Posted on 06/09/2017 11:01:38 AM PDT by fishtank
No theory tries to “overcome” new properly researched fact.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What method do you think impossible? Carbon-14 dating? If so, how does the great flood change the decay of radioactive isotopes of carbon?
Wordsmith it however you want. Darwinism hasn’t been able to solve the problems presented which left unsolved leave Darwinism fatally flawed.
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.
That is a classic line.
Of course it does. And nobody ever said it works that way.
Got any other straw men?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“You lecture me like I don’t understand what a theory is. Your condescending attitude is obnoxious.”
Yes. Yes I do.
I know of no Creationists who deny the micro-evolution that you describe, although evolution isn’t really the precise term for genetics.
Wow, an obnoxious high brow who is proud of it. All puff, little substance.
“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.
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.
Thank you for your two comments!
Consider me a fan! (-:
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.