Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stop the Presses! Human Evolution Falsified!
Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | June 8, 2017 | David F. Coppedge

Posted on 06/09/2017 11:01:38 AM PDT by fishtank

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-203 next last
To: Jim 0216

No theory tries to “overcome” new properly researched fact.


61 posted on 06/09/2017 12:19:55 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
Darwinism ignores the second law of thermodynamics which states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state

Flat wrong. The second law says that entropy can only increase over time in a *closed* (not "isolated," *closed*) system. The earth is not a closed system because it receives energy from the sun.

You guys destroy your credibility with errors like this.

62 posted on 06/09/2017 12:21:24 PM PDT by Campion (Halten Sie sich unbedingt an die Lehre!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Well then you ought to know better than to claim the evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics, when that law clearly states that it applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS. Hint: the Earth ain’t one.


63 posted on 06/09/2017 12:22:42 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Because the TOE has been subject to the Scientific Method twice that I can remember - once by Darwin’s own test - the fossil record; and; the fruit fly studies, after thousands of generations of rigorous testing the result was still fruit flies = Falsified at least twice.


64 posted on 06/09/2017 12:25:35 PM PDT by Mechanicos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
This is from the ANSWERS IN GENESIS website. I don't know if they have any connection to this article's site or not, but it's typical:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

There you have it. Reason, facts be damned - they already know the answers and will not hear anything new.

65 posted on 06/09/2017 12:25:42 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: rwoodward
The pre-flood world is obviously much older. This is why dating anything beyond 6,000 years is almost impossible.

What method do you think impossible? Carbon-14 dating? If so, how does the great flood change the decay of radioactive isotopes of carbon?

66 posted on 06/09/2017 12:27:53 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Good judgment comes from experience. And experience? Well, that comes from poor judgment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Wordsmith it however you want. Darwinism hasn’t been able to solve the problems presented which left unsolved leave Darwinism fatally flawed.


67 posted on 06/09/2017 12:30:15 PM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

Bunk.

First of all, the law applies to ISOLATED SYSTEMS. The universe is an isolated system

Second of all, regarding the open versus closed system argument, Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
“… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40; cited in Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics Institute for Creation Research, 1993.

Common sense tells you that things left to themselves tend toward maximum randomness or entropy. Blowing up a garage and ending up with a working car defies rationality. Sorry you’ve been duped by your lying Leftist professors.


68 posted on 06/09/2017 12:44:16 PM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: sparklite2
...it’s not possible to reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned into.

That is a classic line.

69 posted on 06/09/2017 12:45:40 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
Blowing up a garage and ending up with a working car defies rationality.

Of course it does. And nobody ever said it works that way.

Got any other straw men?

70 posted on 06/09/2017 12:53:35 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

“Darwinism hasn’t been able to solve the problems presented which left unsolved leave Darwinism fatally flawed”

You have a fatal flaw in your understanding of how science is presented. There are flaws in many common theories, even scientific “laws” are not without flaws. Your job is to show they are wrong through research, experimentation, and publication.

You continue to be emotionally invested in a particular outcome of this discussion.

You expect theories to be perfect. That’s unreasonable. Even the law of gravity has flaws. It doesn’t make it any less compelling.

So back up. You wish to assign to science that which should be left to faith. You lose faith and science in the process.


71 posted on 06/09/2017 12:56:52 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

Science and common sense tells you that things left to themselves tend toward maximum randomness or entropy. Darwinism requires just the opposite. Darwinism is dead, they just don’t know it yet.


72 posted on 06/09/2017 12:58:03 PM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
How do they say it "works?"

And I ask with complete sincerity, because, though reasonably well-educated, I've never learned anything specific about evolutionary biology.

Which makes me as well-informed about it as 99.5% of the rest of humanity.

73 posted on 06/09/2017 1:00:39 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (There should be a whole lot more going on than throwing bleach, said one woman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

You lecture me like I don’t understand what a theory is. Your condescending attitude is obnoxious.

Darwinism fails the scientific process which doesn’t require the absence of flaws, but if Darwinism’s requirements fail scientific inquiry, then, yes it is fatally flawed.


74 posted on 06/09/2017 1:04:24 PM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

“You lecture me like I don’t understand what a theory is. Your condescending attitude is obnoxious.”

Yes. Yes I do.


75 posted on 06/09/2017 1:12:46 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: oincobx

I know of no Creationists who deny the micro-evolution that you describe, although evolution isn’t really the precise term for genetics.


76 posted on 06/09/2017 1:21:27 PM PDT by allblues (God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat but Satan is definitely a Democrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Wow, an obnoxious high brow who is proud of it. All puff, little substance.


77 posted on 06/09/2017 1:22:07 PM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

“Your job is to show they are wrong through research, experimentation, and publication.”

Incorrect. It is the job of those who support a theory as the best explanation for a phenomenon to answer challenges to the weaknesses of their theory, not the other way around.

For example the supporters of relativity were proposing a theory no less radical than evolution, but they were able to answer challenges by using their theory to make predictions that held up to experimental confirmation. They defended their theory successfully using the scientific method.

Evolution, on the other hand, can’t do that, so they will never be able to silence their critics through that method. So instead their supporters tend to resort to ad hominems and bad logic, which aren’t a substitute for mounting an actual scientific defense of the hypothesis.


78 posted on 06/09/2017 1:31:18 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

The same creationist arguements are recycled time after time without those advancing them considering facts which refute them.

In the creationist failure to understand radiometric dating, they ignore the nature of isotopes and deny uniformtitarianism (Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.).

Without these basic assumptions and facts, no discussion is possible.


79 posted on 06/09/2017 1:32:01 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Thank you for your two comments!

Consider me a fan! (-:


80 posted on 06/09/2017 1:37:33 PM PDT by MeganC (Democrat by birth, Republican by default, conservative by principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-203 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson