Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 4,523)

Showing posts 90,441 - 90,460 of105,856
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95598
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

"Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed.

Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed"). To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population." Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations". "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." --Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924."

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95599
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>And its also untrue.

The primary dating source for fossils is radiometric dating based on the layers of igneous rock that a sediment is sandwiched between.

The use of similar fossils as an index to date other rocks is a secondary method and not the actual source of the primary dating. However, thanks to the consistency of the fossil record, index dates have generally be found to be quite reliable. Don't take evilushinists' word for it. Oil and mineral geologists have a lot of money riding on getting their drilling right, and THEY use index fossils a lot as they have proven reliable. If the fossils indicate that a stratum is Carboniferous, then thats a bloody good indicator. Don't argue with scientists, ask the guys bank rolling billion dollar prospecting.

Junking the BS from your highly unreliable and poorly informed blog source is like shooting fish in a barrel. I suggest you find a better source. How about the actual science?
Real science? Or BS science like evolution?

"A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590."

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

“Happy New Year”

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95600
Jul 28, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.newgeology.us/prese ntation32.html
Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution
These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
Evolution, unlike selective breeding by people isn't looking to optimize any trait. If it were, we would have eyes on a par with the giant squid. This is a fallacy you all keep stepping into even when you are told over and over and over about it. What you are saying is that selective breeding taken to the extreme is limited. Aside from the fact that selective breeding is able to produce organisms with outrageous traits that couldn't survive naturally, I don't disagree with you. But that doesn't destroy it as an analogy of evolution. The weakness in the analogy just provides the opportunity for deceitful people to twist it to their own agenda.

Since even uneducated, willfully ignorant people can see variation, it is easy to understand why fundamentalists accept it. It is unfortunate that you stop looking after that.

“Happy New Year”

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95601
Jul 28, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.newgeology.us/prese ntation32.html
Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution
These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
Bacteria expressing new genes have been found. Ignoring them won't strengthen your case. Perhaps the optimized conditions in the lab aren't a selective pressure to drive speciation in fruit flies under such conditions. A homogenous environment isn't going to select for a trait that provides an advantage under nonexistent conditions. Of course as always you are really only talking about the traits that self apparent.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95602
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

"Evolutionists write: "The meaning, role in biology, and support in evidence of the universal 'Tree of Life'(TOL) are currently in dispute. Some evolutionists believe... that we can with available data and methods reconstruct this tree quite accurately, and that we have in fact done so, at least for the major groups of organisms. Other evolutionists... do not doubt that some... branching tree can in principle represent the history of all life. Still other evolutionists, ourselves included, question even this most fundamental belief, that there is a single true tree." "Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences was a fact of nature." Yet "the only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true." There is "the possibility that hierarchy is imposed by us rather than already being there in the data."12 "The finding that, on average, only 0.1% to 1% of each genome fits the metaphor of a tree of life overwhelmingly supports the... argument that a single bifurcating tree is an insufficient model to describe the microbial evolutionary process." "When chemists or physicists find that a given null hypothesis can account for only 1% of their data, they immediately start searching for a better hypothesis. Not so with microbial evolution, it seems, which is rather worrying. Could it be that many biologists have their heart set on finding a tree of life, regardless of what the data actually say?"10 "A single, uninterrupted TOL does not exist, although the evolution of large divisions of life for extended time intervals can be adequately described by trees." "Tree topology tends to differ for different genes."23 The genomes of all life forms are collections of genes with diverse evolutionary histories." "The TOL concept must be substantially revised or abandoned because a single tree topology or even congruent topologies of trees for several highly conserved genes cannot possibly represent the history of all or even the majority of the genes." "The 'strong' TOL hypothesis, namely, the existence of a 'species tree' for the entire history of cellular life, is falsified by the results of comparative genomics." "So the TOL becomes a network, or perhaps most appropriately, the Forest of Life that consists of trees, bushes, thickets..., and of course, numerous dead trunks and branches."21

Kevin Peterson, a molecular paleobiologist at Dartmouth College, "has been reshaping phylogenetic trees for the past few years, ever since he pioneered a technique that uses short molecules called microRNAs to work out evolutionary branchings. He has now sketched out a radically different diagram for mammals: one that aligns humans more closely with elephants than with rodents."

" 'I've looked at thousands of micro RNA's, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,' he says. The technique "just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution'."

"And as he continues to look, he keeps uncovering problems, from the base of the animal tree all the way up to its crown."

"Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and micro RNA's give such different evolutionary trajectories.'What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,' says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth".--Dolgin, Elie. 28 June 2012. Rewriting Evolution. Nature, Vol.486, pp.460-462."

“Happy New Year”

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95603
Jul 28, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Real science? Or BS science like evolution?
"A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590."
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Entomologist studying insect resistance are aware that resistant populations of insects show reduced fitness compared to the wild type populations, but you add insecticide and the wild type populations plummets.

SBT

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95604
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I love the quote by Dr. Collin Patterson, past head of the zoology section of the British museum -

"It occurred to me that after studying this stuff for over 25 years there wasn't one thing I knew about it - that I could prove was true"

"I posted this question to a very prestigious group of evolutionists and and all I got was silence for a long time until one person spoke up and stated 'there's one thing I do know, it shouldn't be taught in High School'".

I personally contacted Dr. Patterson and asked him about this and he confirmed it. Being familiar with the animal life and lack of intermediates in Alaska, I asked him about this issue and he stated - "My friends in the tropics say the same thing".

The truth is there are and never have been any intermediates except in animations, drawings and typed words in the textbooks, because evolution never happened and cant happen. Cellular biology confirms this absolutely, as do attempts to replicate it in a thousand laboratories worldwide that have failed miserably. Its nothing but a belief system based on faith - a religion.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95605
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

"Violating the law:

The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science. TheSecond Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time. If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium). Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy. Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work. Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall. Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized. We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials.

The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble."

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95606
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"When confronted with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolutionists usually use two tricks to try to escape. The first is to state that "it only applies to closed systems, and biological creatures are open systems, so it doesn't affect evolution" (they actually intend to say isolated, not closed, but we know what they mean). The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies. The words "except for..." are not in this universal law. A thermodynamics system is simply any part of the universe we want to study. If we are doing an experiment in a bottle, the inside of the bottle is our system and the bottle itself is the "walls" of the system. There are only 3 kinds of systems: if no energy or matter can pass through the walls, it is an isolated system; if energy can pass through but matter cannot, it is a closed system; if both energy and matter can pass through the walls, it is an open system. Now, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are defined in terms of isolated systems, because that is the simplest way to express them. However, experts who write textbooks on the subject are quick to say that isolated systems do not occur in nature. For practical applications, a procedure called the Legendre Transform mathematically converts entropy to a variable called Gibbs free energy that is useful for working with real-world systems. Most natural systems are open, but it is convenient to model them as closed. For example, even though a bacterium is an open system, modeling it as a closed system makes it easier to understand chemical reactions in it.2,8

You are an open system. You eat food (which comes from outside yourself) and your body survives and grows. Evolutionists believe that all we need is an open system with sufficient energy flowing into it for evolution to succeed. If that were so, you could just stand right behind a jet engine as the aircraft prepares for takeoff, absorb that blast of energy, and evolve to a higher life form. In reality, of course, you would be incinerated because absorbing energy without a mechanism to convert it to a useful form and employ it is destructive or useless. The mechanism must be very specific. Sticking food in your ear will not work; it must go into your mouth and through the digestive system. And the mechanism must be in place and functioning first, before energy is added, or the energy is wasted. The "closed system" ploy is just an attempt to avoid dealing with the Second Law because the Law prohibits any functioning biological mechanism from falling together by pure chance, without assistance or plan, using only the properties of matter.

The second trick they use is to say that "when you freeze water, the disordered molecules become beautifully ordered ice crystals or snowflakes. If water can bypass the Second Law and organize its molecules by a natural process, why not the chemicals of life?" At room temperature, water molecules are bouncing off each other and you have water. When you take away heat and they freeze, water molecules stick to each other with weak molecular bonds, forming ice crystals and snowflakes because of the shape of the H2O molecule. The same thing happens if you put a bunch of weak magnets in a jar and shake it. The magnets bounce around. When you stop, the magnets stick together. They are at a lower energy level. There is order, yet no complexity - just a simple repetitive structure that does not do anything. The Second Law is not bypassed or violated.

But guess what. Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resistcombining at any temperature. To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.17 It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began."

“Happy New Year”

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95607
Jul 28, 2013
 
SBT wrote:
I love the quote by Dr. Collin Patterson, past head of the zoology section of the British museum -
"It occurred to me that after studying this stuff for over 25 years there wasn't one thing I knew about it - that I could prove was true"
"I posted this question to a very prestigious group of evolutionists and and all I got was silence for a long time until one person spoke up and stated 'there's one thing I do know, it shouldn't be taught in High School'".
I personally contacted Dr. Patterson and asked him about this and he confirmed it. Being familiar with the animal life and lack of intermediates in Alaska, I asked him about this issue and he stated - "My friends in the tropics say the same thing".
The truth is there are and never have been any intermediates except in animations, drawings and typed words in the textbooks, because evolution never happened and cant happen. Cellular biology confirms this absolutely, as do attempts to replicate it in a thousand laboratories worldwide that have failed miserably. Its nothing but a belief system based on faith - a religion.
Wow, you are amazing and you know so many people.

You know when you dig a nugget out of the quote mine you just got to run with it forever don't you.

So was this before or after 1998 that you personally contacted Dr. Patterson?

It is especially troubling that you say this when Patterson made it clear that his words were being misinterpreted and abused.

Let's be serious SBT, you never contacted Dr. Patterson. You are just posting cut an paste here.

Why would prominent evolutionists anywhere waste time listening to someone as unqualified to discuss with them as you appear to be.

I don't buy anything you are selling. It is made of cheap construction and poor materials and doesn't hold up to the least stress.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95608
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides or amino acids needed to form individual DNA or protein molecules were able to combine from this mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all.

Ilya Prigogene coauthored a paper in 1972 that says in an open "system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals... Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures."33 Prigogene won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977 for research on dissipative structures, such as tornados, for contributions to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and for bridging the gap between biology and other sciences. Evolutionists wrongly claim he won for showing how thermodynamics could explain the formation of organized systems, from fluctuations in chaos, that lead to the origin of life. They thought he was their hero. Over thirty years later, nothing has come of it. There is no escape from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It prohibits the spontaneous origin of life and macroevolution."

SBT

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95609
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Don't you folks find it interesting in your supposed 3.6 BY life timeline(this week, changes all the time), that the ultra-complex operation of the cell has stayed the same all this 'time'? Same mechanism, same coding language, the same, the same, the same???

Boy, with evolution so creative in its mindless direction, it should have devised a better mechanism by now! Oh well, with more time, imagination and study you will solve that issue!

Oh, by good observation and hard work, a group recently discovered a new twist -

“Over the last few years, we’ve been starting to appreciate just how the folding of the genome helps determine how it’s expressed and regulated,”

“This study provides the first indication that the three-dimensional structure of the genome can influence the splicing of genes.”

“We can infer that the genome is folded in such a way that the promoter region — the sequence that initiates transcription of a gene — is located alongside exons, and they are all presented to transcription machinery.”

http://www.garvan.org.au/news-events/news/the...

"expressed and regulated,”

"transcription machinery.”

Oh boy, ID again!

This finding is the end of evolutionary gene mutation schemes devised to jump 'Type' gulfs, like Monkeys to Man. Over rover.

“Happy New Year”

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95610
Jul 28, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.newgeology.us/prese ntation32.html
"Violating the law:
The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science. TheSecond Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time. If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium). Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy. Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work. Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall. Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized. We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials.
The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble."
The often quoted and even more often debunked notion about thermodynamics and evolution.

Are any of you fundamentalists more widely read? Seriously can't believe people that claim a search for the truth only read one side and a butchered, made up side at that.

Earth is not a closed system.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95611
Jul 28, 2013
 
SBT wrote:
I love the quote by Dr. Collin Patterson, past head of the zoology section of the British museum -

"It occurred to me that after studying this stuff for over 25 years there wasn't one thing I knew about it - that I could prove was true"

"I posted this question to a very prestigious group of evolutionists and and all I got was silence for a long time until one person spoke up and stated 'there's one thing I do know, it shouldn't be taught in High School'".

I personally contacted Dr. Patterson and asked him about this and he confirmed it. Being familiar with the animal life and lack of intermediates in Alaska, I asked him about this issue and he stated - "My friends in the tropics say the same thing".

The truth is there are and never have been any intermediates except in animations, drawings and typed words in the textbooks, because evolution never happened and cant happen. Cellular biology confirms this absolutely, as do attempts to replicate it in a thousand laboratories worldwide that have failed miserably. Its nothing but a belief system based on faith - a religion.
Interesting.

“Happy New Year”

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95612
Jul 28, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
Not really.
1 post removed

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95614
Jul 28, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Not really.
I love the quote by Dr. Collin Patterson, past head of the zoology section of the British museum -

"It occurred to me that after studying this stuff for over 25 years there wasn't one thing I knew about it - that I could prove was true"

Interesting and funny.

“Happy New Year”

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95615
Jul 28, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I love the quote by Dr. Collin Patterson, past head of the zoology section of the British museum -
"It occurred to me that after studying this stuff for over 25 years there wasn't one thing I knew about it - that I could prove was true"
Interesting and funny.
Childish stories for childish minds.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95616
Jul 28, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I love the quote by Dr. Collin Patterson, past head of the zoology section of the British museum -
"It occurred to me that after studying this stuff for over 25 years there wasn't one thing I knew about it - that I could prove was true"
Interesting and funny.
Can you provide a link for that quote?

I've looked for it via Google, and am unable to find it.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95617
Jul 28, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Childish stories for childish minds.
I'm pleasantly surprised that you agree that evolution is a "Childish stories for childish minds"

“Happy New Year”

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95618
Jul 28, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm pleasantly surprised that you agree that evolution is a "Childish stories for childish minds"
Wow, twisting my words in an effort to support your own claims. I have never seen that done before. That is amazing. You are so smart and clever.

ROFLMMFAO!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 90,441 - 90,460 of105,856
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••