is no natural means to increase usable energy in a closed system.
> 2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.
> 3. Therefore, the initial energy of the universe must have originated
> supernaturally.
> 4. The creation model conforms to the data.
>
> Evolution proposes only natural explanations.
> Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law.
> Models that contradict data are unscientific.
> Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific
>
> http://www.mbbc.us/creation/presentation.htm

>Hatter gmail.com>

>Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins

>>Hatter gmail.com>

>

>>Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins

>

>>On Apr 2, 11:33 am, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote:

>>> Second Law of Thermodynamics...

>>Hatter gmail.com>

>

>>Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of
>>origins

>

>>On Apr 2, 11:33

> From my perspective, I would reword your "christian philosphy" to be
> "Christian truth". I have never seen the Bible be incorrect in matters
> of science. (and it shouldn't be if it really is from God--2 Ti 3:16)
> Have you ever personally investigated the Bible in that matter?

> Next, please explain the part about bats being birds, not rodents, and
> how Science is wrong about that.

>
> "Uncle Vic" withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A928B732CEE8vicman@207.115.33.102...

>> Next, please explain the part about bats being birds, not rodents, and
>> how Science is wrong about that.

>
> Just as an aside, bats are not rodents.
> http://www.fws.gov/endangered/bats/miscon.htm
>
>
>
>

> One fine day in alt.atheism, "TimK" cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>

>>
>> "Uncle Vic" withheld.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A928B732CEE8vicman@207.115.33.102...

>>> Next, please explain the part about bats being birds, not rodents, and
>>> how Science is wrong about that.

>>
>> Just as an aside, bats are not rodents.
>> http://www.fws.gov/endangered/bats/miscon.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>

>
> Interesting. Thanks!

> James wrote:

>> From my perspective, I would reword your "christian philosphy" to be
>> "Christian truth". I have never seen the Bible be incorrect in matters
>> of science. (and it shouldn't be if it really is from God--2 Ti 3:16)
>> Have you ever personally investigated the Bible in that matter?

>
> You missed that part in Leviticus 11:6 about rabbits chewing cud, eh?
>
> Strike one for the Bible never being wrong about science.