The energy given off by the Sun doesn't supply enough of a counterargument to the Second law of Thermodynamics.
['Based on what? Cite your source. Show us the math.']
31 comments
Well, at least unlike a certain Fundie of the Year (it was that guy who won it, correct?), he recognizes that the Sun exists. He's only one or two notches above that for sanity, but he is above it.
I'll tell you what... all he (or anyone) has to do to get me to join the creationists, is give a valid explanation explaining why the second law of thermodynamics refutes evolution.
Yup, those plants and animals and human cells that need sunlight are of no use at all. None at all. Except for, you know, life and stuff...
mind you, here, in Canada, in February, it's not hard to hold that opinion, on account of the sun does NOT appear to EXIST!
Raw energy alone (sunlight) is of no particular use to anything. I fear for the future when I realize that most of you (probably) can vote.
Right back at ya.
Newsflash, putz - the fact that other stuff is needed HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on whether the system is open or closed. In fact, the definition of a closed system is one in which no energy enters or leaves. No energy. Not "a small amount of energy", not "hardly any energy", NO energy.quadrillion kWh per day over the surface of the Earth. So we're not exactly talking miniscule amounts of energy here.
The energy given off by the Sun doesn't supply enough of a counterargument to the Second law of Thermodynamics.
When you add in photosynthesis which allows plants to store said energy into bulk sources which are later consumed by higher life forms, then the sun is all we need and all we've ever had throughout the history of the Earth. All Earth-bound energy sources orginally come from the sun, including geothermal which is the residual heat left in the core from when the Earth was spun off the sun.
Raw energy alone (sunlight) is of no particular use to anything.
How about the practical use as a light source so we can see things?! Sheesh, I've seen dumb before (and have even practiced it a few times) but this is an all time new low.
"Raw energy alone (sunlight) is of no particular use to anything"
So you don't need plants photosynthesising sunlight to create not only fruit & vegetables necessary for a balanced diet in humans, nor their convesion of carbon dioxide to oxygen necessary for respiration in humans (and other animal life - some of which are also part of said humans' balanced diet). Or production of Vitamin D in the body via sunlight. Nor do you require the satellites that transmit the TV programmes you watch via dish reception/cable, or the phone/internet connection, powered by their solar cell arrays.
Amirite?
I guess you won't mind going into this hermetically sealed chamber with an extremely low wattage bulb, and plain grey walls therein, with absolutely no other stimuli to occupy your mind, as you gradually experience hypoxia due to carbon dioxide poisoning.
If sunlight 'is of no particular use to anything'.
Would you agree to this? If you reply anything other than 'yes', you've just destroyed your own argument.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
