PROOF against evolution

Still with the totally unsupported opinions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

For once, I would like you to prove me wrong. For some reason, it seems you're stalking me, reading every post I put on here. Are you on this forum to harass me, or to answer questions and put up logical arguments? YOU find a better explanation for it. You're the big, brilliant scientist... you give me proof against it. That's logical deduction, not unreasonable boolsheet. Sorry if I offended you.

Hi New Guy,I've been reading some of your posts and you have some interesting ideas and have made some rather blatant assertions. I suggest that you slow down, re-read the Forum Guidelines, pick one of your assertions and post it in an appropriate thread along with support and evidence for it.We have numerous fora on different aspects of this debate and each forum has multiple threads on different topics. You can also propose your own threads.Please stop bringing up multiple issues in inappropriate threads and start supplying support and evidence for you assertions.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Generally, when someone makes and assertion, they are expected to be able to defend that position, to give a reasonable explanation of why they beleve the assertion might be correct. But a simple assertion like the Universe is not 13+ Billion Years old must be supported.So far, you have made nothing except unsupported assertions. I doubt you will find many people here that will even bother trying to respond to unsupported assertions.I am actually trying to help you. Please, if you want anyone to take you seriously, then pick one subject, give your resoning for supporting it and we can discuss it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thank you...and no thanks. The only reason I'm making blatant assertions is because I want others to read, and do the research. I know what I stand on, and it seems more logical to me. I'd like others to see my opinion, and check it out for themselves. But hey, if my methodology is wrong, correct me...ThanksPeace and chicken grease

Yes, let me explain more clearly how things work. These are two of the rules tha you agreed to:

quote:

---

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.

​

4.Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.

---

Others do not have to do your research for you. You don't have any "methodology". There is nothing to correct. You have to show why you arrived at your conclusions. Then others can examine that reasoning and discuss it.This may be taken as an official warning. You may be restricted in your access to all or parts of the forum if you don't feel the need to follow the guidelines you agreed to.

then please try to defend your position.The topic of this thread is PROOF against evolution.If you have some proof, pick one example that you believe you can support with evidence and present it.So far, you have presented nothing except assertions. That is not very convincing.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Thank you...and no thanks. The only reason I'm making blatant assertions is because I want others to read, and do the research.

---

Interesting attitude. I think you will find that most of us have done the research. Now, if you want to convince anyone that you have any credibilitly, you need to support your assertions or no one here will even read your posts.

quote:

---

I know what I stand on, and it seems more logical to me.

---

Then you can explain it to us.

quote:

---

I'd like others to see my opinion, and check it out for themselves.

---

The way things are going, that probably won't happen.

quote:

---

But hey, if my methodology is wrong, correct me...Thanks
Peace and chicken grease

---

It is wrong. First you could learn something about different dating methods and then explain why you think they are correct or incorrect. Making blanket unsupported assertions won't even buy a cup of coffee around here.

OK. Gotcha. Now we can get back on topic.According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, EVERYTHING in the universe is in a state of entropy, or decay. This would invalidate evolution's most basic principle, as it states that everything is evolving and changing into something BETTER.This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 05-31-2004 11:28 AM

Hey! It's a misrepresentation of both the 2LoT and biological evolution!First of all, all the 2LoT states is that the overall entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. The Earth is not a closed system. It gets energy from the Sun.Second of all, the definition of evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Nothing about getting better in there, is it.Another flaw you have in your post is that you are equating the human definitions of "order" and "disorder" with the the thermodynamic definitions of "order" and "disorder". For example, while humans would consider a human to be more "ordered" than a bacterium, thermodynamically, a human contains more "disorder' than a bacterium.

---

Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!Proudly attempting to Google-Bomb Kent "The Idiot" Hovind's website Idiot

No one should try to explain how the Second Law of Thermodynamics precludes evolution until they have first passed gallo's thermodynamics test.Sorry, but if you think that evolution violates the Second Law, then you just don't understand what the Second Law is.NewGuy, so far you have only presented scientific "facts" that are clearly wrong. Where do you get your information?

Your definition of evolution is scientific-looking mumbo jumbo. Here's what I have to say about the Second Law of Thermodynamics:1) Entropy applies to OPEN systems as well; it is simply forced to decrease because energy usage is modified to do so.2) Order and disorder, whether normally or thermodynamically, are still order and disorder. Their definitions do not change for a scientific law.

TheNewGuy03 Yes it does, but if everything is going from order to disorder, why can plants photosynthesise? Answer that & you'll see the creationist anti-evolution 2LOT argument for what it is.Mark

Or why can simple, one-celled zygotes develop into complex adult human beings?

Others have already shown you that the second law of thermodynamics does not invalidate Evolution.But even more importantly, you seem to missunderstand some of the basics of the TOE.You state... Unfortunately, that is not at all what Evolution says. Evolution does not say that something gets better. All Evolution says is that a pobulation survives. Not better or worse, but live or die.The great strength of the TOE is that it has been borne out by so many observations. It is not based on some unsupported belief system, but rather a very deep column of evidence grom every single field of research.There is the fossil record. And it shows a long, long line of creatures gradually changing over time.Then there is genetics. There, what we see is a basic relation, where all living things show common ancestry. Now, with the additional insight provided by DNA, we can even document just how closely different critters are related, that modern humans, chimps, bonobos and Neanderthal are more closely related than any of them are to a Gorilla.There is geology. Every place we look we find similar critters in similar locations.And there is dating. As we date the various critters we find it matches very closely with all of the other methods.Frankly, the TOE is about as well supported as any scientific theory ever put forward and perhaps even better that many. On the otherhand, so far No One has been able to put forward any convincing evidence that it is not true.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion