Evidence for Creationism

Peter, I was responding to Holloway (whom you either are or know, to have known about that site...) regarding his challenge about entropy being a valid term and wider than the definition of the 2LOT and also to state his definitions and foundational statements at the beginning of the book. Yes, he does try to discredit his own definitions by delving into the improbable statistically and the impossibly biologically. He feels he has made his case. On the biological side, all I can do is be amazed that Scientific American did not refuse to publish some of what he wrote. He spends the second half of the book trying to disprove his assertions in the first half. The assertions in the first half are known in physics, while his material in the second half is purely a result of his (biologically uninformed) imagination.

Therefore, going with what he states which is verified by others, in the first part of the book, my assertions as to their logical conclusions stand.

Holloway didn't approve, of course, but then I never expected him to.