Ron Paul Doesn't Accept Evolution?

[PaulConventionWV]

Without warmth there's no life of any kind.

I'm not talking about destructive in that sense. Fire warms you, but it doesn't create order. It will break down everything it touches and destroy it, not build it up. In the same way, the sun, a ball of fire, is destructive. Providing warmth does not create order.

[Suzu]

I did watch it, and it basically repeated the same argument I had responded to, so no, it didn't address it at all.

Yes it did. You just don't like having your arguments shot down, so you claim it doesn't address them. Either that, or you didn't pay attention.

I asked you a question about why you insist that existence requires being part of the MEST universe like 3 pages ago and you have dodged around that question this whole time even though you were clearly aware that I had asked it and yet you still kept responding without even so much as mentioning it.

I *did* answer you, in the very first response to your question. You just don't like the answer I gave, so you pretend that I didn't say anything. Either that, or your reading comprehension is lower than a toadstool.... To EXIST requires MEST. Outside of the universe - which, by definition, IS MEST - nothing CAN exist. If you disagree, well, that's too bad, but it doesn't mean you're correct. Maybe someone else here can explain it in such a way that you can grasp it, but I'm out of patience.

You're clearly trying to avoid answering my question. That's what I'm talking about when I say intellectual dishonesty. Why are you avoiding my questions and yet you insist on continuing to respond to selected parts of my posts.

You're clearly trying to avoid acknowledging that I did answer your question right after you asked it. Intellectual dishonesty is pretending you didn't get an answer from me and ignoring the answer you got.

Now, after spending all this time arguing and writing many posts, you're complaining that you "don't like to write" and "Oh, look at the time!"

That's right, I don't like to write. Especially in response to one who simply ignores what I write, and keeps asking the same dumb question repeatedly even though it's already been answered.

Posting videos in response is just a way of disclaiming responsibility for what the video says and making it harder to respond directly. The videos themselves are often just a collaboration of straw man arguments that the people in the video make so that they can control both sides of the narrative and strike down the straw men with ease.

Not in this case. The video says precisely what you need to hear and won't, and it's presented in far more depth than I have time to write. Try listening again. Maybe you need to pause it after each statement and let it "sink in".

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes it did. You just don't like having your arguments shot down, so you claim it doesn't address them. Either that, or you didn't pay attention.


I *did* answer you, in the very first response to your question. You just don't like the answer I gave, so you pretend that I didn't say anything. Either that, or your reading comprehension is lower than a toadstool.... To EXIST requires MEST. Outside of the universe - which, by definition, IS MEST - nothing CAN exist. If you disagree, well, that's too bad, but it doesn't mean you're correct. Maybe someone else here can explain it in such a way that you can grasp it, but I'm out of patience.



You're clearly trying to avoid acknowledging that I did answer your question right after you asked it. Intellectual dishonesty is pretending you didn't get an answer from me and ignoring the answer you got.


That's right, I don't like to write. Especially in response to one who simply ignores what I write, and keeps asking the same dumb question repeatedly even though it's already been answered.



Not in this case. The video says precisely what you need to hear and won't, and it's presented in far more depth than I have time to write. Try listening again. Maybe you need to pause it after each statement and let it "sink in".

Bull$#@!. You never answered my question. You responded to that post, but you conveniently left out that question in your response. Anyone can go back and see that I'm right. I even asked you several times after that to answer the question and you just kept ignoring my requests.

As for the video, I'll give you one more chance to comprehend my response, which is exactly the same as what I posted before.

You don't get it. You can't lack belief in a deity. There is no "lack." If a random guy walks up to you on a street and asks, "Do I have a nickel in my pocket?" You don't say, "I lack such a belief because there's no evidence." The proper response would be that you simply don't know at all. While there is a subtle distinction between lacking a belief and making a positive claim to the negative, it is still inaccurate to say that you can simply lack a belief in God.

An atheist's lack of belief is just as unfounded as a positive belief because you have no evidence either way. If you really want to find out if there's a nickel in the guy's pocket on the street, you don't assume there isn't until you see evidence that there is. You take a neutral stance (could be either one, equally) until you find evidence either way that there is or there isn't. You don't lack belief of the nickel until you see evidence of it.

Lacking a belief in God is like lacking a belief in the absence of God. You can't require proof of such a claim because the burden of proof is on both sides, equally.

I think anyone who cares enough to watch your stupid video will recognize that you are flat out lying because you know people aren't going to watch it and you want to save face.

[PaulConventionWV]

Suzu, here's our dialogue earlier.

No, existence does not require matter, energy, space, or time. Prove that it does.

Let's turn the tables here, and you show me something that doesn't exist within the MEST universe.

Notice how you didn't answer the question? I did, so I immediately said this:

let's NOT turn the tables and allow you to evade the question. You made the statement that existence requires matter, energy, space, and time. Prove it.

This is your next reply to the post, a post that contained the above quote from me. Notice how it conveniently leaves out that quote and does not respond to it:

You are claiming that something that doesn't exist can make itself exist. How illogical is that?

(second part of my post)

Allright, show me something that exists outside the universe.

The third part of my post that contained the question was conveniently omitted from your response. Instead, you insisted on asking your question without responding to mine. I asked you many times after that to answer the question, and you kept responding to the other parts of my posts, but you failed to even acknowledge that I had asked the question, or that you had answered it, for that matter. If you had answered it, then you would have said, "I already answered that", but no, you never even acknowledged the parts of my several posts where I insisted that you answer the question. Now I have proof that you did NOT answer the question.

[Suzu]

As for the video, I'll give you one more chance to comprehend my response, which is exactly the same as what I posted before.

Lacking a belief in God is like lacking a belief in the absence of God. You can't require proof of such a claim because the burden of proof is on both sides, equally.

I think anyone who cares enough to watch your stupid video will recognize that you are flat out lying because you know people aren't going to watch it and you want to save face.

I would have bet that *you* wouldn't watch the video. The fact is it addresses *precisely* your claim about the burden of proof.

[Suzu]

Now I have proof that you did NOT answer the question.

Your answer was in this post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ST#post5729021

[PaulConventionWV]

Your answer was in this post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ST#post5729021

That was an assertion that you posted before I asked the question. I asked you to prove your assertion and you have not done that.

[PaulConventionWV]

I would have bet that *you* wouldn't watch the video. The fact is it addresses *precisely* your claim about the burden of proof.

I'm sick of you trying to argue with me vicariously through someone else's video. If you don't like to type, then what are you even doing here?

And no, the video still does not address my claim. I gave you my analogy, so if you can't respond to that all by your grown-ass adult self, then don't respond at all.

[Suzu]

That was an assertion that you posted before I asked the question. I asked you to prove your assertion and you have not done that.

Just like "gravity is a law" is an assertion. If you want to claim it isn't, then you bear the burden of proof.

The definition of "existence" implies a context in which to exist, like being alive in a human body implies a heart pumping blood through that body. The context for existence is an extant universe. If you say this is not so, then you bear the burden of proof - just like if you claim a human body can live without a heart pumping blood, you would bear the burden of proof. If you want to deny common sense, laws of nature and physics, that doesn't invalidate those things nor require anyone to bend over backward to prove to you something you will never accept because you've decided in advance that your cherished opinions are gospel.

[PaulConventionWV]

Just like "gravity is a law" is an assertion. If you want to claim it isn't, then you bear the burden of proof.

Technically, we both bear the burden of proof equally, but since you made the positive claim that existence requires MEST, then you bear the burden. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The definition of "existence" implies a context in which to exist, like being alive in a human body implies a heart pumping blood through that body. The context for existence is an extant universe. If you say this is not so, then you bear the burden of proof - just like if you claim a human body can live without a heart pumping blood, you would bear the burden of proof. If you want to deny common sense, laws of nature and physics, that doesn't invalidate those things nor require anyone to bend over backward to prove to you something you will never accept because you've decided in advance that your cherished opinions are gospel.

Like I said, neither of us have any evidence that anything beyond MEST either does or does not exist, but for you to claim that existence requires MEST is an argument from ignorance and you would bear the burden of proof for that claim. I never said positively that something beyond MEST existed, just that it could. For you to deny that is to claim knowledge of the opposite, when you have no such knowledge.

[robert68]

I'm not talking about destructive in that sense. Fire warms you, but it doesn't create order. It will break down everything it touches and destroy it, not build it up. In the same way, the sun, a ball of fire, is destructive. Providing warmth does not create order.

How does that argue against evolution?

If not for the atmosphere, photosynthesis wouldn't be possible. The fundamental forces of nature: gravity, strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic force provide order.

[PaulConventionWV]

How does that argue against evolution?

If not for the atmosphere, photosynthesis wouldn't be possible. The fundamental forces of nature: gravity, strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic force provide order.

Gravity provides order? So you're saying that, because water flows downhill, it is more ordered? Be serious, now. Give me an example of how those forces make things more ordered or complex.

See what you're doing? You're resorting to well-it-could-have-happened stories and fairytales to support your belief in evolution. Even if it could have happened, that wouldn't mean your belief was justified. You can believe it if you want, but don't call it science and push it on me and my kids through the public school system.

[Chester Copperpot]

Name one.

Sunlight is responsible for Vitamin D production, if you expose your back to sunlight it can double your testosterone, if you expose your genitals to sunlight it can triple your testosterone.. it provides nutrition on other levels as well. itll increase your thyroid and help you lose weight.. anywhere the sunlight is exposed on your body, it stimulates the glands and tissues. some people feel it is responsible for providing our bodies with the rare-earth mineral yytrium.

additionally, sunlight also is an antiseptic agent in that it can kill bacteria and/or viruses. people with tuberculosis have laid in the sun to cure themselves.. Jaundiced babies are treated with sunlight to cure themselves as the sunlight dissolves the bilirubin in the skin.. likewise it would probably be just as beneficial for jaundiced adults but most people arent aware of any of these things, least of them doctors trained only in drugs and surgery.

these are things off the top of my head.... there are of course other uses that im just not thinking of.

There used to be a time when sun therapy was used to treat a wide variety of illnesses and conditions. Im not sure why you have the attitude that sunlight must be destructive?

EDIT: The above is simply a result of direct sunlight contact with ones skin.. But there are also a host of other effects by sunlight entering through the eyes.. deep in your brain their are photoreceptors in places where there is no need for them if the only purpose of sunlight were for vision. But the sunlight will stimulate these receptors because there are many purposes to sunlight OTHER than for vision.
For example, Longer days during summer will result in increasing the size of male genitals in animals.

[PaulConventionWV]

Sunlight is responsible for Vitamin D production, if you expose your back to sunlight it can double your testosterone, if you expose your genitals to sunlight it can triple your testosterone.. it provides nutrition on other levels as well. itll increase your thyroid and help you lose weight.. anywhere the sunlight is exposed on your body, it stimulates the glands and tissues. some people feel it is responsible for providing our bodies with the rare-earth mineral yytrium.

*facepalm*

All of that requires an animal or human body. Sunlight doesn't do that by itself. That was my point this whole time.

additionally, sunlight also is an antiseptic agent in that it can kill bacteria and/or viruses. people with tuberculosis have laid in the sun to cure themselves.. Jaundiced babies are treated with sunlight to cure themselves as the sunlight dissolves the bilirubin in the skin.. likewise it would probably be just as beneficial for jaundiced adults but most people arent aware of any of these things, least of them doctors trained only in drugs and surgery.

Did you hear what you just said? You gave an example of how sunlight is destructive (kills backteria) to demonstrate that sunlight is not destructive. You clearly do not understand the question I was asking in the first place. Killing bacteria doesn't create order. Is there any example of sunlight, by itself, building something or making something more complex?

these are things off the top of my head.... there are of course other uses that im just not thinking of.

Yes, I'm sure there are, but you still don't understand what I'm asking for, obviously.

There used to be a time when sun therapy was used to treat a wide variety of illnesses and conditions. Im not sure why you have the attitude that sunlight must be destructive?

Because you don't get what I mean by "destructive." I'm not just talking about beneficial vs. harmful. I'm talking about the amount of entropy in a non-living system. Has sunlight ever decreased the amount of entropy in a non-living system?

EDIT: The above is simply a result of direct sunlight contact with ones skin.. But there are also a host of other effects by sunlight entering through the eyes.. deep in your brain their are photoreceptors in places where there is no need for them if the only purpose of sunlight were for vision. But the sunlight will stimulate these receptors because there are many purposes to sunlight OTHER than for vision.
For example, Longer days during summer will result in increasing the size of male genitals in animals.

The eye had to exist in order for this to occur. You're using a highly complicated piece of neurological machinery as an example of how sunlight can create order when it relies on the already-ordered system of the eye and the human brain to do any good. I'm not talking about anything living here. I'm talking about sunlight making systems more complex without the help of already-living organisms.

[Chester Copperpot]

*facepalm*

All of that requires an animal or human body. Sunlight doesn't do that by itself. That was my point this whole time.



Did you hear what you just said? You gave an example of how sunlight is destructive (kills backteria) to demonstrate that sunlight is not destructive. You clearly do not understand the question I was asking in the first place. Killing bacteria doesn't create order. Is there any example of sunlight, by itself, building something or making something more complex?



Yes, I'm sure there are, but you still don't understand what I'm asking for, obviously.



Because you don't get what I mean by "destructive." I'm not just talking about beneficial vs. harmful. I'm talking about the amount of entropy in a non-living system. Has sunlight ever decreased the amount of entropy in a non-living system?



The eye had to exist in order for this to occur. You're using a highly complicated piece of neurological machinery as an example of how sunlight can create order when it relies on the already-ordered system of the eye and the human brain to do any good. I'm not talking about anything living here. I'm talking about sunlight making systems more complex without the help of already-living organisms.

Well you should ask your questions better... I answered the question that I quoted from you. So you want to know how sunlight is beneficial without a living organism then.

Sunlight causes water to evaporate, the evaporating water forms clouds which then condense and fall to the Earth as rain which allows everything on this planet to live. Of course by your reasoning you are going to say that sunlight is destroying the water and turning it into water vapor, so im starting to doubt the sincerity of your questioning.

[otherone]

OT:
Is belief in creationism a prerequisite for Christianity? Or politics?

[GunnyFreedom]

Well you should ask your questions better... I answered the question that I quoted from you. So you want to know how sunlight is beneficial without a living organism then.

Sunlight causes water to evaporate, the evaporating water forms clouds which then condense and fall to the Earth as rain which allows everything on this planet to live. Of course by your reasoning you are going to say that sunlight is destroying the water and turning it into water vapor, so im starting to doubt the sincerity of your questioning.

Aye, I did the same thing and he seemed to imply that my comprehension was off. I just kind of rolled my eyes and said whatever and left him to his own stew. He was initially clearly looking for constructive examples of sunlight that are not photosynthesis. He wants to blame us for actually answering his question, but if he didn't want to learn about constructive examples of sonlight outside of photosynthesis, then he should not have asked for constructive examples of sunlight outside of photosynthesis.

He is getting exactly what he asked for, and then he wants to blame us who gave it to him for not getting exactly what he wants.

Here's a novel idea -- how about he asks for what he actually wants in the first place so that we don't have to go through a round of insulting Clue just to find out the guy must have English as a second language.

[robert68]

How does that argue against evolution?

No answer.

Gravity provides order? So you're saying that, because water flows downhill, it is more ordered?

As opposed to doing what?

Be serious, now. Give me an example of how those forces make things more ordered or complex.

How about reading up on elementary physics, chemistry, and biology so you can have a clue about the subject matter.

[PaulConventionWV]

No answer.

First of all, facts don't argue against evolution. They have no bias. Our interpretations of the facts do that. I would say it's something an evolutionist would have trouble explaining because how did life evolve from pond scum to single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms if sunlight, the life force of this Earth, is a net destructive force without life already existing?

As opposed to doing what?

Do you understand the concept of entropy? Water running downhill causes the entropy of the water to increase, FYI. It's taking the path of least resistance. In no way does gravity cause a decrease of entropy.

How about reading up on elementary physics, chemistry, and biology so you can have a clue about the subject matter.

That's pretty funny coming from you. You don't even seem to understand the concept of entropy. I think you're the one who needs to read up. I actually took these classes in college, unlike you, I'm willing to bet.

[jmdrake]

OT:
Is belief in creationism a prerequisite for Christianity? Or politics?

Politics? No. Christianity? Depends on the definition of Christianity. Central to mainstream Christianity is the belief that death came from sin and sin came from human disobedience. Evolution requires death before there was a human to disobey.

[PaulConventionWV]

Well you should ask your questions better... I answered the question that I quoted from you. So you want to know how sunlight is beneficial without a living organism then.

This is what I've been talking about for several pages. Perhaps you weren't paying attention.

Sunlight causes water to evaporate,

increasing entropy

the evaporating water forms clouds which then condense and fall to the Earth as rain which allows everything on this planet to live. Of course by your reasoning you are going to say that sunlight is destroying the water and turning it into water vapor, so im starting to doubt the sincerity of your questioning.

No, but I AM saying that evaporating water is increasing in entropy. I'm beginning to think none of you who are asking me about this actually understand entropy at all. Rain is not an example of increased order. When I say order, I meant molecules turning into amino acids, amino acids turning into proteins, and proteins turning into cells. Notice the hierarchy of complexity in that list. How does sunlight decrease entropy and increase complexity?

[PaulConventionWV]

Aye, I did the same thing and he seemed to imply that my comprehension was off. I just kind of rolled my eyes and said whatever and left him to his own stew. He was initially clearly looking for constructive examples of sunlight that are not photosynthesis. He wants to blame us for actually answering his question, but if he didn't want to learn about constructive examples of sonlight outside of photosynthesis, then he should not have asked for constructive examples of sunlight outside of photosynthesis.

Do you have any? Go ahead, I'm eager to find them. All anyone's provided so far are examples of how sunlight sustains life, not how it can CREATE life or increase complexity. Also, if you're going to talk about me, then please talk to me. I'm not sure what the misunderstanding was that you're talking about, but it may have been my mistake, and I would apologize for that. Instead, you decided to jump to conclusions about my state of mind.

He is getting exactly what he asked for, and then he wants to blame us who gave it to him for not getting exactly what he wants.

No, I haven't received any real answers yet. If you have any, then post them. If they were already posted, then post them again because I must have missed them. I have responded to every single one of these claims that sunlight can somehow reduce the entropy of a system without involving living organisms and none of them are really even relevant to what I asked. So please, if you have an example, show it to me. I'm begging you.

Here's a novel idea -- how about he asks for what he actually wants in the first place so that we don't have to go through a round of insulting Clue just to find out the guy must have English as a second language.

Don't you find it the least bit comical trying to talk about someone in the third person instead of just talking directly to them?

Insulting me will get you no points, either. I happen to teach English as a second language, and my English is damn near perfect so I can't help but laugh at your ridiculous ad hominem attack.

[robert68]

First of all, facts don't argue against evolution. They have no bias. Our interpretations of the facts do that. I would say it's something an evolutionist would have trouble explaining because how did life evolve from pond scum to single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms if sunlight, the life force of this Earth, is a net destructive force without life already existing?

So now sunlight is just a "net destructive force". Before it was more destructive than that. In any case, sunlight is not the only force involved in nature, and you're excluding those forces in your thesis.

[jmdrake]

Do you have any? Go ahead, I'm eager to find them. All anyone's provided so far are examples of how sunlight sustains life, not how it can CREATE life or increase complexity. Also, if you're going to talk about me, then please talk to me. I'm not sure what the misunderstanding was that you're talking about, but it may have been my mistake, and I would apologize for that. Instead, you decided to jump to conclusions about my state of mind.



No, I haven't received any real answers yet. If you have any, then post them. If they were already posted, then post them again because I must have missed them. I have responded to every single one of these claims that sunlight can somehow reduce the entropy of a system without involving living organisms and none of them are really even relevant to what I asked. So please, if you have an example, show it to me. I'm begging you.



Don't you find it the least bit comical trying to talk about someone in the third person instead of just talking directly to them?

Insulting me will get you no points, either. I happen to teach English as a second language, and my English is damn near perfect so I can't help but laugh at your ridiculous ad hominem attack.

Clearly this robot evolved from sunlight.

[PaulConventionWV]

So now sunlight is just a "net destructive force". Before it was more destructive than that. In any case, sunlight is not the only force involved in nature, and you're excluding them in your thesis.

FFS, seriously? How freaking particular do you want me to be about the specific terms I use? If it is destructive, then it is also net destructive. However, nobody has been able to provide a single instance in which sunlight is not destructive without already-existing living organisms, and that is why you are resorting to grammar nit-picking.

You would have a better case for me moving the goal post if you had actually provided an example of me being wrong, but you haven't, so you don't get to nit-pick my grammar.

If you want to provide me an example of some other force of nature increasing order and decreasing entropy without the help of living organisms, then be my guest. It doesn't have to be sunlight. Fire away, I'm sure you have a million examples at your fingertips. Don't hold back. What are you waiting for?

[GunnyFreedom]

Do you have any?

Well I did, and just like with Mike, you moved the goalposts. In my case I figured out the corner you were trying to paint people into, then you officially dropped the reference to photosynthesis, and stated that your argument has basically nothing to do with even the entropy you are trying to hint at, except to force someone else to face a contradiction within their own paradigm.

All I'm saying is at some point you are going to have to stop blaming others for your own inartful articulation.

Go ahead, I'm eager to find them. All anyone's provided so far are examples of how sunlight sustains life, not how it can CREATE life or increase complexity. Also, if you're going to talk about me, then please talk to me. I'm not sure what the misunderstanding was that you're talking about, but it may have been my mistake, and I would apologize for that. Instead, you decided to jump to conclusions about my state of mind.

If 100 out of 100 people 'misread; your words to the same conclusion, would it still be the fault of those who misread it or the one who wrote it? You now have Mike 'misreading' the exact same thing I did and somehow it's his fault? Come on.

No, I haven't received any real answers yet. If you have any, then post them.

You have received plenty of real answers to the question you actually asked. If you wanted people to answer the question you actually meant, then that is probably the one you should have asked. Honestly I am not a mind reader and I can only go by the words that come out of your keyboard.

If they were already posted, then post them again because I must have missed them. I have responded to every single one of these claims that sunlight can somehow reduce the entropy of a system without involving living organisms and none of them are really even relevant to what I asked. So please, if you have an example, show it to me. I'm begging you.

Don't you find it the least bit comical trying to talk about someone in the third person instead of just talking directly to them?

How else should I treat someone who thinks every inability to understand his intent is the fault of someone else? That's actually just my own habit of reflex reflection. Certain attitudes and behaviors when I encounter them in people I just mirror them because I find it funny when people annoy themselves...

Insulting me will get you no points, either. I happen to teach English as a second language, and my English is damn near perfect so I can't help but laugh at your ridiculous ad hominem attack.

If your English was so damn near perfect then why do so many people keep getting the same, "wrong" idea of what you are asking for?

If it was legitimately our fault, as you imply because we are stupid and cannot comprehend your expert words, then would we not all be getting different "wrong" ideas of what you are asking? That we are getting the same "wrong" idea of what you are asking actually implies that the error in construction is on your end, but hey I am an uneducated idiot clearly unschooled in the nuances of English so what do I know, right?

[jmdrake]

Gunny, I will simplify Paul's position for you. This is powered by sunlight but was not created by it nor assembled by it.



If the robot needs to adapt, simply shining more sunlight on it isn't going to make it adapt. The robot might be able to adapt, as some robots are created to have that ability, but it won't adapt beyond the parameters of it's original creation. I hope that helps.

[otherone]

Politics? No. Christianity? Depends on the definition of Christianity. Central to mainstream Christianity is the belief that death came from sin and sin came from human disobedience. Evolution requires death before there was a human to disobey.

Thanks, Jim.
I had assumed the problem was in questioning the literal interpretation of scripture. I didn't realize creationism was fundamental to doctrine. WOW.

[GunnyFreedom]

"Life" from a scientific perspective, is a curious temporary reversal of entropy. Entropy as a universal Law, is so all-pervasive that the fact that life itself is a temporary (but only temporary!) reversal of entropy may be considered the actual definition of "life" from a scientific perspective, and turn out to be accurate across several paradigms.

The ultimate argument from entropy is against abiogenesis. Some will attempt to argue that speciation is a violation of entropy, but I think once you accept that life by definition is a temporary reversal of entropy you also have to accept multi-generational reversals of entropy and thus speciation. Arguing against speciation via entropy is a dead end. Arguing against abiogenesis via entropy is a solid argument, but why approach entropy from such an extreme tangent that you are understood others to be saying something else about the properties of sunlight? Entropy is broadly accepted amongst pretty much the entire scientific community to the last man. You don't have to justify it to that set you can state it as an open premise and work from there.

[jmdrake]

"Life" from a scientific perspective, is a curious temporary reversal of entropy. Entropy as a universal Law, is so all-pervasive that the fact that life itself is a temporary (but only temporary!) reversal of entropy may be considered the actual definition of "life" from a scientific perspective, and turn out to be accurate across several paradigms.

The ultimate argument from entropy is against abiogenesis. Some will attempt to argue that speciation is a violation of entropy, but I think once you accept that life by definition is a temporary reversal of entropy you also have to accept multi-generational reversals of entropy and thus speciation. Arguing against speciation via entropy is a dead end. Arguing against abiogenesis via entropy is a solid argument, but why approach entropy from such an extreme tangent that you are understood others to be saying something else about the properties of sunlight? Entropy is broadly accepted amongst pretty much the entire scientific community to the last man. You don't have to justify it to that set you can state it as an open premise and work from there.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I disagree. Again thing robotics. A robot that is able to adapt is no more complex from one adaptation to another. But, under current designs at least, it will never adapt beyond the parameters of its creation. A moth subspecies that goes from light grey to dark grey because of pollution has not had an "entropy reversal" as you've claimed. If that were the case the why would the same moth subspecies become light grey again after the pollution was removed?