Creationists and DNA

[ldmitruk]

What's 'entropy'?

Entropy = what he-who-is-nobody calls spend energy

I think the word you want is spent not spend.

Once again I don't think entropy is what you think it is. for example according to Wikipedia on Entropy (classical thermodynamics):

In a thermodynamic system, pressure differences, density differences, and temperature differences all tend to equalize over time. For example, consider a room containing a glass of melting ice as one system. The difference in temperature between the warm room and the cold glass of ice and water is equalized as heat from the room is transferred to the cooler ice and water mixture. Over time the temperature of the glass and its contents and the temperature of the room achieve balance. The entropy of the room has decreased. However, the entropy of the glass of ice and water has increased more than the entropy of the room has decreased. In an isolated system, such as the room and ice water taken together, the dispersal of energy from warmer to cooler regions always results in a net increase in entropy. Thus, when the system of the room and ice water system has reached temperature equilibrium, the entropy change from the initial state is at its maximum. The entropy of the thermodynamic system is a measure of how far the equalization has progressed.

There are many irreversible processes that result in an increase of the entropy. See: Entropy production. One of them is mixing of two or more different substances. The mixing is accompanied by the entropy of mixing. If the substances originally are at the same temperature and pressure, there will be no net exchange of heat or work in many important cases, such as mixing of ideal gases. The entropy increase will be entirely due to the mixing of the different substances.[1]

From a macroscopic perspective, in classical thermodynamics, the entropy is a state function of a thermodynamic system: that is, a property depending only on the current state of the system, independent of how that state came to be achieved. Entropy is a key ingredient of the Second law of thermodynamics, which has important consequences e.g. for the performance of heat engines, refrigerators, and heat pumps.

This is just one of the definitions of entropy, there are several available.

I suggest we move the discussion of entropy to a new thread and get this one back to DNA.

 

[Darkprophet232]

There is a big difference between an assumption and a conclution.

Not when you're assuming your conclusion.

My assumptions: if an event contradicts a known scientific law, this event was caused by “magic”

Fact: some events contradict know natural laws (the origin of energy for example)

Conclusion: magic is real.

Hold the train there, shortstop. You agreed earlier with my argument that you can't use logic to verify a phenomenon, and yet here you are, doing it again. Let me make this easier for you and give you an example of why this fails:

Assumption: if an event contradicts a known scientific law, this event was caused by a commemorative NASCAR dinner plate.

Fact: some events contradict know natural laws (the origin of energy for example)

Conclusion: Commemorative NASCAR plates create energy.

Your argument might make sense in your head, but in reality it has just as much semblance of being coherent as this one.

You might disagree with my assumption, fact and conclusion, but it is still a fact that I am not presupposing the existence of magic, I am simply presupposing the possibility of magic.

You are not presupposing magic, you are assuming it. These two words are not interchangeable. Until you can demonstrate magic, any time you include it in an argument, you are doing so as an assumption of its existence. I don't know how else to break this to you, dandan. Please, read this explanation of the Begging the Question fallacy and then come back with any questions you might have. I won't even get into your "fact," as others are better educated to handle it.

I apologize for that; please try to understand that it is hard to remember who said what.

I forgive you, dandan. But, please, no one is stopping you from going back to verify who said what. The search feature is available and a good tool for making sure you don't make such stupid mistakes.

 

[dandan]

Darkprophet232

You are not presupposing magic, you are assuming it. These two words are not interchangeable. Until you can demonstrate magic, any time you include it in an argument, you are doing so as an assumption of its existence. I don't know how else to break this to you, dandan. Please, read this explanation of the Begging the Question fallacy and then come back with any questions you might have. I won't even get into your "fact," as others are better educated to handle it.

I am not begging the question, I am not presupposing the conclusion in my premises. My argument has this form

If A then B
A
Therefore B

Your Nascar argument is also logically valid.

This would be an example of begging the question
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

 

[Darkprophet232]

I am not begging the question, I am not presupposing the conclusion in my premises. My argument has this form

If A then B
A
Therefore B

You're assuming A and B. Read the whole thing, speficially this part: Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. A more accurate reading of your argument is:

A implies B
A is only valid because B is assumed.

That's the structural breakdown of a Begging the Question, and it's exactly how your argument works.

Your Nascar argument is also logically valid.

No it's not, because it contains a logical fallacy. The same fallacy as yours. A logical argument can't be valid if it contains a logical fallacy. You made the same mistake with the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

This would be an example of begging the question
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

You're right, that is an example of Begging the Question. It is not the only one. Another example would be the two arguments we have presented recently.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I am not begging the question, I am not presupposing the conclusion in my premises.

Err, a little confusion here, methinks. What you're describing here is circular reasoning, which is only one form of question-begging. In reality, any unstated assumption upon which an argument relies is a question begged.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

HE-WHO-IS-NOBODY

There is a huge difference between usable energy and spent energy. Furthermore, the reason I pointed it out is because you were trying to twist the second law into saying something that it does not to support your false conclusion. Just as you are still trying to do. Having eternal energy does not mean the universe, as we know it, is eternal.

What are you talking about? Did I ever say that “spend energy” and “usable energy” are the same?

No and nor did I imply that. I am pointing out how you are twisting the second law into saying something it does not in order to support your false conclusion.

What the second law states is that the amount of spend energy increases as time passes. Agree?

Agreed.

Therefore after an “eternity” the amount of “spend energy” would be 100%. Agree?

I disagree. We have examples (such as life) of the second law being overcome.

Since currently energy is not 100% “spend energy” we can conclude that energy is not eternal.

No, and this is exactly where you are twisting the second law into saying something it does not. Once again, our universe is not eternal, but the energy that makes it up apparently is. Thus, an observation of energy not being used up is not an observation of energy not being eternal. You are confusing the fact that energy can be used up and energy being eternal.

Would you at least admit that you are wrong in this particular point?

:lol:

What am I wrong about? I keep telling you that the universe as we know it is not eternal, but energy is, and you keep confusing eternal energy with our observable universe (you are also completely wrong with the second law). Thus, I ask again, what am I wrong about?

However, I will say this, if anyone does want to correct my knowledge of cosmology, feel free. This subject is not my cup of tea, so I could very well be wrong about all of this.

That is because your metric is a tautology. That is why I thought we finally agreed that “highly unlikely” was what you actually meant, because “not caused by the forces of nature” is and incorrect metric. Therefore, what is it dandan, a tautology or a statistical probability

The only tautology is your stawman understanding of what I meant by “Independent” .....

Straw man? You have several times said that what you mean by independent is something that “is not caused by the forces of nature.” That, by definition, makes your definition of independent identical to the definition for artificial. How exactly am I straw manning your argument when it fits exactly what you are saying?

Furthermore, I am not the only person that has pointed this out.

Visaki[/url]"]P.S. So dandan wants us to show him a complex, specified and independent pattern created By nature when he admits that "independent" means that it isn't created By nature (or, as he puts it, "not natural law forces that particular order")? I'm confused...

was what you actually meant, because “not caused by the forces of nature” is and incorrect metric

Agree, but I never used that metric, you are inventing stuff.

Inventing stuff?

dandan[/url]"]As I said before, I don´t know about geysers, if the pattern of erupting every 91 minutes is not cause by the forces of nature, then the pattern would be design according to my metric and therefore my metric would be falsified.

(Emphasis added.)

So, what exactly am I inventing? That is exactly what you said, which is why that section of my comment is in quotation marks. Dandan, above you asked me to admit to a mistake, why not lead the way and take responsibility for your mistakes. This is the second time I have pointed out your blatant misrepresentation of my arguments. You ignored it the first time and just like this time, the post you are responding to contains a quoted section by you stating exactly what you are now claiming you did not say. It appears that you know your definition leads to a tautology, which is why you have to now act as if you never said it.

Once again, you admit that your argument is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. You assume something following your pattern is designed, until it is demonstrated to be created naturally. However, you are making an exception for Old Faithful for some arbitrary reason. Moreover, since that is the case, why can you not just say this, “Since I don’t know about DNA/RNA my guess is that DNA/RNA is analogous to the example of iron and magnets.” You are admitting that since you do not know enough, the conclusion one should draw for Old Faithful is that it is a result of natural processes. Why just conclude that for Old Faithful and not everything else you are ignorant of?

The only thing that follows is that since I personally don´t know about geysers, I can´t say if this geyser fits my metric (complex, specified and independent, or as you like to call it “highly unlikely”)

First off, independent, as you have defined it several times, is not what I call “highly unlikely”. Your definition leads to a tautology. This is not merely semantics; this is the crux of your argument. You are either arguing that artificial = design (your definition) or a specific pattern is statistically unlikely to happen (what I thought you meant by your earlier example). Once again, pick one and stick to it.

Second, if we agree that your metric is actually based on a pattern being “highly unlikely” and not your tautology, Old Faithful fits your metric. Furthermore, it seems obvious that the only reason you are making this arbitrary distinction for Old Faithful is that you want DNA/RNA to be special.

I am simply assuming that scientists have identified naturalistic mechanisms that “force” the eruption of geysers in intervals of 91 minutes.

Why must you assume this? What if scientists have not identified the naturalistic mechanisms, would that mean it is designed? Moreover, if it is the case that you can just assume this for Old Faithful, is it not also the case that one can just assume that for DNA/RNA as well? What is the difference, besides your arbitrary distinction?

This is not analogous to DNA/RNA/Self replication/life… In this case I know that there is no known natural mechanism that forces aminoacids to organize in such a way that they would produce self-replicating molecules.

You are correct that there are not any known naturalistic mechanisms, but to conclude that based on our current knowledge there could never be any known naturalistic mechanisms is asinine at best. The only way for one to know that there is not a naturalistic process is to either know everything about genetics or demonstrate that DNA/RNA’s origins can come about through a supernatural means. In order to do that you first have to demonstrate that magic exists, which you have not. Thus, this is exactly like Old Faithful, in that you do not know of any natural laws that cause the pattern seen, but you do not rule out that a natural process is most likely the cause.

Your Nascar argument is also logically valid.

:lol:

 

[Mugnuts]

So far in order to explain DNA the creationists have proposed "design" through magic. That's it.
In order to insert this magical causation, the evidence presented is flawed logical assertions....and that's it. Re-interpretations of thermodynamics, and...I guess that's the crux of that. Oh and some bible stuff from ACB.

I'm wondering if the probability calculations are going to arise again...or will dandan leave those arguments to wither and die in the other threads....? Who knows.

seriously dandan, read "The Demon Haunted World". I guarantee you will have a new perspective on things afterwards.

 

[Rumraket]

Dafuq? The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system will always on average, evolve towards thermodynamic equlibrium. As in, the total entropy of the isolated system, will always increase on average towards maximum entropy.

It says nothing about energy not being eternal. What utter gibberish. Also, it follows from the first law of thermodynamics(energy can't be created or destroyed) that where energy exists, it must necessarily be eternal.

Dude... you're making elementary errors in reasoning, not to mention failing to properly report what you can find in seconds with a simple google search.

AJA, And how does your definition of the second law different from mine?

You said "Energy can't be eternal (Second law of thermodynamics)". That's not the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that's some crap you just made up.

My argument makes 3 very simple and uncontroversial assumptions:

Energy can´t be created nor destroyed naturally
Entropy on average increases as time passes
We live in a universe with less that 100% entropy

These assumptions are universally accepted by scientists

Actually I can find no such assumptions anywhere in any of the sciences. All these statements make for horrible misuse of terminology and, because of their rather non-intuitive nature, is what leads you to make fallacious conclusions.

Particularly your misapprehensions about what the term 'entropy' refers to, and how the rate of entropy evolution over time is a stochastic process in statistical physics, is what totally destroys the conclusion you are trying to extract. A way to describe the change of the entropy of the universe is to look at the universe as being in a particular "far from equilibrium" microstate. Given that no matter where you are on the timeline of thermodinamic microstates, there will always be many, many more high-entropy than low-entropy states, the following state if picked at random, is incredibly more likely to be a closer-to-equilibrium microstate than the previous one. This is what gives rise to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but the 2nd law is only an average measured over longer timescales.

But notice the evolution of the system here is stated in probabilities, it is NOT impossible that the universe will evolve further from equilibrium, it is only incredibly unlikely. It is entirely concievable, and well within the current laws of thermodynamics, that our universe emerged from a state of extremely high entropy, due to a spontaneous emergence of a low-entropy state some time in the distant past. This would correspond to what we hypothesize happened before the big bang. Following this, the system would again start evolving towards thermodynamic equilibrium until another such spontaneous decrease happened.

The laws of thermodynamics are probabilistic and allow for spontaneous emergence of low entropy states after extremely long timescales. Google "spontaneous entropy decrease in cosmology".

true, however that doesn´t change the fact that entropy increases as time passes.

It utterly fucks up the conclusion of your so-called argument.

 

[Deleted member 619]

It should also be pointed out that the 2LT doesn't state that entropy will increase as time passes, only that it will not decrease, except at the cost of an increase elsewhere. The way it's been formulated there rules out the possibility of equilibrium, which is a bit silly, because entropy is basically a tendency toward equilibrium, which is a state in which entropy cannot increase further.

Also worth noting that the 2LT (and all the laws of thermodynamics) is an experimental law, and may well not hold in all circumstances. Applying the laws of thermodynamics, which seem to hold within the cosmos, to the cosmos itself, is a spectacular commission of the fallacy of composition (not least because we don't actually know which class of thermodynamic system the cosmos actually is at this time).

 

[abelcainsbrother]

It should also be pointed out that the 2LT doesn't state that entropy will increase as time passes, only that it will not decrease, except at the cost of an increase elsewhere. The way it's been formulated there rules out the possibility of equilibrium, which is a bit silly, because entropy is basically a tendency toward equilibrium, which is a state in which entropy cannot increase further.

Also worth noting that the 2LT (and all the laws of thermodynamics) is an experimental law, and may well not hold in all circumstances. Applying the laws of thermodynamics, which seem to hold within the cosmos, to the cosmos itself, is a spectacular commission of the fallacy of composition (not least because we don't actually know which class of thermodynamic system the cosmos actually is at this time).

So the stars burning up all of the hydrogen in the universe is not entropy?Entropy is equalibrium?The sun will not really burn up all of its hydrogen but will reach a state of equilibrium? How can you believe such non-sense?Entropy is actually observable all around us unlike evolution which is why man puts energy into trying to slow entropy down and it is observable all around us unlike DNA forming itself by chance without a creator creating it. It is pretty bad when you must crap all over the 2nd law of thermodynamics to prop up naturalism. It won't work though because we know the sun will not shine forever because of entropy as it is running out of fuel unless God adds more fuel it is going to go out one day.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

So far in order to explain DNA the creationists have proposed "design" through magic. That's it.
In order to insert this magical causation, the evidence presented is flawed logical assertions....and that's it. Re-interpretations of thermodynamics, and...I guess that's the crux of that. Oh and some bible stuff from ACB.

I'm wondering if the probability calculations are going to arise again...or will dandan leave those arguments to wither and die in the other threads....? Who knows.

seriously dandan, read "The Demon Haunted World". I guarantee you will have a new perspective on things afterwards.

Actually magic makes much more sense even if the bible condemns magic as we are to stay away from witchcraft because it is a tool of the devil to deceive.Explain how it can happen from nothing not even magic from a God?You have more faith than any Christian to believe what you do.Have you ever seen DNA create itself? No you haven't and you never will,it is easy to believe God created DNA to tell the cells what to produce. You know you're never going to see any scientist demonstrate DNA form itself,don't ya?

Don't let them trick you man because they'll be messing with matter creating something then telling you it happened all on its own so keep your eyes peeled for that kind of stuff.They cannot touch or tinker with any matter at all, remember this they must demonstrate it can be created without a creator including them because man is a creator too,just like God.Don't let them create something and then tell you they didn't,make them demonstrate it happening all on its own by chance like they believe.

Man come on and think and kick naturalism to the curb.

 

[Mugnuts]

I'm gonna call that one "An Argument from A-4-ity", as it sounds like an argument from a 4 year old.

There you go equivocating again. Pretty weak but down right pitiful. Not going to read that book, eh?

Your biggest issue is that you couldn't give a shit about reality no matter how many times it is presented to you. Any and everything you posit has and will keep getting shot down. No matter how many links we give you, or spell out the actuality of both of our position (ours being based on reality and evidence while yours is speculation and myth), you just remain happy and satisfied to live in a bubble of make believe.

You really should stay there because with every post you just make an ass out of yourself and we waste our time trying to reason with you.

I was wondering why you would now thrust in "where did everything come from?". I think a much better use of your time is for you to ask yourself specifically " where did my (ACB's) belief system come from?" If you actually took the time to look into that, then you just might have a chance at discovering something. Your bullshit conspiracy excuse is nothing more than that. A steaming pile of creationist BULLSHIT.

For months the forums have given you your time to present your beliefs and why, but when your justification is clearly and objectifiably shown to be wrong, you turtle and repeat your mantras to us. Why is that? You can't just throw back "no, you're wrong" without reason or merit and expect us to accept that.

Is it just the dogma that makes you this way? Have you ever had a belief before that was shattered? How, what was it and why were you able to change your mind then?

 

[Rumraket]

It should also be pointed out that the 2LT doesn't state that entropy will increase as time passes, only that it will not decrease, except at the cost of an increase elsewhere. The way it's been formulated there rules out the possibility of equilibrium, which is a bit silly, because entropy is basically a tendency toward equilibrium, which is a state in which entropy cannot increase further.

Also worth noting that the 2LT (and all the laws of thermodynamics) is an experimental law, and may well not hold in all circumstances. Applying the laws of thermodynamics, which seem to hold within the cosmos, to the cosmos itself, is a spectacular commission of the fallacy of composition (not least because we don't actually know which class of thermodynamic system the cosmos actually is at this time).

So the stars burning up all of the hydrogen in the universe is not entropy?

You clearly do not understand thermodynamics. Please stop arguing about thermodynamics or entropy, you don't understand the subject matter. I'm not saying this to belittle you, there are many things I don't understand because I'm simply not educated on the matters. Because of this, I usually refrain from discussing these subjects, because I know I'm not qualified even at a layman's level. For example, you won't find me speaking authoritatively in the mathematics subforum. I only have slightly above high-school level education in mathematics and it was by no means a great talent of mine, consequently, I stay away from telling other people about how math works besides super rudimentary stuff like simple arithmethics or low level algebra.

The same is true about you and thermodynamics. This is not an insult or a personal attack, but just like I should stay away from trying to discuss above highschool level mathematics with other people, you should stay away from thermodynamics and entropy. Please, please take my advice.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm gonna call that one "An Argument from A-4-ity", as it sounds like an argument from a 4 year old.

There you go equivocating again. Pretty weak but down right pitiful. Not going to read that book, eh?

Your biggest issue is that you couldn't give a shit about reality no matter how many times it is presented to you. Any and everything you posit has and will keep getting shot down. No matter how many links we give you, or spell out the actuality of both of our position (ours being based on reality and evidence while yours is speculation and myth), you just remain happy and satisfied to live in a bubble of make believe.

You really should stay there because with every post you just make an ass out of yourself and we waste our time trying to reason with you.

I was wondering why you would now thrust in "where did everything come from?". I think a much better use of your time is for you to ask yourself specifically " where did my (ACB's) belief system come from?" If you actually took the time to look into that, then you just might have a chance at discovering something. Your bullshit conspiracy excuse is nothing more than that. A steaming pile of creationist BULLSHIT.

For months the forums have given you your time to present your beliefs and why, but when your justification is clearly and objectifiably shown to be wrong, you turtle and repeat your mantras to us. Why is that? You can't just throw back "no, you're wrong" without reason or merit and expect us to accept that.

Is it just the dogma that makes you this way? Have you ever had a belief before that was shattered? How, what was it and why were you able to change your mind then?

Actually you are wrong as I look at links atheists,etc give me,I save them and then look at them later this is how I came to realize that there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves because I read the evidence people give me and I am good at picking out evidence for something because I have researched many different topics in the past.

Yes I have had a belief that was shattered before based on evidence as I used to be a young earth creationist but now realize how wrong it is and how right the old earth Gap theory is true biblically,it is from doing research and examining evidence that I realized this and prayer also.

I do change my mind and repent when I'm proven wrong as I don't like to fool myself and ignore evidence like a lot of people do.It seems like today people don't really value the truth or evidence and so the blind lead the blind. I go on evidence for everything I accept as the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

Faith is different than science too as no Christian I know of believes the bible is 100% provable and knows that it requires faith to believe it,but science is different than faith especially when it is taught as true science in our culture.There is no reason for me to doubt the bible to accept naturalism or evolution based on evidence.

 

[Inferno]

Actually you are wrong as I look at links atheists,etc give me,I save them and then look at them later this is how I came to realize that there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves because I read the evidence people give me and I am good at picking out evidence for something because I have researched many different topics in the past.

Yes I have had a belief that was shattered before based on evidence as I used to be a young earth creationist but now realize how wrong it is and how right the old earth Gap theory is true biblically,it is from doing research and examining evidence that I realized this and prayer also.

I do change my mind and repent when I'm proven wrong as I don't like to fool myself and ignore evidence like a lot of people do.It seems like today people don't really value the truth or evidence and so the blind lead the blind. I go on evidence for everything I accept as the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

Faith is different than science too as no Christian I know of believes the bible is 100% provable and knows that it requires faith to believe it,but science is different than faith especially when it is taught as true science in our culture.There is no reason for me to doubt the bible to accept naturalism or evolution based on evidence.

Hm...

The problem is that there's a lot of difference between understanding something and looking at the evidence.
I'm utter crap at physics, so I can look at the evidence all day long and not understand it properly. Similarly, you're utter crap at everything so far discussed, especially biology. I've told you thrice and I'll tell you again: Please go to a University and take an introductory course in biology.

If you don't have the money, you can take the online course Introduction to Genetics and Evolution. The Professor giving the course works at Duke University, he's called Mohamed Noor (ex-student of Jerry Coyne). The material is excellent, it takes a very basic approach at the subject and gives you a lot of resources. There are also two related courses in Genetics called "Useful Genetics 1 + 2".

If you really are open-minded and if you objectively look at evidence, then this is your chance to shine. Take the course, complete the assignments to show that you understand the topics and then return to us for a meaningful discussion. It's what any sensible person would do.


Alternatively, you can do what I asked you about five months ago:
What would you accept as evidence for evolution? I had an excellent thread up about that, but I can't find it any more.
Basically, what would constitute evidence for evolution, more specifically macroevolution?

If a single celled organism "evolved into" (incorrect language, I know) a multi-celled organism, would that meet your criteria?
If a fish with arms and legs were found, would that count?

What would convince you that you were wrong and evolution was right all along?

 

[Deleted member 619]

It should also be pointed out that the 2LT doesn't state that entropy will increase as time passes, only that it will not decrease, except at the cost of an increase elsewhere. The way it's been formulated there rules out the possibility of equilibrium, which is a bit silly, because entropy is basically a tendency toward equilibrium, which is a state in which entropy cannot increase further.

Also worth noting that the 2LT (and all the laws of thermodynamics) is an experimental law, and may well not hold in all circumstances. Applying the laws of thermodynamics, which seem to hold within the cosmos, to the cosmos itself, is a spectacular commission of the fallacy of composition (not least because we don't actually know which class of thermodynamic system the cosmos actually is at this time).

So the stars burning up all of the hydrogen in the universe is not entropy?

Can you actually point to where I said that?

Entropy is equalibrium?

Can you point to where I said that?

The sun will not really burn up all of its hydrogen but will reach a state of equilibrium?

Oh dear. The sun doesn't 'burn' anything. Go and find out what burning is.

As for the rest, can you point to where I said that?

How can you believe such non-sense?

I don't do belief, I leave that to fuckwits.

Entropy is actually observable all around us

Can you point to where I said otherwise?

Thing is, I actually understand entropy. You, clearly, do not.

unlike evolution

Which bit of 'evolution has been observed occurring' is failing to penetrate the miasma of what passes for thought in ACBland?

which is why man puts energy into trying to slow entropy down

Errr, what? Can you provide an example of man putting energy into trying to slow entropy down?

and it is observable all around us unlike DNA forming itself by chance without a creator creating it.

Here's the thing: We have evidence for DNA, and we have whole rafts of natural processes that can plausibly explain it, all of which are evidentially supported. The evidence for your pathetic cosmic curtain-twitcher again..?

It is pretty bad when you must crap all over the 2nd law of thermodynamics to prop up naturalism.

Well, if I were a naturalist, you might have a point. As it is, I have no interest in propping up naturalism. I do find it interesting, though, that you are employing one of the results of naturalism as an argument against it. What you don't realise that the 2LT is a conclusion of naturalism?

ROFL.

It won't work though because we know the sun will not shine forever because of entropy as it is running out of fuel unless God adds more fuel it is going to go out one day.

Entropy and running out of fuel are not the same thing, although there is a clear relationship between the two.

Perhaps you should go and get a fucking education before you encounter something sharp.