PROOF against evolution

Disregard this post...keep reading...This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 05-30-2004 08:18 PM

Well, no one has yet to prove evolution. Nor can they prove that there are actually 6 billion years behind this earth we live on. These assumptions (some made by prominent scientists) are still THEORY. The Big Bang is a THEORY. I believe there is a young earth simply because there is more evidence in its favor. And can someone please explain why the Earth was "coincidentally" placed 93 million miles away from the Sun, JUST enough for all life on this planet to NOT freeze or burn to death? Someone put that there. And no one has convinced me otherwise. Thank you!!

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.

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

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

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.

If all evolution states is whether or not a species lives or dies, then why support it?1) Where is the parent species for these biogenetically mutated life forms?2) Because the DNA samples are closely related does not mean that something has common ancestry. Why, then, are no two things exactly the same?3) What was the original bacterium that started this whole mess about creation and evolution? As far as the common man has seen, every life form has its own individual purpose, whether it is to feed off of other living things, or to supplement itself using natural forces.4) The creation model incorporates both the conservation of quantity and the law of decay (Second Law of Thermodynamics). When plants photosynthesize, it is for the purpose of nourishing themselves, and keeping the natural order in the earth. Plants die eventually, succumbing to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.5) There is no solid evidence indicating the age of the earth. The oldest known records were kept by the Egyptians, and those stopped at 3000 BC. Where did these dates come from? Were they inscribed on the fossils? Did the dating method calculate these values? In other words, a man hypothesized that a fossil was a certain age, and, subsequentially, all other fossil dates were modeled after it.6) Creationists believe that the earth was created according to the specifications of an omnipotent God, who indicated every species' purpose. Evolutionists believe that order came out of chaos; this chaos, over billions of years, condensed and became the universe as we know it. Can it get any simpler?7) Why is it that many life forms complement one another to achieve their goal? For example, a plant processes carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, which expels oxygen into the air for humans and other species to use.Think about this.

Sir, how do dating methods work? Who put the initial dates on them? In other words, there is one person who first used a dating method, and hypothesized that this was, say, 325 million years old.This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 06-01-2004 02:19 PM

JAR:If I may be so kind...
I have put assertions. And I have supported them with fact. Since you are so adamant concerning viewing people's opinions, I would ask you to do better. Thanks.Note to AdminNosy:
I am only responding to people's statements.

1) Explain how they evolved.2) If me and my mother have a 50% DNA relationship, and me and a monkey have a 99.9% DNA relationship, the monkey must be more related to me than my mother.3) The question here is not that they replicate; that's already known. The question here is what are they replicating from? As far as we know, every species have a parent (read Darwin's Origin of Species).4) What is YOUR definition of the Second Law? Do you have a better interpretation? If so, I would like to see it. Besides all the technical sub-notations, it simply means that all things fall into decay.5) Who determined the age limitations on the dating methods? The dating methods didn't determine themselves; they are controlled experiments, much like every other scientific observation. What if, per chance, a fossil was dated back to 6 billion years?6) It is possible to believe both the Bible and evolution, but that doesn't make it true. The Bible says that everything was created with order, and evolution states that chaos birthed order. It is an internal conflict.7) What about the other 75% of insects? What genus of bacteria do they come from? If all things came from one bacterium, then all things will have this Wolbachia in it.I see that you, amongst other evolutionists, desire to cancel me out. You can say that all of my statements are mindless assertions that have no point, but some who have actually read and analyzed my statements give me logical answers, as opposed to the usual "these are unsupported opinions". Now, tell me, at what point did my answers cease to be logical responses to questions that were first asked to ME? I could just as easily tell you that your assertions are farcical and have no basis. No one's right or wrong in this opinion unless it is an absolute falsehood. Have a nice life, kid.

NosyNed:
Why should I be embarrassed? I simply wanted to know why the person made that statement.I know it's off-topic, but I don't believe you have the authority to tell me I know nothing about something. Have you, yourself, been to a dig? Have you taken the time to test substances to check for their consistency? If you use 30 different dating methods and they all yield different results, that's more than enough to convince me that there's something wrong. I'm simply stating solid knowledge and asking questions that need to be asked.

Okay. The end. I have the same goal as you. I just need to make sure I'm on the right side of things.P.S. "Kid" is more or less an affectionate term for a friend.

I don't know everything about evolution. No one does. Neither does anyone know anything about creation. So far, no one has given evidence against creation, except that there is (supposedly) no evidence of a worldwide Flood. Science means "knowledge," therefore, I can not rely on a theory to give me sufficient answers. The only reason I bring up spiritual matters so much is because I know there is something greater out there than common man. No desire exists unless there is a satisfaction for it. Holla

Why don't you believe that there is purpose?1 Love

I've done a little research.I was looking at the current human population trend. As we know, the earth's population is rapidly approaching 7 billion. Only 50 years ago, the population was only 2 billion. Before this, the population rose at a fairly constant rate. If the trend was traced back to 4500 BC, then the population of the world would be nearly zero. If humans were around for even a million years, then the world would be truly overpopulated. Someone (legitimate) get back to me, on this.*edited for inadvertent spelling errorsThis message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 06-02-2004 02:02 PM