benzics: the guy has been claiming "no evidence", even when it is clear we and chimps share similar descendants, it's their type that ask "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes"..
It sure felt good when Earth was flat, Earth was the center of the universe, Earth was only about 6,000 years old, life on Earth originated as the handiwork of a supernatural creator(that is probable but likely a diestic entity), and when species were fixed and didn't evolve. And it felt really good when humans were "special", created separately from other life on Earth, not descended from a common ancestor. Charles Darwin brought the human race to reality and because of this he is hated by the creationist crew Unfortunately for us they still want to keep us in the stone age Why do they like the stone age The theory of evolution explains how life diversified on earth. They're may be a few holes but the puzzle is pretty much complete Creationists don't like Charles Darwin and reality They have made fruitless efforts on the last two centuries to disprove this groundbreaking theory So far it hasn't really been holding up Things you have to ignore to not ackwledege evolution
-stratigrahpy -fossilised footprints -fossils -fossils of extinct species -plate tectonics and continental drift -same fossils on the edge of continents -carbon dating(it's accurate) -dendrochronology -peer reviewed papers -scientists that do actual peer reviews -genetics -Heredity -universal genetic material -Stanley miller -speciation -the codon table -mutations -molecular clock mutations -mithochloridial DNA -mithochloridial eve -Y-chromosomal Adam (not biblical) -Neanderthal DNA in humans -homology -embryos -neoteny -vaccines -marsupials -transitional fossils (yes they exist) -adaptations -sickle cell disease -flightless birds - artificial selection ( creationists use this for the bizzare science of Noahs ark like the rise of such a wide variety of species in just 6000 years ) ............. -the peppered moth -fruit flies The Galapagos islands -taxonomy -E Coil experiment( this has been attempted to be disproved by butthurt creationists. So far similar to their attempts to disprove the theory it isn't working out so well) -ring species Please creationists Charles Darwin meant no harm He really didn't
4evergod evolution is here to stay No matter how much you wish for it to go away If any changes should happen to the theory now it would be modifications and not an entire dismissal You are a homindea among other homindea like chimpanzees and bonobos Deal with it
4everGod: 38 pages now with 3064 views and 1223 comments Yet still not one singular real evidence for evolution! Just ASSUMPTIONS and SUPPOSITIONS. So where are all the EVOLUTION IS A FACT proof carriers?
Mr man your matter tire person oo Noreal evidence for evolution Do you live on this planet
damogul: Which one is creationist sef? The nobel prize carrying Physicists and Biochemists in the OP who declared the same thing are you more knowledgeable than they are with your minor in Physics? What experiment have you ever done to prove evolution? Those who have done experiments extensively one of them said the below
Collin Patterson (deceased), once the world’s most respected fossil expert penned it thus: “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it occured to me that I had been working on this stuff (evolution) for 20 years and there was not one thing I knew about it.”
was he wrong?
when did Colin Patterson say that A world renowned paleantologist
Hehehe We need more goals We need to stay way ahead of that stupid arsenal The league is already ours anyway Anyone that thinks otherwise can go and drown in the hater pool
plaetton: Dude. You're knowledge is 30yrs out of date.
China is an economic, military and technological superpower. By far the biggest exporter in the world, the biggest trade surplus in the world, the biggest foreign reserve in the world, the biggest gold reserve in the world, and with a modern space program right behind Russia and the USA . The larges economy by GDP, the largest and burgeoning middle class in the world.
If those are your definition of third world, then maybe I need to go back to school.
damogul: I said MACRO EVOLUTION and not MICRO EVOLUTION! Are your glasses fogged up? I am a Geophysicist / Geographer so you want to measure tools?
you are a geophysicist and you do not acknowledge a 4.5 billion year old earth and the countless works verifying the diversification of life fron your second cousins in terms of profession the palaeontologists
damogul: Facepalm yourself to silence! If you did not know what Macro evolution was or that it was an aspect of evolution then you disqualified yourself at that point. Go back and brush up on your sciences.
where did i say i didn't know what micro evolution is!! Are you high on wet paint Mr man i read computer science with a minor in physics What did you read
damogul: Entropy is a measure of the "disorder" of a system. What "disorder refers to is really the number of different microscopic states a system can be in, given that the system has a particular fixed composition, volume, energy, pressure, and temperature. By "microscopic states", i mean the exact states of all the molecules making up the system.
Stop giving me a wrong definition of entropy please.
damogul: If you jonbellion in this day and age do not know that evolution is broken down into two...MICRO EVOLUTION AND MACRO EVOLUTION then you need to refund your school fees as that is extremely disgraceful to say the least. Then you went ahead to ascribe MAACRO EVOLUTION to creationists....Lawd what Nonsense is this?
Evolution is evolution Didn't you see when I said macro evolution is rarely used There is no point for the name Why said i didn't know that The way you creationists twist words
damogul: Entropy is not disorder in the broad sense? Can you kindly define entropy to the world so we would see your version.
my version Entropy is the degree of dispersion of energy in a system. The second law implies that the Universe will always become increasingly uniform; that is, heat (transfer of energy in a way other than work) will spread until the entire universe has the same temperature and energy level You creationists misinterpret complex scientific facts and you say the laws of thermodynamics disprove evolution All the examples I gave you disproves your version of the second law Just stop bro Just stop
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.
This alone shows you have no knowledge to disprove the OP with so kindly stick to posting memes
nr man macro evolution is nit widely used in scientific circles It's a creationist thing Evolution is evolution What you creationists assume is that it means evolution above the species level or the evolution of one species from another, something that science considers to be merely one aspect of evolution
[s]Having an Origin as the brainchild of Charles Darwin, the definition of evolution has itself evolved into many shapes and sizes. In Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, Darwin said that all living creatures (inclusive of even matter) evolved from a simple less complex life form or substance. His theory pushes forward that life began by accident blind chance and that everything we know today is the result of happenstance.
As far as we know, the common view of evolution is still debated, even among pundits of evolution, we can possibly split up it into 6 major sections: stellar & planetary, cosmic, chemical, organic, macro, and micro.
Cosmic evolution is made up of the origin of the universe, time and matter. The Big Bang theory falls within this area.
Chemical evolution talks about the origin of complex elements. This aspect also attempts to explain the process in which those elements came to be.
Stellar and planetary evolution zooms in on the origin of stars and planets. This is not the same thing as cosmic evolution, yet at times can overlap it.
Organic evolution attempts to shed some light on the origin of living matter. Origin of life study is concentrated upon this area.
The 2 bottom areas, macro & micro evolution, are often erroneously mish mashed. They are not meant to offer explanations to the origin of living matter, but attempt to explain the uncountable variety of flora and fauna.
Micro evolution says that every living organism experiences mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations, within a species. Macro evolution goes beyond this by stating that such adaptations and mutations will, in time, bring about a new species of flora and fauna.
This surely sounds complex doesnt it? Well thats because it is! Often, evolutionists cannot even agree on where the roles begin and end. They even say that macro evolution is just micro evolution over extremely long periods of time.
There is enough proof supporting micro evolution. For example, when a virus becomes resistant to antibiotics, it is a pointer to micro evolution. Such proof is often used to “prove” macro evolution, thereby employing the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. There is absolutely no solid proof for macro-evolution...... absolutely none!
Putting a veil over these specialties has led to much confusion among the general public and to heated debate among scientists.
Assumptions Are Not Proof
Remember the logical fallacy of begging the question. It occurs when an assumption is used to prove a conclusion; in turn, that conclusion is used to prove the original assumption. The core of evolution is based upon this fallacy. So many areas of evolution’s position are nothing more than assumptions used to explain and “prove” other hypotheses. This is not the scientific method and not how legitimate science operates!
I implore every reader to approach this subject like a scientist. As you read, remember that if any assumption can be shown to be false or impossible to validate, any conclusions based upon it crumble to pieces.
To erase all doubt, most of the core foundations of evolution will be shown to be nothing more than assumptions. Many are so important that disproving even one causes the entire theory to collapse.
As we go step by step over each point, the logical lies evolution makes use of will become clear. Get ready to be amazed by the “science” used to substantiate this nearly globally believed theory.
Neither Theory nor Fact
The first assumption is the slow metamorphosis of referring to the theory as a tried, tested and proven scientific fact in essence, assuming evolution to be true. The sureness with which such statements are declared leaves a lot of people convinced that scientists have supporting proof.
Such blind trust and belief among some evolutionary scientists has led most schools to teach evolution as both a scientific and historical fact.
Pierre-Paul Gressé, a world renowned zoologist and author of more than 300 publications, and former president of the Academie des Sciences, stated,
“Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved”
Even though these quotes are very profound the purpose here is not yet to disprove evolution, only to demonstrate that it is not a tried and tested fact.
A scientific fact is defined as “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true.” From just the quote above, we can see that observations and tests show inconsistencies, and that such a well respected zoologist did not accept evolution as fact. How could evolution be considered fact when such divergent opinions exist?
Speaking realistically, by true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory! A scientific theory is defined as a “theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable.”
To make it through as a genuine theory, there must be some test or tests attesting to its validity or else it should be tossed out. Without a test, it is not a scientific theory.
For example, a theory arising from observing a blue sunset could state that the sunset is always bblue. A test then exists to prove or disprove the theory. (One could watch sunsets for a year and record their color.) This means the theory fulfills the requirements to be scientific. Of course, if a purple, green or pink sunset is observed, the honest scientist would abandon the hypothesis and develop a new theory. The cycle would continue until a theory is proven as fact. This is the basis of the scientific method.
Does the theory of evolution meet these two conditions? Is it the result of scientific observation, and can it be put to the test? It could be said that with no observed examples of macro evolution on record, the theory is more based on faith, hope and belief than scientific study. Going further, nearly all evolutionists declare that most major evolutionary changes occurred millions of years ago. But events in the distant past are not testable and, therefore, cannot ever be proven. True or False?
When evidence that is no longer accessible or available (because it is very old) is used to prove a premise, the logical fallacy of chronological snobbery has been employed!
Evolutionists should realize that their “theory” is neither a scientific fact nor even a theory.
Such thinking is aptly summarized by world renowned biochemist Dr. Michael Denton:
“Darwins general theory that all life on earth began and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of chance mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe”
Evolution is not a fact; it is not even a scientific theory. As Dr. Denton stated, it is no more than a “extremely speculative hypothesis.” Again we have to ask: How can something so debated, even by those who profess to believe it, be taught in schools as fact?
Survivors Survive
One of the most basic foundations of evolution is the assumption of “survival of the fittest.” in a nutshell, it is the concept that nature grants preference to the fittest and most adaptable of a species to produce offspring and therefore survive.
You may have heard this so many times that you have never questioned this seemingly logical statement. Remember, you must approach evolution scientifically, not based on assumption or ingrained bias.
Famous polymath author Arthur Koestler addressed this subject well:
“Once upon a time, it all looked so simple. Nature encouraged the fit with a reward for survival and punished the unfit with the curse of extinction. The trouble only started when it came to defining fitness...Thus natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction...We are trapped in a circular argument which totally begs the question of what it is that makes evolution evolve”?
Another way of saying it is that the fittest are those who survive; and those who survive are considered the fittest. This is circular logic! It presumes that simply because something survived, it is the fittest.
In science,you can't build a conclusion on an assumption, especially if you then use the conclusion to prove the original assumption. This would not pass scrutiny in a high school debate class, but has tragically become all too common in evolutionary science.
Survival of the fittest is a careless and floppy “tautology,” a way of saying something in a loquacious manner. For instance, survivors survive; water is wet; matter is material; etc. statements of this nature do not prove anything, because they are nothing more than truisms.
Yet even in the face of such information, pundits of evolution "willingly" ignore the facts:
“What is most troubling is that some evolutionary biologists have no problem with proposing tautologies as explanations. One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by same, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology”
Surviving vs. Arriving
Some scientists may declare, “We have witnessed natural selection. It happens everywhere in the world on a daily basis. It is provable!” They point to natural selection as a means to remove the unfit not a process that favors the “fittest.” At best, you could call natural selection a “survival of the average.”
Natural selection is a method that removes the weak and unfit from species. This makes sure that populations are healthy and flourishing. It can be seen by the instinctive actions of a cheetah attacking the weakest of a Gazelle herd. The herd remains healthy, because the weak are removed. In no way at all does it propel some supposed “fittest” to the front! Pundits of Evolution must account for new species by, as Darwin declared, successive series of minor changes. Natural selection removes the weak and promotes stability among a species, the exact opposite of what evolution pundits require!
A famous Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries aptly explained this problem by stating, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest”
Shockingly, natural selection did not begin with Darwin. In fact, it was recorded about 20 years earlier by Edwarrd Bllyth, a Chemist and zoologist. Darwin changed the proper observation of a passive “natural process of selection” to the active “natural means of selection.” He changed it from a readily understood and accepted theory to a circular logic cliche!
Like all such attempts, the fallacious interpretation of natural selection attempts to explain all about evolution, but, in reality, explains absolutely nothing. Falsely assumed by so many, this foundation of evolution is nothing more than a useless statement proving nothing!
A House of Cards
Even with just 2 assumptions of evolution presented, you should already have begun to decipher how so many scientists unjustifiably see evolution as fact. The scientific theory of evolution has already fallen apart just by the use of logic
I ended Part One by asking the question, why should it be taught in high schools; we could now go further to ask why it is believed by anyone. There is a whole lot more to cover as this faulty science is laid bare and the house of cards completely falls.
To be continued shortly[/s]...[/b]
bull Bull Bull Bull What the heck is macro evolution There is nothing like that It is evolution You admit that "microevolution" or adaptation, occurs infact you require it to be accelerated to extremes undreamt of by science in order to salvage your global flood theology, but will state emphatically that "macroevolution" is impossible Bullcrap And you are still comparing evolution to social Darwinism and dishonestly putting it in the evolutionist camp You told me it builds up to the next I just took time to read it again because you were making assumptions that it knocked evolutionists hard There is nothing mind blowing
[s]Is it possible for a rock to come to become alive? Could a rat grow from a lump of coal? You would agree that Such questions are silly. However, this is in essence what the theory of evolution teaches. It stands or falls on whether non living matter can change, through a series of random events, into organic living matter. This concept is called by several names and explained in several ways, but often, it is said to be known as “spontaneous generation, chemical evolution, abiogenesis” or biopoiesis.
Do not allow evolution pundits to avoid the “origin of matter” question. Many claim that the origin of life is in no way related to the appearance of living matter.
Should evolution be limited to the study of organic matter? Allow noted geneticist and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky to answer:
“Evolution is made up of all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to limit the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life”
If evolution pundits try to split biological evolution from the origin of life (or even the origin of the universe), an overwhelming question remains: If evolution applies only to plants and animals, what caused the appearance of the universe and life on earth? How can life evolve if it never existed? Evolution must totally embrace the whole process from the beginning of the universe to the diversity of plant, animal and human life today. No amount of scientific rigmaroll can change this.
Why would such a prominent evolutionist veil the facts?
Unbreakable Laws
At the very core of the “origin of life” quagmire is the fundamental scientific law of biogenesis. It is the process that new life can come only from existing life that is, only living organisms produce other living organisms.
Simpson and Beck’s biology textbook titled, Life: An Introduction to Biology is definite about this: “There is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life emerges only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the offspring of another cell.”
Martin Mooe, who writes for Science Digest, declared, “A century of startling discoveries in the biological science has shown us that life emerges only from life...”
These are two plain, conclusive and irrefutable statements. How then do evolution pundits bypass something as vital as biology? Again, throwing aside the something so obvious, they are forced to split the origin of life from the evolutionary process.
Do not be deceived by discussions of scientists who claim to be able to produce a synthetic version of the polio virus. Every honest and even minimaly trained biologist knows that viruses are non living organisms, because they must have a living host to reproduce. Any biologist who claims otherwise is either untrained or dishonest.
Even if this was true, it took decades of scientific research and advancement to facilitate a carefully planned process in order to create synthetic polio. Random events did not create it!
So how do evolutionists explain life on earth?
A Land Far, Far Away!
When one tries to push a false assertion, he must quickly change focus from obvious holes or weaknesses. So, the thinking goes thus, if abiogenesis cannot happen on earth, then perhaps it could happen in space.
What should be seen as irrational insanity is entertained as a valid hypothesis. This does not follow the scientific process.
Evolution seems immune from basic logic. The hypothesis that the precursor chemicals for life came from space is gaining popularity in the scientific community. Note that all forms of living matter, but especially simple forms of life, are highly unstable. Plants, animals and people die and decompose, while rocks and minerals last for millennia.
These highly unstable, simple forms of life must survive being ejected from a faraway planet (customarily by a catastrophic event or explosion), peregrinate through the rigors of space (radiation, acerbic cold, extreme heat, a vacuum, etc.), withstand the tremendous heat of perforating earth’s atmosphere and, determinately, survive the rigorous surface impact. How cockamamy! One does not require a degree in science to visually perceive cockamamy nature of such a theory—yet, incredibly, it is discussed as a possibility!
Recollect. This hypothesis is not designated to be an authentic theory. The attention had to be taken away from biogenesis. It is nothing more than a scientific “bait and switch.” In lieu of addressing the law of biogenesis, which evolutionists cannot circumvent, they endeavor to appeal to the great unknown of space as the answer, thus evading the pristine quandary.
Biogenesis is a ECUMENICAL law. Just as it applies on earth, it must apply throughout the macrocosm. Moving the quandary to outer space is silly and mendacious!
So what is the solution proposed by evolutionists who are at least veracious enough to admit no reply to biogenesis ? They simply parrot a non-answer, and apply the argument to future logical fallacy, claiming further scientific improvement will reveal the inception for life story on terra firma.
Evolutionist avoid the doubt and springiness no real number response —because they have no answer! Such fallacies and lack of grounds are the reasons Dr. Louis Bounoure, former Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Inquiry at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, stated, “Theory of evolution is a poove tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”
The Law of Laws
For the next posit, we can play the game of “let’s suppose.” Suppose the anterior postulation was not erroneous, and that at some future time we will discover the naturalistic method in which living matter came into subsistence.
Conspicuously, with the proof, logic and verbalizations above, this is quite the supposition. But for the sake of argument, postulate there was a time when only very simple organic compounds, such as amino acids, subsisted. We can even elongate the game a few steps further and suppose these amino acids had already composed into enzymes. This is an exorbitantly munificent leap, but it will accommodate to prove a point.
With this in mind, the most bedrock, central laws of science come into play the Laws of Thermodynamics. Albert Einstein called this the premier law of all sciences. Sir Arthur Eddington verbalized, “The second law of thermodynamics holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature…If it [a theory] is found to be contradicted by an observation—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation
These are very strong words from two world-renowned scientists. Other writers have noted that the more one works with these laws, the more respect he gains for them.
The Natural law of Thermodynamics are immutable and apply to all disciplines of skill . To even be considered, evolution must function within the restraint of Thermodynamics. Most applicable to this assumption, it must follow the second law of thermodynamics
Open or Closed—Still Impossible
Thermodynamics emanates from two Greek words, therme, designating “heat,” and dunamis, designating “power.” In essence, thermodynamics is the study of “heat power.” The second law of thermodynamics states that, in a system, all processes will result in incremented entropy—the scientific term for “unusable energy.
The second law expresses that, over time, and ignoring certain variables, things incline to even out in an isolated system. And entropy is a quantification of how stabilized—or evened out—a system has progressed.
Another way to optically canvass it is best expounded by world-famous science inditer and scientist Isaac Asimov: “Another way of verbalizing the second law then is ‘The macrocosm is perpetually getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way we can visually perceive the second law all about us. We have to work strenuously to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very expeditiously and very facilely. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How arduous to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: How facile to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.
This poses quite a challenge for a theory predicated on an incrementation of order, involution and intricacy. But evolutionists have not given up!
In an endeavor to make the theory work, a debate between “open” and “closed” systems has arisen. The distinction between the two is quite simple. In a closed system, there is no interference from an external source, so the second law applies without any complications. The system becomes more disorderly, entropic and stable over time stringently in line with the second law. On the other hand, it is argued that in an open system, external sources of energy sanctions a process to have more sustained energy—increase in useable energy.
In the case of evolution, because our sun is supplying ample amounts of extra energy, earth is no longer a closed system and can become less entropic (have more utilizable energy). And, since the sun is winding down, efficaciously transferring energy, all of the Laws of Thermodynamics in a closed system (the macrocosm) are satiated
Energy Alone does not Make Evolution
Can simply applying raw, undirected energy to a system sanction a lower caliber of entropy? Can it authentically be that simple? There are parameters to address the application of an external energy source on a closed system. Withal, there are mathematical constructs demonstrating that the second law of thermodynamics applies in an open system.
While many evolutionists endeavor to blur the correct application of an open thermodynamics system, there are some that are more veracious. Charles J. Smith verbalized, “The thermodynamicist immediately elucidates the latter question by pointing out that the second law classically refers to isolated [closed] systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explication, however, is not thoroughly satiating, because it still leaves open the quandary of how or why the injuctively authorizing process has arisen (an ostensible lowering of the entropy [an increase in useable energy]), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy called the cognation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved quandaries in biology”
Decades ago it was understood there are “fundamental unsolved problems.” Nothing has changed today.
Raw energy alone is not enough to reduce entropy! For this to transpire, multiple conditions must be met. Three are summarized in another quote from Life: A Prelude to Biology: “But the simple expenditure of energy is not ample to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither engenders nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow designations; it requires information on how to proceed” (accentuation mine).
“Particular work” is more than just raw energy; it is focused. Of course, there must be energy, but that energy must be directed. It cannot simply be a “bull in a china shop.” Such uncontrolled, undirected energy will never build—it always and only ravages! The simple example of photographs left in sunlight demonstrates that, over time, undirected, raw energy deteriorates and eradicates. There must additionally be a mechanism to convert energy into the form required for a categorical application. Without a conversion, there is nothing more than raw, unbridled energy that eradicates.
Consider the process at work in plants, photosynthesis. The parallel is most intriguing because the energy source is sunlight—the same energy source to which evolutionists point. This involute energy conversion system is the process utilized by plants to transmute sunlight into utilizable energy needed to grow. Because this is biological, we are dealing with the second law of thermodynamics in an open system. In such a case, raw energy is available in the form of sunlight. And because plants have information-opulent DNA, there is a highly designed and detailed designation for this “particular work” to be carried out. All needed conditions are met and, in such a case, there is a lowering of entropy—an increase in utilizable energy.
There are also similar systems in our body—digestion, respiratory, etc. Yet in all cases, the three conditions are satisfied.
To perform concrete work, there must be “information”—instructions—for the process to proceed, and a mechanism for those injuctive authorizations to be carried out. This transpires in the leaves of plants, as well as with the systems in the human body.
Highly concrete work—evolution—is infeasible by supplying energy from the sun and “hoping for the best.” The work must be categorical, there must be a conversion process and this must be supplemented with detailed injuctive authorization. No matter the argument, no matter how stentorian voices get or how intensely arms are waved, no one can circumvent thermodynamics.
Some scientists will admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are plenarily incompatible: “Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (macrocosmically accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will incline to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, ‘It would scarcely be possible to conceive of two more thoroughly antithesis principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As [Aldous] Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of intricacy. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true’” .
Evolution cannot account for the appearance of life on this or any other planet. Mendacious, yet clever, arguments cannot sidestep the laws of biogenesis or thermodynamics.
The fundaments of science are predicated on these laws. They are SURE! They are absolute and have subsisted since the commencement of our macrocosm. These laws are immutable—and, as such, make evolution infeasible![/s][/b]
Bullshit It is extremely wrong to apply the second law of thermodynamics to the biosphere or life Entropy is not "disorder" in the broad sense It is the degree of dispersion of energy in a system Disorder is a stupid oversimplification Entropy decreases when water freezes So basically ice is more "ordered" than liquid water Your misconception will ultimately disprove -the formation of snowflakes -orbits in the solar system -growth in living organisms And -the formation of rocks Say NO to pseudoscience
dalaman: Welcome to the world of KingEbukasBlog, our startreck evangelist. 10 dimensional plane and portal. I wonder if he is referring to the biblical God that fights with humans and boast of staining his clothing with their blood. How can a God that fights with humans and wears clothing be living in a 10 dimensional portal? Only the one that lives in the head and imaginations of KingEbukasBlog.
Ebuka likes giving non existent attributes to the Abrahamic God The Abrahamic God is a well known buffon Ignorant of his supposed creation Worst scientist on the planet Just a complete inbecile A drunk warlord best fits his description He doesn't know he created the atom Complete ode
dalaman: So what ever that is responsoble for the universe is male and he alone created the entire universe? You know this how?? Your evidence that the universe was created by a single entity Is WHAT?
Your own God idea was created just 2000 years ago after the followers of some dead Jew decided to invent stories that say he was born of a Virgin and resurrected from the dead about 40 years after he died. God is not a fact but a a man made idea. I repeat yours was formed just 2000 year ago from the existing idea of the God created by the Jews. Their own God idea had to go through a lot of construction and restructuring.
Endless word salads, check out your bible stories no where does it day that your God lives in any 10 dimensional plane, in fact he was scared the people could build a tower and reach him that he had to change their languages. He used to address the people through public speech, he comes down and fights with them and stain his garment with their blood, he has enemies amongst humans etc. The bible does not portray a God that lives in any 10 dimensional space but a God that loves on the skies and actively acts in the world. 10 dimensional plane is the invention of modern day christian apologist because of new scientific knowledge that man has aquired.
that was where he showed us how much of a science fiction fan he was and fantasy Apparently heaven is actually asgard Lol Portal Checkmate athiests
MrPresident1: There is the spirit of atheism, and it is from God, just as the evil spirit came from God to torment king Saul 1 Samuel 16:23, so these atheist spirit has been asked to keep you permanently deluded, its purpose is to keep you in delusion until your time for punishment is mature. Just negodu, your recompense for foolishness is just at the door
see the kind of nonsense your spewing You were obviously dropped on your head as an infant Ooh wow atheism is a spirit And Yahweh wants to punish us so he is keeping us for destruction Damn I'm so frightened Excise me while i go shit myself
when you point out the absurdity of their beliefs they start to merge deism and theism together This is ebukas speciality Science does not disprove "God" Science disproves the Abrahamic God Terribly
Christianity Etc › Re: Demystifying Evolution! Exposing It And Its Fraud! by jonbellion(m): 8:58am On Dec 15, 2016
, your recompense for foolishness is just at the door 