PDA

View Full Version : Top Ten Evolutionist Arguments



CWH
02-13-2012, 12:13 AM
There are two sides to a coin. This thread is to refute against the thread "Top Ten Creationist Arguments:

This is a very long one but interesting and convincing:

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong
Revised 3/2006
1. Introduction

1a Microevolution Defined

2. Reason 1 Genetics is not Evolution's Friend

2a Were Darwin's Galapagos Finches Evolution?

2b What About Mutations

2c Population Genetics Factors

2d Beneficial verses Positive Mutations

2e Molecular Biology and Irreducible Complexity

2f Do Hox (Homeotic) Genes Save Evolution?

2g Evolution Fails to Predict Genetic Complexity

3. Reason 2 Statistics is not Evolution's Friend

3a A Short Primer on Probability

3b Weasely Dawkins

4. Reason 3 Biochemistry is not Evolution's Friend

4a. Primitive Atmospheres

4b Sydney Fox's Protenoids?

4c The Problem with Chirality

4d Outer Space?

5. Reason 4 Information Theory is not Evolution's Friend

5a Complex Life Information verses Simple Information

5b Specified Complexity

6. Reason 5 Physics is not Evolution's Friend

6a The Laws of Thermodynamics

6b Entropy and Evolution

7. Reason 6 Astronomy is not Evolution's Friend

7a How Old is the Universe?

7b Strange Quasar - Galaxy Connections

7c What do Extra Solar Planets Tell us?

7d What About the Sun?

7e What do the Planets in our Solar System tell us?

7f The Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt

8. Reason Number 7 Paleontology is not Evolution’s Friend

8a The Cambrian Explosion

8b Problems with the Fossil Record

8c Those Pesky Transitional Fossils

8d Bird Evolution

8e Tetrapod Evolution Fact or Fancy

8f A Whale of a Tale

8g Horse Evolution

8h Hominid Evolution or Paleoanthropology

8i Hall of Hoaxes

8j Recent Finds or is Lucy Really a Lady?

8k What Are They Thinking?

9. Reason Number 8 Radiometric Dating is not Evolution’s Friend

9a What is Radiometric Dating?

9b Some Dating Games

9c What About Carbon Dating?

9d Are Decay Rates Constant?

10. Reason Number 9 Evolutionists are not Evolution's Friends

10a Neo-Darwinism

Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Sanders

George Gaylord Simpson

Francis Crick

Richard Dawkins

Stephen Jay Gould

Pierre Grasse

Fred Hoyle

Robert Jastrow

Roger Lewin

Richard Lewontin

Ernst Mayr

Colin Patterson

Michale Ruse

W.R. Thompson

George Wald

10b Paleontology

George Gaylord Simpson

Richard Dawkins

Niles Eldredge

Stephen Jay Gould

Pierre Grasse

Richard Leaky

Ernst Mayr

Colin Patterson

W.R. Thompson

10c Ernst Haeckel - Apostle of Deceit

11. Reason Number 10 Morality is not Evolution's Friend

11a Is Evolution Science or Philosophy?

11b So What if Evolution is an Atheistic Philosophy?

11c The Cartesian Divide and The Kantian Contradiction

11d The Blood Drenched Century of Evolution

11e What About Hitler?

11f What About Stalin?

11g What About Mao?


A shorter version is here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.


Thank you God for Your Creation. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
02-13-2012, 11:18 AM
There are two sides to a coin. This thread is to refute against the thread "Top Ten Creationist Arguments:

This is a very long one but interesting and convincing:

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

Convincing? What a joke! You have posted the most moronic list of idiotic anti-science crap that I've ever seen.

Why do you do this? Didn't you take 30 seconds to review it before you posted it? The stuff you posted is IDIOTIC. Why do you do this? It makes Christians look extra-stupid.



Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong
Revised 3/2006
10. Reason Number 9 Evolutionists are not Evolution's Friends

10a Neo-Darwinism

Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Sanders

George Gaylord Simpson

Francis Crick

Richard Dawkins

Stephen Jay Gould

Pierre Grasse

Fred Hoyle

Robert Jastrow

Roger Lewin

Richard Lewontin

Ernst Mayr

Colin Patterson

Michale Ruse

W.R. Thompson

George Wald

10b Paleontology

George Gaylord Simpson

Richard Dawkins

Niles Eldredge

Stephen Jay Gould

Pierre Grasse

Richard Leaky

Ernst Mayr

Colin Patterson

W.R. Thompson

10c Ernst Haeckel - Apostle of Deceit

This list is insane. It is meaningless. It is absurd. It is typical of people who oppose science.



A shorter version is here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

That "reason" is moronic. Bird wings did not begin with a "stub." Why do you post such ridiculous assertions? It doesn't support you beliefs. It just makes Christians look very stupid ... and worse, it makes it look like Christians hate truth and so your post is evidence against Christianity, not for it.



Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

Another moronic argument. The connections between species that once were discovered through morphology are now confirmed by DNA analysis. The person you are quoting is the king of all stupidity. He confirms that fundamentalist religion corrupts both the mind and the morals of those who adhere to it. He is either ignorant or lying. It's not much of a testimony for his religion, is it?



Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

Another ridiculous argument. The fact that scientists cannot (at this time) create a cell does not imply anything about the truth of evolution. Is there no bottom to the moronism of those who oppose all truth, science, and reality?



Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

:doh:

And there is another layer to his moronism. He constantly uses the word "proves" when in fact his arguments wouldn't "prove" anything even if they were valid. The MORONISM is blinding! He has confirmed again that fundamentalist religion destroys the minds of those who adhere to it.


Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

That's both false and stupid. Anyone who knows anything about DNA knows that it can be "changed."



Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.

And now he proves yet again that he knows nothing of science. Nothing at all. He is a totally ignorant moron. He doesn't even know what the second law states!

The abyss of religious moronism is painful to witness.



Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

Another false claim. A few minutes on Google would give you all the information you need to prove it. But you don't care about truth and reality, do you? I mean, you post this crap without ever checking its validity? :nono:



Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

That is entirely false and misleading. Biological evolution has nothing to do with the question about the origin of matter.


Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.

:doh:


Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.

Lack of evidence "proves" nothing. Maybe it's there and we haven't found it yet.

I've never seen a more ridiculous "list" in my life. Truly pathetic.

David M
02-13-2012, 12:45 PM
This is not a convincing way to support your opposing view Richard. I take this as an expression of your anger at such a post. I know you are capable of much better arguments than this. You will not get anywhere by disparaging your opposition.

'what a joke'
'the most moronic'
'idiotic anti-science crap'
'it is absurd'
'ridiculous'
'ignorant moron'
'truly pathetic'

I have not counted the number of times the words ridiculous and moronic (or its derivatives) are used but hey, this type of response does nothing to win anyone to your side of the table except for those who like to use similar expressions of demeaning language.

I find the list Steve has supplied useful. I agree with many of the arguments presented from the creationist side. Some of subjects listed I need to find out more. I have yet to hear the opposite view on some of the subjects raised.

Every one of these arguments put forward is worthy of thread of its own and will probably take you over the limit of your storage bandwidth on the server hosting this forum to store all the posts this subject will generate. Nevertheless, if there are subjects in the list that have not been discussed in earlier threads on the forum, perhaps we can look into these first.

David

CWH
02-13-2012, 02:38 PM
This is not a convincing way to support your opposing view Richard. I take this as an expression of your anger at such a post. I know you are capable of much better arguments than this. You will not get anywhere by disparaging your opposition.

'what a joke'
'the most moronic'
'idiotic anti-science crap'
'it is absurd'
'ridiculous'
'ignorant moron'
'truly pathetic'

I have not counted the number of times the words ridiculous and moronic (or its derivatives) are used but hey, this type of response does nothing to win anyone to your side of the table except for those who like to use similar expressions of demeaning language.

I find the list Steve has supplied useful. I agree with many of the arguments presented from the creationist side. Some of subjects listed I need to find out more. I have yet to hear the opposite view on some of the subjects raised.

Every one of these arguments put forward is worthy of thread of its own and will probably take you over the limit of your storage bandwidth on the server hosting this forum to store all the posts this subject will generate. Nevertheless, if there are subjects in the list that have not been discussed in earlier threads on the forum, perhaps we can look into these first.

David

Thanks David, I do agree with you. I do know that my thread will anger RAM as it is antagonistic to his views. These posts are written by creationist scientists in which many may not believe in a God or religion. They did states that the theory of Evolution has too many holes and gaps to be credible and they are presenting their views that the theory of Evolution either is wrong or needs a revamp due to the many holes and gaps in that theory. I have said before that in order for a theory to be convincing, it must be able to answer many of the questions from their critics. It's like trying to trust a salesman into buying a car when you know that that car model has many mechanical and design problems. I obviously don't buy the theory of Evolution until they have solved all these problems. If you googled you can easily find many opposing views against the theory of Evolution many of them written by credible creationist scientists. This shows that something is just not right with the theory of Evolution. If something is right, we don't expect any criticism, some good examples are mathematical formulas and chemical reactions that have stood the test of time and have hardly any critic.

Don't worry about people's demeaning language on me; I am used to it in this forum. I think I have "evolved" into a very thick-skinned human being. Moronic is in the eyes of the beholder, I guess all creationist scientists are morons except evolutionist scientists :eek: Evolution scientists resorting to hoax and frauds to "prove" their point such as the Piltdown man etc. is just pathetic. Please see the list of evolution frauds:

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

God Blessings to you. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
02-13-2012, 04:42 PM
This is not a convincing way to support your opposing view Richard. I take this as an expression of your anger at such a post. I know you are capable of much better arguments than this. You will not get anywhere by disparaging your opposition.

'what a joke'
'the most moronic'
'idiotic anti-science crap'
'it is absurd'
'ridiculous'
'ignorant moron'
'truly pathetic'

I have not counted the number of times the words ridiculous and moronic (or its derivatives) are used but hey, this type of response does nothing to win anyone to your side of the table except for those who like to use similar expressions of demeaning language.

Hi David,

I was not trying "win anyone to my side of the argument" because there are not "two sides" in this case. Sure, there are plenty of unsolve problems with the current understanding of evolution, but it is the grossest moronism to deny the overwhelming evidence of the fact of evolution. If Cheow had presented a list of authentic issues, then we could have had an intelligent discussion. But as it is, he presented "arguments" that are simply absurd, including many falsehoods that appear to be deliberate lies.

Concerning your complaint about the language I used - why didn't you complain about the language I was responding to? Look at the crap he wrote:

"many laughable flaws"
"Evolution is simply nonsense"
"Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense."
"This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof."
"nonsense"
"ridiculous"
"Evolution lacks any scientific proof."
"They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem."

You seem to have a double standard here. The joke is that he even used the same word "ridiculous" that you complained about me using!

And worse, his assertion that "Evolution lacks any scientific proof" is a BLATANT LIE. And many other of his statements are deliberately false and misleading. For example, his statement about the second law must be a deliberate willful lie because anyone who knows anything about physics knows that the second law applies only to closed systems, and neither living bodies nor the planet upon which they live are "closed systems." Therefore, the author of that article is demonstrably corrupt in both mind and morals. Unfortunately, this is very typical of Christians who oppose evolution. It proves that they are blind cultic ideologues who hate the truth and are willing to pervert their words to support their religion.



I find the list Steve has supplied useful. I agree with many of the arguments presented from the creationist side. Some of subjects listed I need to find out more. I have yet to hear the opposite view on some of the subjects raised.

You agree with those arguments? How can that be possible? How can you agree with "arguments" that are so obviously flawed? I look forward to discussing them with you.



Every one of these arguments put forward is worthy of thread of its own and will probably take you over the limit of your storage bandwidth on the server hosting this forum to store all the posts this subject will generate. Nevertheless, if there are subjects in the list that have not been discussed in earlier threads on the forum, perhaps we can look into these first.

David
That's not true. Most of them are not worthy of discussion at all because they are based on ignorance and blatant falsehoods. For example, his first point is false and absurd because evolutionists do not teach that wings evolved from useless "wing stubs." His second point is false and absurd because DNA evidence supports the Tree of Life. His 8th point is based on gross ignorance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I could go on ...

I think it would be great if you wanted to discuss any of the reasons that you think are valid. But first, it would be best if you demonstrated your understanding of the most elementary aspects of science by stating which of his "reasons" are obviously false and absurd.

Great chatting,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
02-13-2012, 04:56 PM
Thanks David, I do agree with you. I do know that my thread will anger RAM as it is antagonistic to his views.

Bullshit.

It has nothing to do with being "antagonistic" to my views. I simply have no tolerance for deliberate lies, deception and ignorance.

And besides, you don't have any real undersanding of my views anyway.


These posts are written by creationist scientists in which many may not believe in a God or religion. They did states that the theory of Evolution has too many holes and gaps to be credible and they are presenting their views that the theory of Evolution either is wrong or needs a revamp due to the many holes and gaps in that theory. I have said before that in order for a theory to be convincing, it must be able to answer many of the questions from their critics. It's like trying to trust a salesman into buying a car when you know that that car model has many mechanical and design problems. I obviously don't buy the theory of Evolution until they have solved all these problems. If you googled you can easily find many opposing views against the theory of Evolution many of them written by credible creationist scientists. This shows that something is just not right with the theory of Evolution. If something is right, we don't expect any criticism, some good examples are mathematical formulas and chemical reactions that have stood the test of time and have hardly any critic.

Wrong again. Many theories that ultimately came to be accepted as "true" went through long periods of criticism. Mathematical formuas are entirely different than scientific theories because they can be literally PROVEN with pure logic. And this brings up another problem with your post. It repeatedly used the word "PROVES" when no such "proof" was given. This is typical of the ignorant buffoons who attack science when in fact they know nothing of which they speak. Why do you post such obviously erroneous material? It only proves that fundamentalist religion corrupts both the mind and the morals of those who adhere to it.

And besides, the "arguments" you posted were based on gross ignorance. They would be laughed out of court by any competent scientist. Case in point, he claimed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves evolution is impossible. That demonstrates either an asburd degree of moronism or a wilfull deliberate LIE. I think it must be the latter, since he was able to type. Therefore, I conclude he is a corrupt soul who wilfully deceives people. Unfortunately, you and David have been deceived by him, and now are spreading his perverse lies to support your religious beliefs. I can't understand why you would choose to sully the name of Christ with such obvious deceptions.



Don't worry about people's demeaning language on me; I am used to it in this forum. I think I have "evolved" into a very thick-skinned human being. Moronic is in the eyes of the beholder, I guess all creationist scientists are morons except evolutionist scientists :eek: Evolution scientists resorting to hoax and frauds to "prove" their point such as the Piltdown man etc. is just pathetic. Please see the list of evolution frauds:

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

God Blessings to you. :pray:
I'm very sorry that you have grown a "thick skin" against TRUTH and REALITY. I've been talking to you for years on this forum. You rarely respond to facts and reality. It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented, you usually continue to assert things that have been proven false. Why do you do that?

And "morons" are not "in the eye of the beholder." They are people that cannot function on the intellectual level of normal adults. The guy who wrote the article you posted seems to be one of them. I'm speaking figuratively, of course, since he probably could hold a rational discussion if he wanted to. This is why I think he's just a flat out liar.

All the best,

Richard

Ps 27:1
02-13-2012, 08:22 PM
That "reason" is moronic. Bird wings did not begin with a "stub." Why do you post such ridiculous assertions? It doesn't support you beliefs. It just makes Christians look very stupid ... and worse, it makes it look like Christians hate truth and so your post is evidence against Christianity, not for it.

Hey Richard,

So are these scientists morons, too? http://logosresearchassociates.org/team/

Why don't you enlighten us. Tell us exactly how bird wings evolved. Maybe you should get it peer reviewed while you're at it since "scientists" can't seem to agree on whether birds came from dinosaurs or not.:eek: And please spare me the Archaeopteryx fossil.

Black Archaeopteryx: One would think by now that everything that could be said about one of the world’s most famous fossils, Archaeopteryx, has been said already in the 150 years since its discovery. Opinion has swung back and forth about whether this feathered creature could fly. Now, PhysOrg reported, Ryan Carney and colleagues at Brown University, using a scanning electron microscope on a fossilized feather found in 1861, have determined that the flight feathers were black, and were 'identical to modern bird feathers down to the smallest detail' (see Carney say this in the embedded video interview). The melanosomes in the feathers that give the black color provide clues to answer one of the main questions about this creature: 'The color and parts of cells that would have supplied pigment are evidence the wing feathers were rigid and durable, traits that would have helped Archaeopteryx to fly.'

Both PhysOrg and Live Science insisted on calling these birds 'winged dinosaurs,' even though it would require believing that 'that completely modern bird feathers evolved as early as 150 million years ago' as if out of nowhere. Carey believes the feathers 'would have been advantageous during this early evolutionary stage of dinosaur flight,' even though he admitted in the video clip that the 'origin of birds and flight is something scientists have been debating for centuries.' He admits being fascinated by Archaeopteryx as a child, learning to view the fossil as a 'missing link' or 'transitional form' between dinosaurs and birds, but now his own research on the feathers shows them being identical to those on modern flying birds.

Like bacteria in milk or bird droppings on the windshield, these otherwise fascinating scientific stories about birds are defiled by evolution-ese. Look at this sentence from the PhysOrg article on Archaeopteryx: 'The team also learned from its examination that Archaeopteryx’s feather structure is identical to that of living birds, a discovery that shows modern wing feathers had evolved as early as 150 million years ago in the Jurassic period.' Does everyone see how crazy that sentence is? It makes absolutely no sense unless one is drunk on Dar-wine. They are asking us rational, reasonable, common-sense members of the public to believe that modern feathers popped into existence 150 million years ago, and either were not used for flying (incredible that evolution would produce a complex flight feather for running along the ground) or were used for flying (incredible, considering all the hardware and software required to go along with flight), and didn’t evolve ever since in terms of basic structural plan.

Do you realize how complex feathers are, with precisely-interlocking barbs, barbules and hooks, providing lightweight yet strong surfaces for flight? Feathers are completely different from reptile scales. We must stop letting the evolutionists spew forth their opinions as scientific facts and use some basic logic. Carey and his Dar-wino friends did not watch feathers evolve 150 million years ago. They found a perfectly modern flight feather in German limestone. That is the science; the rest are bald assertions of Darwinism (B.A.D.). Common sense requires filtering scientific evidence from corrupt interpretations drawn out of (or in spite of) the evidence. Now, watch that video of the goshawk speeding through the trees again and enjoy it free of polluting notions.
http://crev.info/2012/01/news-for-the-birds/

Don't try this one either.

http://crev.info/2011/06/110626-flap_over_flight_evolution/:hysterical::lmbo:

This just-so story is so lame, it should be a huge embarrassment to the Darwin Party. These guys don’t understand evolutionary theory at all. You can’t draw analogies between chick development to adult bird in a year, and say a similar transition occurs in evolutionary time over millions of years. Chick development is encoded in DNA and in numerous epigenetic regulatory codes, and is observable in the present. Are they believers in some mystical meta-Gaia belief, that the history of the life on Earth develops from embryo to adult? This hypothesis is a cross between Lamarckism and recapitulation theory, both of which have been tossed into the dustbin of history. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

You sure like calling creationist all sorts of names. And yet evolutionists have been shown to be dishonest on many occasions.

I have this book and I was going to mail it to you, but you can read it online here. http://www.halos.com/ Maybe YOU can refute his claims and have it peer reviewed. You can also see how the establishment treats those who go against the status quo. So much for your accusations of "hiding the key of knowledge".

I don't know if this is true or not:http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html

Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled 'The Biologist,' that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and 'J' (the scientist). We joint the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.


G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.

Steve

Ps 27:1
02-13-2012, 08:42 PM
Here is a good video I downloaded the other day. Shows how the Grand Canyon could have been created in a short amount of time, plus some other stuff relating to the Mt St Helen's eruption.
http://www.amazon.com/Mount-St-Helens-Through-Geology/dp/B006JIUBPG/ref=sr_1_6?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1329190653&sr=1-6

Steve

PS Instead of reading the book on Polonium Halos, you can watch a video for free here http://www.halos.com/videos/0001-FingerprintsofCreationEnglish-216k.htm The video quality isn't the greatest, but you can get the gist of the book.

Richard Amiel McGough
02-13-2012, 11:19 PM
Hey Richard,

So are these scientists morons, too? http://logosresearchassociates.org/team/

I don't know if they are "morons" but if they write things like the guy in the article Cheow posted, then yes.

And looking at their website, it looks like they have a very skewed, ideologically driven anti-science perspective. They seem to think that Bible history (Young earth creationism and flood) is legitimate. If that is correct, then it would indicate that they have some pretty serious mental challenges. Young Earth Creationism is on the order of believing in a flat earth. And there is solid evidence against a "universal flood" of the kind described in the Bible. Merely showing water erosion here or there is meaningless. There is no way that all the animals on earth were killed in a flood some 4000 years ago. Anyone who doesn't know this is utterly ignorant of the most basic scientific facts.

Trying to "prove" a global flood with geological arguments is a total waste of time because we know that there was not a universal death of all land animals in the recent history.



Why don't you enlighten us. Tell us exactly how bird wings evolved. Maybe you should get it peer reviewed while you're at it since "scientists" can't seem to agree on whether birds came from dinosaurs or not.:eek: And please spare me the Archaeopteryx fossil.

That's stupid. The fact that I don't have knowledge of how bird wings evolved implies nothing about the truth or falsehood of evolution.



Black Archaeopteryx: One would think by now that everything that could be said about one of the world’s most famous fossils, Archaeopteryx, has been said already in the 150 years since its discovery. Opinion has swung back and forth about whether this feathered creature could fly. Now, PhysOrg reported, Ryan Carney and colleagues at Brown University, using a scanning electron microscope on a fossilized feather found in 1861, have determined that the flight feathers were black, and were 'identical to modern bird feathers down to the smallest detail' (see Carney say this in the embedded video interview). The melanosomes in the feathers that give the black color provide clues to answer one of the main questions about this creature: 'The color and parts of cells that would have supplied pigment are evidence the wing feathers were rigid and durable, traits that would have helped Archaeopteryx to fly.'

Both PhysOrg and Live Science insisted on calling these birds 'winged dinosaurs,' even though it would require believing that 'that completely modern bird feathers evolved as early as 150 million years ago' as if out of nowhere. Carey believes the feathers 'would have been advantageous during this early evolutionary stage of dinosaur flight,' even though he admitted in the video clip that the 'origin of birds and flight is something scientists have been debating for centuries.' He admits being fascinated by Archaeopteryx as a child, learning to view the fossil as a 'missing link' or 'transitional form' between dinosaurs and birds, but now his own research on the feathers shows them being identical to those on modern flying birds.

You appear to be lost in a world ideologically driven anti-science polemics. You need to study real science or you will stay lost.

Do you know anything about evolution? Anything at all? Have you read any books that explain the science? If so, please list the last three books you read that were written by evolutionary scientists. A good place to start is The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carrol, Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, the Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, The Language of God by Francis Collins. If you have not read these or similar books, then you are IGNORANT of the modern evolutionary science and your comments are meaningless repetitions of canned, ignorant anti-science polemics.



Like bacteria in milk or bird droppings on the windshield, these otherwise fascinating scientific stories about birds are defiled by evolution-ese. Look at this sentence from the PhysOrg article on Archaeopteryx: 'The team also learned from its examination that Archaeopteryx’s feather structure is identical to that of living birds, a discovery that shows modern wing feathers had evolved as early as 150 million years ago in the Jurassic period.' Does everyone see how crazy that sentence is? It makes absolutely no sense unless one is drunk on Dar-wine. They are asking us rational, reasonable, common-sense members of the public to believe that modern feathers popped into existence 150 million years ago, and either were not used for flying (incredible that evolution would produce a complex flight feather for running along the ground) or were used for flying (incredible, considering all the hardware and software required to go along with flight), and didn’t evolve ever since in terms of basic structural plan.

I'd be happy to discuss birds with you after you show some level of knowledge of modern evolutionary science. I get the impression you know nothing of this topic. Do you reject the DNA evidence that shows common descent of all living organisms? If so, why?



You sure like calling creationist all sorts of names. And yet evolutionists have been shown to be dishonest on many occasions.

No, I don't call "creationists" all sorts of names. But I do call moronic creationists morons.

There is a lot that science does not understand, and there is a fog over the minds of many who have bought into materialism. But the solution is not a return to Biblical fundamentalism because that is simply false. If we know anything, we know that Young Earth Creationism and the Flood are demonstrably false. The evidence is overwhelming. If you want to discuss anything, start with things that can be established with great certainty - stop hiding under speculations about bird feathers. Don't you know that the distribution of fossils makes the flood story an impossibility?



I have this book and I was going to mail it to you, but you can read it online here. http://www.halos.com/ Maybe YOU can refute his claims and have it peer reviewed. You can also see how the establishment treats those who go against the status quo. So much for your accusations of "hiding the key of knowledge".

I'll check it out and get back to you.

If you want to discuss real science, please begin by demonstrating that you have a basic knowledge of the topic. Do you understand DNA and why it supports the theory of evolution? Do you accept the evidence for common descent? Do you believe in a young earth? If so, what do you do with all the evidence that shows a very old earth?

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
02-14-2012, 12:14 AM
Here is a good video I downloaded the other day. Shows how the Grand Canyon could have been created in a short amount of time, plus some other stuff relating to the Mt St Helen's eruption.
http://www.amazon.com/Mount-St-Helens-Through-Geology/dp/B006JIUBPG/ref=sr_1_6?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1329190653&sr=1-6

Steve

PS Instead of reading the book on Polonium Halos, you can watch a video for free here http://www.halos.com/videos/0001-FingerprintsofCreationEnglish-216k.htm The video quality isn't the greatest, but you can get the gist of the book.
This page claims that Robert Gentry is a liar: http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/robert-gentry.html


Unfortunately, Robert Gentry is best known to me as the man who taught me that creationists will deceive and slander in order to make their point.

In 1995, I was living in Knoxville, Tn, and I was regularly debating thelogical issues on the religion forum on CompuServe (remember them?). Some evolutionists came on that forum, and I thought I was prepared for them.

The reason I thought I was prepared for them is that I had just watched a series of 1-hour programs, produced by a creation museum but hosted and narrated by Robert Gentry. Just the week before Gentry had "exposed" scientific conspiracy and dishonesty by telling the story of the discovery of Lucy, the Australopithecus afarensis (http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/australopithecus-afarensis.html) skeleton, 40% complete, discovered in 1974 by Dr. Donald Johansen.

The problem is, Gentry's story wasn't true! (http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/donald-johanson.html) The evolutionists were miffed that "Christians" had been trotting out this piece of slander for 10 years, when a simple reading of Dr. Johanson's book on the discovery of Lucy would have proven it wasn't true.

I was horrified. I am a careful researcher. You may not agree with everything on this site, but it is all well-researched. I acknowledge what I do not know, and I give people the benefit of the doubt—a legal requirement, by the way—before I accuse them of dishonesty. In this case, I violated my own standards out of trust for a "Christian" defending the Bible.

It's a mistake that I shall never repeat. I now examine every creationist accusation and claim that I run across. For ten years now I have found that well over 90% of the "stunning" quotes and facts that creationists "expose" are the results of poor and incomplete research or purposeful dishonesty.

That's no exaggeration.

Robert Gentry just happened to be the one to introduce me to the rampant dishonesty in creationism. He's certainly not unique in that respect.

His words ring true from my experience. Creationists and Christian apologists are the least credible people I have ever encountered. They regularly twist words and pervert truth in order to "make their point." It is a travesty beyond all comprehension, since they are supposedly "champions for truth."

Ps 27:1
02-14-2012, 06:04 PM
I don't know if they are "morons" but if they write things like the guy in the article Cheow posted, then yes.


Wow! You really are biased.


Trying to "prove" a global flood with geological arguments is a total waste of time because we know that there was not a universal death of all land animals in the recent history.


Yes, and "we" is always right.:lol: So tell me why geologists are going away from the idea that the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon, to a more catastrophic event? Didn't "we" get it right the first or second or third time. Oh I get it. It can be anything, as long as it's not "The Flood".:lol:


That's stupid. The fact that I don't have knowledge of how bird wings evolved implies nothing about the truth or falsehood of evolution.


Oh but Richard, you have the whole internet at your fingertips with all those "knowledgeable" and "superior" scientists. Surely someone out there must know. I mean, come on, it's a fact. We know it happened. And science is all about observing and testing and falsifying. But you know what? The theorey of evolution isn't even a theorey. It is not falsifiable. It's a belief system just like creation is. So you keep having faith in those mysteriously evolving wings and I'll stick to my "delusional" creationism.:D

And for anyone else following this thread, here are some more "delusional" writings.:lol:
http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/index.html

Cheers,
Steve

David M
02-15-2012, 05:30 AM
His 8th point is based on gross ignorance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I could go on ...

But first, it would be best if you demonstrated your understanding of the most elementary aspects of science .....

Hi Richard

This subject is moving at a pace since I last visited the thread. The days of physics A levels is far behind me. I think you need to explain to me your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. On a micro scale and in biolgogical ways, the application might be harder to spot, but in the study of the universe as a whole, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is apparent. I thought this was universally accepted in science that chaos comes out of order; not the reverse. The universe is slowly winding down; not up.

The only time I can see when the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply is when God overrides the physical laws that govern the universe. Only God can convert energy into mass. Man is only able to convert mass into energy by exploding nuclear bombs or getting energy from nuclear reactors. In the process of converting energy into work and vice versa, heat is left over. That is why it is impossible to have a perpetual motion machine without continually injecting energy.

I will be enlightened by your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

You can start a new thread if you want.

David

Richard Amiel McGough
02-15-2012, 08:25 AM
Wow! You really are biased.

Yeah, I think you are right. I do have a rather strong bias towards logic, facts, evidence, truth, and reality.



Yes, and "we" is always right.:lol: So tell me why geologists are going away from the idea that the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon, to a more catastrophic event? Didn't "we" get it right the first or second or third time. Oh I get it. It can be anything, as long as it's not "The Flood".:lol:

If can't be "The Flood" because "The Flood" story says that all the animals in the world were killed some 4000 years ago and that idea is wrong both coming and going. There is no evidence it happened, and there is conclusive evidence it didn't happen.



Oh but Richard, you have the whole internet at your fingertips with all those "knowledgeable" and "superior" scientists. Surely someone out there must know. I mean, come on, it's a fact. We know it happened. And science is all about observing and testing and falsifying. But you know what? The theorey of evolution isn't even a theorey. It is not falsifiable. It's a belief system just like creation is. So you keep having faith in those mysteriously evolving wings and I'll stick to my "delusional" creationism.:D

And for anyone else following this thread, here are some more "delusional" writings.:lol:
http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/index.html

Cheers,
Steve
Evolution isn't a theory? Oh my. Is there no bottom to the abyss of your ignorance?

You assert that creationism and evolution are on equal intellectual footing? I have but one response: :doh:

Richard Amiel McGough
02-15-2012, 08:47 AM
Hi Richard

This subject is moving at a pace since I last visited the thread. The days of physics A levels is far behind me. I think you need to explain to me your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. On a micro scale and in biolgogical ways, the application might be harder to spot, but in the study of the universe as a whole, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is apparent. I thought this was universally accepted in science that chaos comes out of order; not the reverse. The universe is slowly winding down; not up.

The only time I can see when the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply is when God overrides the physical laws that govern the universe. Only God can convert energy into mass. Man is only able to convert mass into energy by exploding nuclear bombs or getting energy from nuclear reactors. In the process of converting energy into work and vice versa, heat is left over. That is why it is impossible to have a perpetual motion machine without continually injecting energy.

I will be enlightened by your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

You can start a new thread if you want.

David
Hey there David,

I admire your open-minded question. I am happy to explain the Second Law, but it's really not relevant because it has nothing to do with proving or disproving evolution. The folks who suggest otherwise prove nothing but that they are grossly ignorant and unqualified to even discuss the issue. They are on the level of an ignorant hillbilly who can't add one and two but thinks he could prove that calculus is false. That's why I rejected the article that Cheow posted.

Now as for your comment: The Second Law has nothing to do with "converting energy into mass." It sounds like you are thinking of the First Law of Thermodynamics, which is the law of energy conservation, but you have misapplied even that because the convertion of energy to mass does not violate that law either.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the Entropy of a CLOSED SYSTEM must always increase. Neither the earth nor the organisms living on it are "closed systems" so the Second Law says nothing (directly) about how they evolve over time.

All the best,

Richard

David M
02-16-2012, 01:52 AM
I am happy to explain the Second Law, but it's really not relevant because it has nothing to do with proving or disproving evolution.

Richard, I can see what you are saying and by injecting energy into the system then that would not prevent evolution taking place, so we are just left with explaining the jumps and gaps in the evolutionary story.




Now as for your comment: The Second Law has nothing to do with "converting energy into mass." It sounds like you are thinking of the First Law of Thermodynamics, which is the law of energy conservation, but you have misapplied even that because the convertion of energy to mass does not violate that law either.

I was stating some of the things I know rather than a tight definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and converting mass to energy and vice versa would be obeying the First Law of Thermodynamics. From the Big Bang theory, I take it that the whole of the universe is an isolated system and therefore Entropy is increasing. Science has changed its view about the universe eventually contracting and going back to the point of the big bang again and all mass would be converted to energy and the cycle repeats. I think the view now is that the universe will keep on expanding


The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the Entropy of a CLOSED SYSTEM must always increase. Neither the earth nor the organisms living on it are "closed systems" so the Second Law says nothing (directly) about how they evolve over time.


Again Richard I can see what you are saying and on the scale of the earth and the injection of energy from the sun then although I cannot accept Evolution for other reasons, I will agree until otherwise shown how, that [quote]"the Second Law says nothing (directly) about how they evolve over time"

Whether we believe in Evolution or Creation, the long-term prospects for man in the way distant future do not hold out any hope unless there is an injection of energy into the system. If we take our own solar system, eventually (miilions of years from now) the sun will die and life on earth will be destroyed.

The belief in the Kingdom of God as a future eternal state that lasts for infinity must therefore require an injection of energy into the system to maintain it indefinitely. The energy can only come from God who exists outside the system. A big question is; Does God have infinite energy? Anything involving infinity is hard for our limited minds to grasp.

As interesting as these intellectual discussions are, they have nothing to do with our ultimate salvation which God has revealed and which is simple enough that a child can understand. We are powerless to make any difference and so I rely enough on what God has revealed to trust him as a child trusts its natural father and trust in those things which God has revealed and which I do not fully understand.

I am happy discussing though any of the arguments put forward are not going to destroy the hope that God has given me.

David

Richard Amiel McGough
02-16-2012, 09:50 AM
I was stating some of the things I know rather than a tight definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and converting mass to energy and vice versa would be obeying the First Law of Thermodynamics. From the Big Bang theory, I take it that the whole of the universe is an isolated system and therefore Entropy is increasing. Science has changed its view about the universe eventually contracting and going back to the point of the big bang again and all mass would be converted to energy and the cycle repeats. I think the view now is that the universe will keep on expanding

Yes, it's ok to think of the "whole universe" as an isolated system but there are big problems trying to apply thermodynamics to it because gravity causes matter to clump together in galaxies, stars, and planets. This causes local dynamic systems far from equilibrium, like the sun-earth system that makes life possible.



Again Richard I can see what you are saying and on the scale of the earth and the injection of energy from the sun then although I cannot accept Evolution for other reasons, I will agree until otherwise shown how, that "the Second Law says nothing (directly) about how they evolve over time"

Great! :thumb:

But I still cannot imagine how you could think to oppose a science established by hundreds of thousands of published articles when in fact you know nothing of it. To me, it looks like someone who can't add one and two choosing to reject calculus. It makes no sense at all.



Whether we believe in Evolution or Creation, the long-term prospects for man in the way distant future do not hold out any hope unless there is an injection of energy into the system. If we take our own solar system, eventually (miilions of years from now) the sun will die and life on earth will be destroyed.

So what? You and I won't be here to see it! People die. Planets die. Universes die. It's just a fact of life.



The belief in the Kingdom of God as a future eternal state that lasts for infinity must therefore require an injection of energy into the system to maintain it indefinitely. The energy can only come from God who exists outside the system. A big question is; Does God have infinite energy? Anything involving infinity is hard for our limited minds to grasp.

Or a redisgn of the laws of physics.

Or a new universe.

Or a reinterpretation of the few Scriptures that were used to create the doctrine of which you speak.

Or ...

The possibilities are endless. That's the primary problem with religion. It closes people's minds and gives them false certainty about things of which they are ignroant. It doesn't matter if there is some obscure group out there that actually "got it right" since the vast majority, according to most Christians on this forum it seems, have got it all wrong. It seems to me that religion is nothing but confusion about things that nobody can prove.



As interesting as these intellectual discussions are, they have nothing to do with our ultimate salvation which God has revealed and which is simple enough that a child can understand. We are powerless to make any difference and so I rely enough on what God has revealed to trust him as a child trusts its natural father and trust in those things which God has revealed and which I do not fully understand.

I am happy discussing though any of the arguments put forward are not going to destroy the hope that God has given me.

David
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by "salvation." If God has chosen to act as if he does not exist in all aspects that can be tested, why should anyone believe he exists to "save" them? And how would a person know if they had been saved? The Mormons think they know by the "burning of the bosom." Evangelical Christains say the "know" because the Bible tells them so. But the Bible tells them lots of things that are not true, or that can be misinterpreted, and that other Christains totally disagree with, so I see no certainty of any kind in any of this. But I do enjoy the conversation and think it is very important to help free people from the shackles of their minds.

Great chatting!