Libs & Xmas
- Started
- Last post
- 157 Responses
- discipler0
Mimio, forget the miraculous. Its not scientific. If there were evidence regarding species to species, it would be a different story. But there isn't.
Here are some more detailed points regarding evolution's issues:
THERMODYNAMICS:
The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.
Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.FOSSIL RECORD
Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one "connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps."Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let's take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.
Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.
(The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching's book.)
1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.
In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.
One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.
2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.
However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.
3. It had teeth.
Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.
4. It had a shallow breastbone.
Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.
Recent examination of Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.
5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.
This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.
6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.
This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.
This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.
This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."
And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.
In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:
"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"
Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils. So convincing I believe this quote to be that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence.
PROBABILITY
The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge
"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.
Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
As one can readily see, here is yet one more test that evolution theory has flunked.
There are about 14 other important issues, but heck... there's plenty there to chew on for now.
- fate0
"which there is 0 evidence for - we only have complete forms of species, no transitional forms
-discipler"
dumbass.
- Donvitoviti0
Lots of people around here..."San Fran" have been very liberal about it already.
So many comments about how they are trying to find alternative ways to celebrate chistmas since it deals with religion.
Even one woman I heard upon getting a happy thanksgiving, said "Sorry we dont celebrate thanksgiving, since giving thanks means praying to God"
the way left liberals are really loosing it.
- fate0
"This is because it is unscientific to suggest that matter and cognizant life sprang from nothing.
-discipler"Take methane, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen. Cycle them through a glass tubing system with water at the bottom. Apply electric shock. In a week you will have the precursors of amino acids and proteins.
- Donvitoviti0
where did the carbon, oxygen, hydrogen come from then
- fate0
"If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible
-discipler"
You took one theory for physics and apply it to biology, dumbass. That's like saying it's impossible for humans to get any smarter because Thermodynamics says we should all be degenerating and our society in ruin. Social commentary aside, that's not the case.
- fate0
"Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms
-discipler"
Lies.
- Mimio0
It's unscientific and untruthful for the bible to suggest that before the so-called-flood all animals were vegetarian.
- Donvitoviti0
acctually its not lies fate.. there is no known fossil of a trasition stage.
- bk_shankz0
Discipler,
I think you're sort of taking the second law out of context. It has nothing to do with the development of complex systems. It is the total entropy of a system always increases. The ideas are usually applied to a gas in two rooms with a small opening. Its not meant to be applied to an organsim, then you would have to analyze the whole system the animal and its environment. Entropy has been abosobed by the design world to mean all sorts of myth like things but its a pretty hard science. Its comparing a number of states. It's been a while since I studied it but it has nothing to do with complex sytems forming. Then stars would be a violation of entropy and their not. Thermodynamics is a very hard science meaning all math and little room for philosophy. And you can not take the prinicples out of context like that.
- fate0
Here you go Doni, be enlightened.
- Anarchitect0
only mentally challenged divide the world in conservatives & liberals.
- Donvitoviti0
sorry fate.. this proves nothing..
these are theories.
to get from one species to another there has to be an evolution... in stone.
- Blofeldt0
If i can't find my keys, does that mean they never existed?
- gabriel20
If god created everything he's a pretty shitty craftsman...
- soda0
- Blofeldt0
In in fact, that any keys existed. Despite the associated evidence, key hooks and locks, and locksmiths
There must be aniother answer! Surely?
- bk_shankz0
And why did he create people who didn't believe in him?
- Donvitoviti0
stupid analogy.
there are millions of fossils out there ... non showing a transition faze.. its not about if they existed.. its about.. if there are so many fossils of non transistion fazes.. why are there no transistion fazes.
- fate0
Doni, what do you call these? God's failed attempts to create a man? Or what? And where did they go? Why do some of them look so much like monkies?
The truth is staring you right in the face.