Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away - Page 2

foundit66 · 10-02-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Everyone who disagrees with you is "irrelevant".

1) No. They aren't.
You missed the meaning of my statement.
A scientist not BELIEVING in evolution is irrelevant.
Because science IS NOT about "belief".
If he has EVIDENCE that disproves evolution, that would be another issue...

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Funny how that works. Pick one and refute it.

Gee. The last time we played this game, you promptly quit the field and gave up. You forfeited.

That is why I asked YOU to choose.
But if you want me to choose, I will do so...
#5: Physics is not Evolution’s Friend
It talks about "entropy", and in some ways acknowledges the basis for refuting its own claims, but fails to do anything about it.

Perhaps, to help catch you up to some type of rudimentary understanding of the concepts involved, you should go here.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ntropy.html#c1

Quote:

"So what we have is the need for massive disorder to order, massive positive mutations, needed to have life as we see that. Entropy does not preclude those things absolutely happening it just pushes real hard at it not happening. It is like a 1000 lb weight on the back of a man climbing the mountain. I really decreases his odds at making the top. "

This is patently false. The "odds" aren't an issue in the topic of entropy. Entropy just talks about the overall measure of disorder of the system.
This analogy is just so out the door that it helps demonstrate the author lacks a fundamental understanding of what "entropy" is in the first place. "Entropy" would state that the "order" of such an action would have to be accompanied by an increase in "disorder" in a closed system, which would be the heat and energy expended by the man climbing the mountain.
I find this analogy rather embarrassing for the author...

Quote:

"Another concept brought up by the laws is the concept of useful energy. Evolutionists are fond of saying that the sun provides more than enough energy to drive their postulate. But does it? Is the energy useful to their postulate?"

You'll notice that the author asks a question he doesn't really answer WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF EVOLUTION. His follow-on questions explain an answer within the concept of the ORIGINS OF LIFE, but not within evolution itself.
He barks up the wrong tree, as the PROGRESSION of life within the theory of evolution is a clearly distinct difference from the ORIGINS of life.
Believing a god created life does not preclude the possibility of evolution.

Quote:

"Raw energy from the sun, cannot create the specified complexity needed for life. It can only cause complexity to be lost in mutations. In the labs scientists use sophisticated equipment to polymerize proteins in the right way. If sunlight were to enter this process it would destroy the proteins."

A wild assumption with no basis. And it overlooks the Miller-Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution (the Oparin and Haldane hypothesis stated that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors; the Miller-Urey tested this hypothesis). The experiment is considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life.

It did produce an organic molecule, despite the authors claims to the contrary.

intangible child · 10-02-2006, 03:17 PM

The Rise of Hitler - Feb. 27, 1933 The Reichstag Burns

America 2006 is Germany 1930

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode