Evolution:HMMM

[n3M351s]

Therefore i say that god did not make us in his image, because his image is not physiologically the same as ours but looks more like giant green gofer with purple eyes. This has been confirmed through the discovery of a long last chapter of the bible; the book of Umizutial.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Humans have conscious recognition of their being.
Humans have the ability to exercise free will and reason.
Humans have the capacity for spiritual and moral reflection and growth.
Humans can, in their freedom, choose to deny or repress their spiritual and moral likeness to God.

[TheWay]

Thats a false analogy, as we didnt start off as a complex lifeform. In fact nothing started as a complex lifeform instead everything started with safe easy and decidedly un-complex ideas of life. To these humble beginnings extras were bolted on as needed and so complex lifeforms arose from that.

realy, because darwin based his theory off the existance of a simple cell later we have found that indeed the cell is not simple but immensly complex. So exactly what part of life is simple.

I will take a secomd look at Entropy and respond in kind. However your degree does not discredit my view nor does it elevate your unless you are a published scientist in this area in which case your thoughts would hold more credance but seperate from that you have no argument as to your understanding being superior.

P.S. sorry avenger the post asnt directed at you it was at thriller i believe sorry for that m8

Really? I have just been tested on, educated in, and showed a general interest to fully understand the field in question.

BY your logic then i am just as qualified as you to speak on the matters of god, intelligent design, and for that matter psychology. And any claims I make to the aforementioned must be given as much validity as yours.

Therefore i say that god did not make us in his image, because his image is not physiologically the same as ours but looks more like giant green gofer with purple eyes. This has been confirmed through the discovery of a long last chapter of the bible; the book of Umizutial.

You have just as much right and the same ability to become educated and knowledgable on any of these subjects as me. I do however want to put out I did say that it required study not just uninformed babble.

You are doing the same thing most evolutionist do when they cant answer simple questions you and they deflect and attack religion. Evolution is the reigning theory therefore it must be questioned as per the rules of science and yet anytime someone questions it, everyone has a cow. Evolution as a theory has a responsibility to answer these objections and it also carries an even greater burden and that is to prove itself, so why then can you not at least try to show us some evidence other then conjecture and speculation.

I am currently studying thermodynamics and am finding alot of interesting info, and i am very excitted to return when finished and use that info.

added in later: Also please site what court case Micheal Behe was proven wrong and in what court please because frankly I highly doubt it is as simple as you say.

[n3M351s]

You are doing the same thing most evolutionist do when they cant answer simple questions you and they deflect and attack religion. Evolution is the reigning theory therefore it must be questioned as per the rules of science and yet anytime someone questions it, everyone has a cow. Evolution as a theory has a responsibility to answer these objections and it also carries an even greater burden and that is to prove itself, so why then can you not at least try to show us some evidence other then conjecture and speculation.

Spot on there, Thriller seems to be side-stepping just a tad.

[Thriller]

You are doing the same thing most evolutionist do when they cant answer simple questions you and they deflect and attack religion. Evolution is the reigning theory therefore it must be questioned as per the rules of science and yet anytime someone questions it, everyone has a cow. Evolution as a theory has a responsibility to answer these objections and it also carries an even greater burden and that is to prove itself, so why then can you not at least try to show us some evidence other then conjecture and speculation.

Spot on there, Thriller seems to be side-stepping just a tad.

Hahahaa, I have provided links to observed speciation and intermediate forms but you merely dismissed them as pseudoscience(that would be the evidence you claimed twice i never provided, just look back through the posts). Without providing any evidence to make such claims. I merely made that ridiculous claim to show you how your claims sound to me. (Someone who knows what he is talking about)

oh and here is the link to the court case
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller.htm
and a summation on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District
(i don't like using Wikipedia but it was the best one i could find)

[TheWay]

you said in your earlier post that Michael Behe was debunked by the a judge in the court system and the only thing I saw was a hearing that denied the ability of ID to be taught in schools because of its a priori presuppositional view that there could be a creator or something intelligent behind creation.

I read the decision and it is yet another case of legislating from the bench.

The issue of ID was thrown out because of its unwillingness to rule out the possibility of an intelligent agent in the creation of the universe.

As of your evidence if that’s all you have then I think the Evolutionist argument is even weaker than I thought it was. In a discussion on the validity of Evolution more evidence has been presented to support ID just by accident then has been put forward for evolution.

What happened to the observations of Darwin which have not been sited or any of the other so called proofs? You have spent most your posts attacking me rather than presenting proof.

I still have this question which you haven’t answered, I have read Dawkins, Gould, Darwin, and many others but what have you read in the area of intelligent design? And don't cop out by saying you have no need to read them or they are a waste of time because frankly I carry the same view towards the evolutionary scientist but I understand I must read the writings of my opponents to be intelligent when arguing against those ideas.

I have started a post that allows you to make the case for evolution and yet you haven’t taken advantage of it. When I have more time I will start a topic on ID and be happy to present a barrage of information supporting ID

[Thriller]

you said in your earlier post that Michael Behe was debunked by the a judge in the court system and the only thing I saw was a hearing that denied the ability of ID to be taught in schools because of its a priori presuppositional view that there could be a creator or something intelligent behind creation.

I read the decision and it is yet another case of legislating from the bench.

The issue of ID was thrown out because of its unwillingness to rule out the possibility of an intelligent agent in the creation of the universe.

As of your evidence if that’s all you have then I think the Evolutionist argument is even weaker than I thought it was. In a discussion on the validity of Evolution more evidence has been presented to support ID just by accident then has been put forward for evolution.

What happened to the observations of Darwin which have not been sited or any of the other so called proofs? You have spent most your posts attacking me rather than presenting proof.

I still have this question which you haven’t answered, I have read Dawkins, Gould, Darwin, and many others but what have you read in the area of intelligent design? And don't cop out by saying you have no need to read them or they are a waste of time because frankly I carry the same view towards the evolutionary scientist but I understand I must read the writings of my opponents to be intelligent when arguing against those ideas.

I have started a post that allows you to make the case for evolution and yet you haven’t taken advantage of it. When I have more time I will start a topic on ID and be happy to present a barrage of information supporting ID

what more could you possibly want....

other people that support my view
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9xS9hX15C8
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=HXMxZxWqVnk
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k

Observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Transitional forms found in nature:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Mathematical proof of the limits entropy places on evolution: (the earth is not a closed system so the secound law doesnt really apply but ill play along).

quick calculation:

The change in the entropy of a system as it goes from an initial state to a final state is
ΔS = Q/T
ΔS is the change in the entropy during the process,
Q is the flow of heat in units of Joules (or J) (Q is positive if heat flows into the object, and negative if heat flows out of the object), and
T is the temperature in units of Kelvin (or K).

The average temperature of the earth's surface is 288 K (= 15° C = 59° F). To maintain this temperature(equilibrium), that one square meter must radiate 224.4 J of energy back into the atmosphere (and ultimately into outer space) . The entropy of this radiation is

ΔS = Q/T = 224.4/228 = 0.779 J/K.

this one square meter of ground gains 0.076 J/K of entropy every second from sunlight, and produces 0.779 J/K every second by radiating energy back into the sky for a net entropy creation rate of *0.703 J/K every second.
*(0.779 J/K - 0.076 J/K)



The average biomass occupying one square meter of land is between 10 and 12 kg, mostly as plant material. Taking 11 kg as an average,we can calculate how much energy it would take to create this biomass from simple inorganic chemicals. This can be done by reversing the process, and asking how much energy is released when combustion reduces plant life to ashes. The answer is the heat of combustion, which for wood (which we may take as representative of plant life) is 1.88 x 10^7 J/kg.


1.88 x 10^7 x 11 = 2.07 x 108 J

Multiplying these two numbers together, the energy required to generate the amount of life currently found on an average square meter of land is 2.07 x 10^8 J.

If this life is generated at the earth's average temperature of 288 K, its entropy decrease will be.

ΔS = Q/T = 2.07 x 10^8 / 288 = *7.18 x 10^5 J/K.
(the amount of energy transfer needed to sustain life and maintain its temperature)

We are now able to determine what restrictions the laws of thermodynamics place upon the evolution of life on earth. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, heat is a flow of energy and must obey the Law of Conservation of Energy. The average square meter of land surface on earth receives 224.4 J of energy from the sun every second, and contains
2.07 x 10^8 J of energy stored in living tissue. The ratio of these two values is

2.07 x 10^8 (J) / 224.4 (J/s) = 9.22 x 10^5 (s) = 10.7 days.


explanation:
If all the solar energy received by this square meter is used to create organic matter, a minimum of 10.7 days is required to avoid violating the First Law of Thermodynamics( The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings).

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in an isolated system, the entropy tends to increase. The average square meter of land may balance the entropy increase due to radiation by generating a maximum entropy decrease of 0.703 J/K every second through the growth of life without violating this law. The difference in entropy between this square meter with life and the same square meter in the absence of life is 7.18 x 10^5 J/K. The ratio of these two values is


7.18 x 10^8 (J/K)/ 0.703 (J/K/s) = 1.02 x 10^6 (s) = 11.8 days.

A minimum of 11.8 days is required to avoid violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Now you must answer this question; IS the world older than 11.8 days?

Can creationists seriously argue that there has not been enough time for the sun to provide the energy stored in the living matter we find on earth today? If not, then they cannot honestly rely on entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to make their case.

[TheWay]

First off not even one of your sources is credable, you are starting to make me think you ahvent even read the leaders of the historical nor modern evolutionary theory. My head can't you site some arguments from books. Youtube is not a trusted source nor will I waste time disputing a non credited video. In an argument if the video gives out good info then site it yourself and make the point.

Now on Thermo dynamics I have been hearing this closed system argument forever, now I am not done with my research on this subject however i will point out that there are some powerful implications against evolution regrading the second and the first law as well. I am not very great with math I am after all a psycology/counseling major lol, but i am still looking into thermo dynamics. Again though Termodynamics even if it doesnt disprove evolutution it certaintly doesnt prove it or give any evidence for it all.

As of your last point "Can creationists seriously argue that there has not been enough time for the sun to provide the energy stored in the living matter we find on earth today? If not, then they cannot honestly rely on entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to make their case." This is very easy to answer first again you are attacking creationism even though I am not a creationist and second God is not a blind watch maker nor does he need time or any other law or theory to guide his creation. If there is indeed a God he can create the appearance of processes, ie a man fully grown in the garden of eden.

P.S. we are not arguing creation nor religion here we are discussing evolution please stay on point

[Kit-Fox]

Removed

[Thriller]

Unfortunately TheWay creationsim & ID are considered very close theories and a lot of people do treat them as one or as interchangable, and for intents and purposes they mostly are.

Anyways I stand by my statement that Evolution is just a name we have applied to a process that has been going for years. Call it what you will but lifeforms do change and when those changes are permanent & irrvesible (such as skin colour) then it hard to see the case for some all cosmic creator or designer. As if they were true then surely they would be making the changes and theres no proof of any outside force doing these changes.

Spot on!!!
+rep

[Thriller]

First off not even one of your sources is credable, you are starting to make me think you ahvent even read the leaders of the historical nor modern evolutionary theory. My head can't you site some arguments from books. Youtube is not a trusted source nor will I waste time disputing a non credited video. In an argument if the video gives out good info then site it yourself and make the point.

Now on Thermo dynamics I have been hearing this closed system argument forever, now I am not done with my research on this subject however i will point out that there are some powerful implications against evolution regrading the second and the first law as well. I am not very great with math I am after all a psycology/counseling major lol, but i am still looking into thermo dynamics. Again though Termodynamics even if it doesnt disprove evolutution it certaintly doesnt prove it or give any evidence for it all.

As of your last point "Can creationists seriously argue that there has not been enough time for the sun to provide the energy stored in the living matter we find on earth today? If not, then they cannot honestly rely on entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to make their case." This is very easy to answer first again you are attacking creationism even though I am not a creationist and second God is not a blind watch maker nor does he need time or any other law or theory to guide his creation. If there is indeed a God he can create the appearance of processes, ie a man fully grown in the garden of eden.

P.S. we are not arguing creation nor religion here we are discussing evolution please stay on point

All the written sources i gave you are sourced on the page from their original prints. their are so many books and papers that prove you wrong i thought i would just give you the short version.

here they are again; sans youtube.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

[TheWay]

Unfortunately TheWay creationsim & ID are considered very close theories and a lot of people do treat them as one or as interchangable, and for intents and purposes they mostly are.

Anyways I stand by my statement that Evolution is just a name we have applied to a process that has been going for years. Call it what you will but lifeforms do change and when those changes are permanent & irrvesible (such as skin colour) then it hard to see the case for some all cosmic creator or designer. As if they were true then surely they would be making the changes and theres no proof of any outside force doing these changes.

This was the point of my entire post

Yes there are evidences for microevoltution and natural selection. ie the galapagos finches or the moths in england. However these adaptations and changes in what species survives are not Macroevoltution and it is a far stretch to fo from natural changes within a species and the creation of an entirely new species. The changing humanities skin over generations is an issue natural selection and selective breeding. If you lived in a desert then the most likely to survive would be those with darker skin and eventualy through cultural survival matting would lean towards the stronger adaptation. However at no point did humanity change we have always had those variants in our species and no new DNA was introduced nor created.

Macroevolution wants you to believe that gradual changes can amount to a new species a new creation, however gradual changes even if possible would be useless. Imagine the growth of a new arm on any species an arm that is not able to function becasue gradual changes have created the arm but not yet the muscles or the nerves to controll it. This mutation would be eliminated through natural selection and most likely unable to prcreate. Plus if this is the process meaning gradual change there should be loads of fossil records accounting for these changes within each species. Yet we still ahve not found even one link between ape and man. NOT ONE, darwin was working under falwed beliefs when he established his theory and those two presupisitions where-

1. That the cell is a simple cell, which we know today that it is not a simple but actually a complex cell. There are tons of implications in this huge difference of understanding.

2. He believed that the fossil record would support his theories completely and it was even his belief that if no record was found his theory would fall apart (From Orgin of the species) He did not take into account the dogma that would be built up in the scientific community where they wre completly unwilling to rethink his theories.

I am not saying that evolution being a flawed theory is proof there is a God but rather that it has become rediculus that science cannot be scientific and just say we need to rethink this and discover new theories.

P.S. not all Scientist agree with evolution or creationism or ID. Some believe there must be another answer but it is very dogmatic to stick with such a flawed theory that requires as much faith as any religion.

[TheWay]

First off not even one of your sources is credable, you are starting to make me think you ahvent even read the leaders of the historical nor modern evolutionary theory. My head can't you site some arguments from books. Youtube is not a trusted source nor will I waste time disputing a non credited video. In an argument if the video gives out good info then site it yourself and make the point.

Now on Thermo dynamics I have been hearing this closed system argument forever, now I am not done with my research on this subject however i will point out that there are some powerful implications against evolution regrading the second and the first law as well. I am not very great with math I am after all a psycology/counseling major lol, but i am still looking into thermo dynamics. Again though Termodynamics even if it doesnt disprove evolutution it certaintly doesnt prove it or give any evidence for it all.

As of your last point "Can creationists seriously argue that there has not been enough time for the sun to provide the energy stored in the living matter we find on earth today? If not, then they cannot honestly rely on entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to make their case." This is very easy to answer first again you are attacking creationism even though I am not a creationist and second God is not a blind watch maker nor does he need time or any other law or theory to guide his creation. If there is indeed a God he can create the appearance of processes, ie a man fully grown in the garden of eden.

P.S. we are not arguing creation nor religion here we are discussing evolution please stay on point

All the written sources i gave you are sourced on the page from their original prints. their are so many books and papers that prove you wrong i thought i would just give you the short version.

here they are again; sans youtube.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

So what you are saying is that theres lots of evidence but you don't have to read it for yourself you can trust what some guy who has no credentials to tell you what it means. Sorry I don't know if anyone else buys this argument but i dont. Either make the point with source material or don't argue. Go read the material make a point and site the source that supports those ideas or finding. It is ridiculus to post a paper written by some obscure person expect me to read it then say there my point is made.

I don't understand why this is so hard if you believe so strongly you are right then suport it with what you know in your words or at least send me to a link taht has some real value, ie scientific journals of reputation or like I said read a book on the subject as I am doing to argue on the grounds of Thermodynamics

[Thriller]

First off not even one of your sources is credable, you are starting to make me think you ahvent even read the leaders of the historical nor modern evolutionary theory. My head can't you site some arguments from books. Youtube is not a trusted source nor will I waste time disputing a non credited video. In an argument if the video gives out good info then site it yourself and make the point.

Now on Thermo dynamics I have been hearing this closed system argument forever, now I am not done with my research on this subject however i will point out that there are some powerful implications against evolution regrading the second and the first law as well. I am not very great with math I am after all a psycology/counseling major lol, but i am still looking into thermo dynamics. Again though Termodynamics even if it doesnt disprove evolutution it certaintly doesnt prove it or give any evidence for it all.

As of your last point "Can creationists seriously argue that there has not been enough time for the sun to provide the energy stored in the living matter we find on earth today? If not, then they cannot honestly rely on entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to make their case." This is very easy to answer first again you are attacking creationism even though I am not a creationist and second God is not a blind watch maker nor does he need time or any other law or theory to guide his creation. If there is indeed a God he can create the appearance of processes, ie a man fully grown in the garden of eden.

P.S. we are not arguing creation nor religion here we are discussing evolution please stay on point

All the written sources i gave you are sourced on the page from their original prints. their are so many books and papers that prove you wrong i thought i would just give you the short version.

here they are again; sans youtube.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

So what you are saying is that theres lots of evidence but you don't have to read it for yourself you can trust what some guy who has no credentials to tell you what it means. Sorry I don't know if anyone else buys this argument but i dont. Either make the point with source material or don't argue. Go read the material make a point and site the source that supports those ideas or finding. It is ridiculus to post a paper written by some obscure person expect me to read it then say there my point is made.

I don't understand why this is so hard if you believe so strongly you are right then suport it with what you know in your words or at least send me to a link taht has some real value, ie scientific journals of reputation or like I said read a book on the subject as I am doing to argue on the grounds of Thermodynamics

I encourage you to read all you can on thermodynamics but i assure you that i am right in saying it does not disprove evolution but it doesn't prove it either so maybe we should forget about it.

Even though their are so many people with phd's attached to the evidence i provided i stopped counting after 50 (Alot had even more than one). Yes evolution theory should be challenged but so far all the evidence you presented to do so is bogus. Please just give me one argument against evolution that is credible.

[TheWay]

This post was made to address Evolution the responsibility doesnt fall on me to disprove it but rather on you to prove it. I have already explained this once but if you are looking for things that disprove a theory well I ahve cited a bunch already.

1. Canmbrian Explosian with no intermediaries before or after the explosian which was a sudden and abrupt appearance of most the phyla currently known

2. Lack of fossil records for any of the transitional periods between any species but specifically apes to humans.

3. the fact that most the material and so called facts evolution used to indoctrinate you and many others was proven to be false or at the very least understood and tuaght incorrectly. AKA the icons of evolution.

Fruit Fly, england moths, skull of lucy, embronnic pictures that claimed the embro showed the path of evolution. There are just so many it is realy scary.

4. natural selection functions to contain a species in its acceptable parameters by disallowing the procreation of negetivly mutated creature.

5. There are no examples or evidence of positive mutations.

6. I have made the case that intellegent life requires an intelleigent creator and the idea that all this happened by accident is beyond ridiculus. In support of the intelligent creator I have cited the argument by Behe irreducable complexity.

7. Evolution has no answer for the begining of the universe so even if evolution occured there still is no answer for the universe other then some more conjecture and a need to denie a soveriegn God.

8. this argument then falls into the realm of philosophy and religion and requires arguments that do not belong in this topic.

In the end though I dont have to disprove something that has never been proven hence why it is still a theory. It's very telling every time I ahve these discussions how strong the views are on the other side from people that don't believeinfaith and yet expend an insane amount of faith just to hold to an argument that protects them from needing faith. Hmm a bad place for someone who only gains knowledge from the five senses especialy since your senses can lie to you. Actaully nevermind these arguments don't belong in this debate either.

I hope that satisfies you.

[n3M351s]

what more could you possibly want....

other people that support my view
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9xS9hX15C8
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=HXMxZxWqVnk
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k

Observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Transitional forms found in nature:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Mathematical proof of the limits entropy places on evolution: (the earth is not a closed system so the secound law doesnt really apply but ill play along).

quick calculation:

The change in the entropy of a system as it goes from an initial state to a final state is
ΔS = Q/T
ΔS is the change in the entropy during the process,
Q is the flow of heat in units of Joules (or J) (Q is positive if heat flows into the object, and negative if heat flows out of the object), and
T is the temperature in units of Kelvin (or K).

The average temperature of the earth's surface is 288 K (= 15° C = 59° F). To maintain this temperature(equilibrium), that one square meter must radiate 224.4 J of energy back into the atmosphere (and ultimately into outer space) . The entropy of this radiation is

ΔS = Q/T = 224.4/228 = 0.779 J/K.

this one square meter of ground gains 0.076 J/K of entropy every second from sunlight, and produces 0.779 J/K every second by radiating energy back into the sky for a net entropy creation rate of *0.703 J/K every second.
*(0.779 J/K - 0.076 J/K)



The average biomass occupying one square meter of land is between 10 and 12 kg, mostly as plant material. Taking 11 kg as an average,we can calculate how much energy it would take to create this biomass from simple inorganic chemicals. This can be done by reversing the process, and asking how much energy is released when combustion reduces plant life to ashes. The answer is the heat of combustion, which for wood (which we may take as representative of plant life) is 1.88 x 10^7 J/kg.


1.88 x 10^7 x 11 = 2.07 x 108 J

Multiplying these two numbers together, the energy required to generate the amount of life currently found on an average square meter of land is 2.07 x 10^8 J.

If this life is generated at the earth's average temperature of 288 K, its entropy decrease will be.

ΔS = Q/T = 2.07 x 10^8 / 288 = *7.18 x 10^5 J/K.
(the amount of energy transfer needed to sustain life and maintain its temperature)

We are now able to determine what restrictions the laws of thermodynamics place upon the evolution of life on earth. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, heat is a flow of energy and must obey the Law of Conservation of Energy. The average square meter of land surface on earth receives 224.4 J of energy from the sun every second, and contains
2.07 x 10^8 J of energy stored in living tissue. The ratio of these two values is

2.07 x 10^8 (J) / 224.4 (J/s) = 9.22 x 10^5 (s) = 10.7 days.


explanation:
If all the solar energy received by this square meter is used to create organic matter, a minimum of 10.7 days is required to avoid violating the First Law of Thermodynamics( The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings).

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in an isolated system, the entropy tends to increase. The average square meter of land may balance the entropy increase due to radiation by generating a maximum entropy decrease of 0.703 J/K every second through the growth of life without violating this law. The difference in entropy between this square meter with life and the same square meter in the absence of life is 7.18 x 10^5 J/K. The ratio of these two values is


7.18 x 10^8 (J/K)/ 0.703 (J/K/s) = 1.02 x 10^6 (s) = 11.8 days.

A minimum of 11.8 days is required to avoid violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Now you must answer this question; IS the world older than 11.8 days?

Can creationists seriously argue that there has not been enough time for the sun to provide the energy stored in the living matter we find on earth today? If not, then they cannot honestly rely on entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to make their case.

This is a debate, everything that wants to be said should be said in this topic. Linking to information or videos outside of this site seems irrelevant unless it is something that cannot be better otherwise described. You (Thriller) unnecessarily link a lot, so I don't bother following your (mainly irrelevant) links. You should be able to have your say without having to link to other sites to say if for you.

I didn't watch those videos of "people who support your view" as that is totally irrelevant to this debate, plus who really gives a stuff.

The next two sites you linked too seem like complete jargon. If there is a specific thing you wanted to point out just quote it instead of linking to a load of rubbish. I'm not interested in reading through pages of nonsense.

I have no comment for your 'mathematical proof of the limits entropy places on evolution'. I have very limited knowledge of Thermodynamics.