Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation Evidence Museums...
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 28 of 117 (105483)
05-05-2004 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by almeyda
05-05-2004 6:54 AM


Re: ...
Well lets take a look at your list of sciences:
Genetics: Integrated into evolutionary theory - and solved a major problem. "Blending" inheritance is an obstacle for evolution.
1st Law of Thermodynamics : Appeared shortly before Darwin published. Irrelevant to evolution.
2nd Law of thermodynamics : Irrelevant to evolution (which says nothing about any overall trend towards order in the universe).
Non-life to life : Not refuted by Pasteur who was dealing solely with specific ideas - not the general principle.
Mathematical laws of probability : Do not state that you can make up a number and use it to declare something impossible. There is no valid calculation of the relevant probability so all you have is made-up numbers,
Macrobiology : An argument from personal incredulity. Completely invalid.
Fossil Record : Plenty of transitional forms have been found. Also misrepresents Darwin who offered an explanation of why transitional forms were rare.
Looks like it is your refutations that do not stand up to critical examination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by almeyda, posted 05-05-2004 6:54 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by almeyda, posted 05-05-2004 7:25 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 31 of 117 (105486)
05-05-2004 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by almeyda
05-05-2004 7:25 AM


Re: ...
1) The Big Bang is nothing to do with evolution. THereofre yourt point only confirms that the First Law of Thermodynamics has no relevance.
2) The second law of thermodynamics says nothing about "some sort of utopia" and neither does evolution.
3) You may long to hear an evolutionist tell lies to please creationists but that is unlikely to happen. Blind faith in human interpretations of the Bible is not science and never will be. It can be said to be idolatry, however.
4) Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens.
What "missing link" are you talking about ?
The evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs is pretty strong and growing. The only serious alternative is that the birds split off a more basal group of archosaurs (as Feduccia claims),
Humans did not directly evolve from amphibians (although we have plenty of evidence of animals in between). There are far more than a handful of transitional fossils as you would know if you had investigated the facts. And I dare say that the only books on evolution you actually read properly are written by creationists.
If you want to convince me otherwise you are going to have to convince me that you have read and understood your reference to dogs in context - which on the face of it is clearly not the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by almeyda, posted 05-05-2004 7:25 AM almeyda has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 35 of 117 (105494)
05-05-2004 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by almeyda
05-05-2004 8:43 AM


Re: ...
Without a universe then there would be nothing capable of evolving so I guess that you are trying to argue that the universe doesn't exist.
And if you want to show that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics you have to understand both of them. At present you understand neither - the "better" of evolution and the "disordered" of thermodynamics are not even opposites - and even if there were thermodynamics allows local increases in order (like a refrigerator).
It is far from certain that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded. The idea that at least some were warm-blooded has been around since the '70s and so far as I know it has not been proven either way.
Homo erectus is not a fully modern human and no "evolutionist" says that it was - it is a seperate species. And no, the brain size is NOT equal to that of a normal modern human - even the earliest speciments identified as our species ("archaic Homo sapiens") have smaller brains than that of an average modern human. Some *creationists* have claimed otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by almeyda, posted 05-05-2004 8:43 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024