Creationist quotes and citations reflects a greater level of academic dishonesty

By some quick googling I found what should be references to the remaining of Almeyda's quotes.
I kind of had to laugh when seeing one quote attributed to "Professor Whitten", as if there's only one Professor Whitten... (clue, there's not)I took out the silly explanations of who the people are that went like "World famous, incredibly important person in biology!! OMG" Incidentally while googling for the Lipson quote I found this quote (at the TalkOrigins.org "Quote Mine Project" no less): - H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution - a rejoinder", Physics Bulletin, December 1980, pg 337.A quote in which he(she?) clearly says that evolution is obvious from the fossil record.

First of all
"As Evolution suggests"?
While the word evolution is often used in the context of cosmological phenomena, i.e. "The evolution of the Universe", in no way can it be used in a sentence the way you just did. In a cosmological context the word is used to describe a general process of development.
Maybe you're talking about the Theory of Evolution (ToE)? But in this case you're still skating on thin ice, because the ToE says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. All it does is state that all life on the planet is related through Common Descent.
So as you see, evolution suggests nothing about the Big Bang.Second of all
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not state that energy cannot be created/destroyed (this is the 1st Law). It states that the Entropy in a closed system never can decrease (or in other words, the available energy in a closed system can never increase).
So which is it going to be? The 1st Law or the 2nd?1st Law:
Big Bang theory states that the entire known universe was at one time a lot smaller. Space itself was incredibly "dense" (I hope that's a proper description)... then at one point all of space started to expand.
That's the Big Bang theory. Note that it doesn't say anything about where space or energy came from, only in what state it was a very short while after.
So clearly Big Bang theory can't go against the 1st Law, it doesn't say anything about energy being created or destroyed.2nd Law:
Noone knows if one should consider the Universe a closed or open system. So there's really not much to discuss here.Your solid argument from the 2nd (1st?) Law doesn't exist. It's just one of the many straws creationists grasp at.This message has been edited by Kent, 05-26-2004 01:17 AM

Yes, that's right, Big Bang has nothing to do with the ToE... And you better get used to it, because you're not in any position to redefine what the ToE says.Let's try this again, the ToE says that once life got started, it evolved by means of random mutation and natural selection.
Whether or not the universe came into being through the Big Bang, was created by some form of god (or gods), or hatched from a frickin' egg makes no difference whatsoever, the ToE only says that after life (in whatever way) came into being, it evolved.
Evolution doesn't have to account for the origin of the universe anymore than heliocentrism has to, or the theory of gravity has to.It seems you're confused. The ToE doesn't state that there is no creator(s)/god(s), and as such it does not have to explain a godless universe. The theory of Evolution is not equivalent with atheism, however much you want it to be...

---

"tellement loin de ce monde..."