Posted on 01/26/2002 1:14:46 PM PST by Paul Ross
You've yet to explain how evolution is viable theory when there isn't ONE transititional fossil that proves macroevolution. Where the hell is the evidence? There should be millions of transititional fossils. There are none. Rats provide the largest group of mammal fossils and there is absolutely no evidence of eviolution in rats. Where's the proof?
The first and second laws of thermodynamics prove the universe was created and evolution did not occur. The universe could not have created itself. Spontaneous generation has never been observed. Nor could the universe have always been here, because all available energy would be used up and everything in the universe would have died if it had.
Evolution is based on the absurd idea the universe is going from disorder to order. But the second law of thermodynamics proves otherwise: The Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we would reach the beginning point, where available energy equaled total energy. Time could go back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must have come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
No one can explain how a whale or dolphin evolved because they didn't. A credible theory can't even be made how they did evolve.
How did the duckbilled platypuss evolve? Got any answers. Or will the 10,000 year answer be it?
The Duckbill Platypus
The explorer who first saw a hide of the duckbill platypus thought that it was composed of the hides of several different animals sewn together as a joke. Later, when a preserved specimen was brought to him for dissection, he finally declared it outrageous, but genuine! × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.
× It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive worm finding radar.
× Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.
× It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.
× The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.
× The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as different as you can get from the platypus.
Can you imagine what a pre-platypus might have looked like? Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from a variety of completely different animals.
I assume you posted that in the absence of any reasoned counter-argument to what I stated. In other words, unable to refute what I wrote, you felt compelled to insult me. How sad.
It is unfortunate that you cannot see the logical fallacy in your reasoning, as I have already pointed out for you, and feel you must resort to insulting anyone who disagrees or points out errors in your argument.
National Socialistic Democratic Workers Party
If that sounds like a leftist term, it is. NAZIism has been described (accurately) as Communism with a Nationalistic face. It's early motto in pre-war Germany was "Bread and Work."
From a historical perspective, Bolshevism and NAZIism were enemies, but I believe it was more from an "approach" to their goals of dictatorship, rather than common threads of purpose.
Both Communism and NAZIism are evil, anti-Christian, and totalitarian.
The left was confronted with such evil by NAZIism, it chose to call it "right-wing" in hopes of deflecting such terrible truths about itself. For a large part, they have been successful, aided by media and sympathizers. In the case of Stalinism, they simply ignored his murders and crimes, and then refused to apologize when the truth was known.
Evolution completely contradicts established laws of science. So, the evolutionist, on blind faith, is forced to believe 1)some natural law canceling out the Second Law prevailed far back in time, or (2) some natural law canceling out the Second Law prevails far out in space. When he makes such assumptions, however, he is denying his own theory, which says that all things can be explained in terms of presently observable laws and processes.
Where's the proof for evolution? No fossil record. No evidence. Animals that could not have evolved. Species too complex to have evolved step-by-step. As a result, you must rely on blind faith to believe in evolution because there is absolutely NO proof.
Evolution is based on the absurd idea the universe is going from disorder to order. But the second law of thermodynamics proves otherwise: The Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we would reach the beginning point, where available energy equaled total energy. Time could go back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must have come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
Have you considered the possibility that the total energy in the Universe is zero (or very close to zero)?
There is nothing in the 2LoT that prohibits natural processes from generating localized decreases in entropy of part of a system as long as the total entropy of the system and its surroundings experiences a net increase.
Again, there is absolutely no fossil record. No proof of evolution. Animals that could not possibly have evolved and complex species that could not have evolved in an evolutionary manner. Why do you continue to promote and blindly believe this fairy tale while claiming to be a Christian?
If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful, ultimate tendency toward "disarrangedness" brought by the 2nd Law. If such an important force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite obvious to all scientists. Yet, the fact is, no such force of nature has been found.
Hitler not only was brought up a Roman Catholic Christian, but he expressed his Christian views into adulthood, including his period as Chancellor of the German Third Reich.
Although some might counter that Hitler's admission to Christianity, by itself, does not make one a Christian, how else can an individual convey to another his religion except from their own confession? One of the tenants of Christian belief, indeed the definition of a Christian, comes from the Pauline epistiles in regards to faith in Jesus:
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. -Galatians 2:16
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. -Romans 3:26-28
Mein Kampf
Volume 1, Chapter 1, In the House of My Parents
"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
-Romans 3:26-28
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.