Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
[[What physical process required by evolution is barred by the 2nd Law? Be specific about the chemistry.]]
you know, Coyoteman tried to argue this argument, and I warned him about looking foolish, and I’ve now informed you that you’ll come across lookign foolish too- but evidently, you wqnt to continue?
As you know, Chemical reactions require enery/heat loss, and continued energy input, and hte resulting heat loss contributes to the breakdown of systems. The absolutely ecessary additions of information also contribute to increased entropy- Everytime you add, you up the requirements needed to maintain a system, resulting in more energy expended. Every system that we nkow of is subject to these basic scientific facts. You can look these chemical degredations yourself online- it’s a fact- Without an engine- heat flow is useless- once you add the engine, the wear and tear imemdiately begin to affect the whole system. If you’re demanding the biological chemical reactions, again, You’ll find htose online, but briefly, you add any energy, the system uptakes htis energy, converts it, which takes more eenergy, and turns it to fuel which is burned which inturn causes degredation throughout hte whole system (You can research ATP if you’re so interested in findign out hte precise mechanisms- which you will discover utilizing an amazing maount of energy which has detrimental effects on the system as a whole)
I’m being serious when I state that the argument for Macroevolution concerning the effects of hte second law is a dead end argument- nothign escapes the law except for a few moot- irrelevent and static non livign systems- Macroevolution however demands that hte law be ignroed while the single cell works it’s way al lthe way up to completed highly complex species- all in some miraculous self-organizing manner without any infromation available- which it MUST have just ‘created as it went along’ out of nowhere
to put it a bitm ore simply, anytime you add more information- somethign that is absolutely required, constantly required infact, by macroevolution, you add to the energy requirements and breakdown of a system, which must somehow be offset by increased tolorances which simply isn’t generated by ‘simple’ addition of information of non species specific info.
Evolution is a greek word meaning ‘outrolling’, and interestingly, entropy is a word meaning ‘in-turning’ (in other words, it causes an ‘imploding’ if you will- systems begin, and immediately begin collapsing inward- just hte oppositie of Macroevolution demands- note this following quote from 1 . R. B. Lindsay: “Physics, To What Extent Is It Deterministic?” American Scientist, Vol. 56, Summer 1968, p. 100.
“There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation, the law of increasing entropy.”
In order to increase information and transforming systems in ever increasing complexities, you MUST make available increased energy availability- somethign that doesn’t arise through simple information addition which MUST coem first- in nature, we simply do not witness these increases in energy utilization, but see just hte opposite- systems startign out as a whole, and decreasing- almost without exception.
Again- given the serious impossibilites against Macroevolution (mathematical, biological, the second law, etc), when just any one of these would render Macroevolution non viable, when taken together, it becoems clear that the ‘wing and a prayer’ faith in Macroevolution is just that, a serious disconnect with hte actual evidences, and a pure faith-based assumption that ignores problems that simply can not be ignored. Vast amounts of Time simply doesn’t make htese impossibilities anymore reasonable I’m afraid
It sounds like you agree with the quote I presented in #1172.
Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.
[[It sounds like you agree with the quote I presented in #1172.
Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.]]
While I agree with it, you are leavign out a very important point, even if htere were some energy creating, and energy supplying source, supplying energy to any system, this would simply speed up entropy. As well, increasing enrgy increases chaos, so I’m not sure what you’re driving at, but it again will show to be irrelevent to the idea that Macroevolution can overcome entropy trillions of times. If you are perhaps implying ‘scientists would know abotu hte source’ meaning that they ‘should have discovered if htere was a God/Creator of such energy by now’ I find that a little amusing, as Scientists demand a naturalistic explanation for life, and as such, would never admit there was a God/Creator of such energy even if they were standign before Him reading the blueprints first hand- which will bring me to my next point
In the beginning, energy began. Since then, energy has been in a constant state of reduction. Where did the energy begin? Good question- for which science has no explanation, but for which they metaphysically appeal to an ‘unknown mechanism’ somehere far far out in space and time in which hte second law ‘must have been’ cancelled out at some point.
“All real processes go with an increase of entropy. The entropy also measures the randomness, or lack of orderliness of the system; the greater the randomness, the greater the entropy.” 6. Harold Blum: “Perspectives in Evolution,” American Scientist, October, 1955, p. 595
Life- order to disorder- without exception- Macroevolution- disorder to ever increasing, self asembling order, apparently without ever suffering entropy.
Nothing in science depends on YOUR uneducated opinion.
If you have studied the subject for many years,
if you have done serious research work in the field,
if you've taught college level courses on the subject,
and if you have published PEER-REVIEWED articles in major scientific journals,
then and only then does your scientific opinion even begin to matter.
Otherwise, your opinion is just that -- an opinion.
It should have NO influence over what is or is not taught in science classes.
In summary: science is what scientists say it is, whether it happens to fit your religious agenda or not.
Good point. Well said.
You've brought up a different kind of subject.
Parents who send their children to private schools, religious schools or home schools are free to chose whatever course work they think best. If the school never even mentions the word "evolution," then that's their choice.
But in PUBLIC schools, the standards have to be different.
In those science classes they must teach science -- not politics, or religion, or philosophy disguised as science.
Of course they CAN teach politics, religion & philosophy in public schools, so long as they give them their correct names, and NOT call them science.
The basic problem with most of you Creationist / Intelligent Designers is that you truly truly do not understand what science is all about.
First, you fantasize that science has something to do with your opinions about it. It doesn't -- not unless you are truly a scientist doing scientific work and publishing your scientific results.
Otherwise, your opinion matters nothing, zero, zip, nada.
Second, you don't understand that virtually ALL of science is "theory." There are very few "laws of science," and if you exclude all scientific "theories" from science classes, then virtually nothing of modern technology can be explained.
Are you serious? I thought the subject here was what should be taught in science classes -- evolution or Creationism / Intelligent Design.
Our creationists claim their ideas are "science," while the scientific theory of evolution, they say, is a "religion," so therefore, let's teach BOTH in science classes.
And on what grounds do Creationists claim that Intelligent Design is a "science"? Well, they quote the Bible, don't they?
First, you fantasize that science has something to do with your opinions about it. It doesn't — not unless you are truly a scientist doing scientific work and publishing your scientific results.
Otherwise, your opinion matters nothing, zero, zip, nada.”
Listen brat, I am a farmer and a forester and if I did not have a scientific or mathematical mind, then I would not be successfully self-employed. I am beyond the lab and publishing. I am living with science: chemistry, meteorology, hydrology, agronomy, physiology, biology, horticulture, its all here on the farm and in my blood. Because I do not embrace the evolution conspiracy does not make me scientifically illiterate.
I respect your experience and your opinion. It is a mistake for any of us to get caught up in the pride of being credentialed in some particular field before our opinion can be given merit.
I have opinions about science, and I have opinions about religion. I expect to be able to develop and expostulate my opinions on either without being asked for credentials.
I see little difference between that, and the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.
If there is any merit at all to these crevo threads, it is that most logical fallacies will appear in short order, and can be studied by those who might choose to adopt logic as a way of thinking.
Then, clearly, that applies to all the evolutionists on this forum as well, with the sole exception of one that I know of.
Since precious few of them have a degree in scinece, their uneducated opinion on matters of science are irrelevant as well.
Good. Glad we have that settled.
Hi Bob. I am not about blowing my own horn, BroJoe just keeps spouting that anyone that does not agree with evolution doesn’t know jack about science. When actually, some of us may know so much about science and math, that evolution does not pass the test. Your point is well taken: logic is a beautiful thing.
Thank you for your closing statement, Jaime. Indeed, this complex wonderfully engineered and designed Creation is thanks to the glory of God.
Happy Sabbath!
676<>3 is not equal to 6760
6760 is the root word, not the word derived to be 6763
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.