Facts Found From Creation Science

[sayak83]

Exactly. Now, you're getting it. If evolution was true, then people would not have to resort to fakery. I believed in evolution for a couple of decades until I finally started looking into what the creation scientists were saying. Some of the largest institutions like the Smithsonian, my alma mater Cal and even the USG backs atheist science. This is why when I compared evolution science, i.e. atheist science, vs creation science, I knew who was telling the truth. Suddenly, the Bible had new meaning for me as the Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible.



Right, again. Asteroids do not have anything to do with anything because the chances of it hitting earth are astronomical. Thus, there is no reason for a news organization to run it as scientific news. Yet, we see this kind of story on a regular basis. You and I know it can happen, but the chances of it are so remote that there is no point.


And yet, . Sure, Dobzhansky was able to shape modern synthesis, but what did it lead to to? What did it produce?



You are still clouded by evolution. It's the lie so big that many people believe it. The facts are all in front of you.

You didn't answer my question, but you know that evolution tells you that it continues to cause major changes. This is contradictory to what else you know, and that is our universe is running down due to entropy (This is a fact! Zing!). Any system needs to gather a great amount of energy from the universe to cause major change, so how can evolution continue to work?

So if someone created a fake Roman antique and tried to sell it to a museum, that implies Roman history is false and Rome did not exist?
Your question is how evolution can occur if entropy of the universe increases over time! Really?? Why do you think it won't? Zang!

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not creation that is a myth. I can expose a myth. What you can't expose are the media myths that they feed you on a constant basis.

Of course the creation story is a myth. But then you clearly do not understand either the scientific method or the concept of evidence. If you did you would quickly realize that there is no such thing as a "creation scientist".

 

[Sapiens]

I saw "piltdown man" and knew nothing said could be worthwhile. Why is it Creationists insist the scientific community accepted that hoax entirely and without question?

Because, in most all things, creationists have been seen to prefer the convenient lie to the inconvenient truth.

 

[ChristineM]

...

You didn't answer my question, but you know that evolution tells you that it continues to cause major changes. This is contradictory to what else you know, and that is our universe is running down due to entropy (This is a fact! Zing!). Any system needs to gather a great amount of energy from the universe to cause major change, so how can evolution continue to work?

Entropy predicts evolution, evolutionary entropy predicts the outcome of selection.

To that zing is not fact, it is at best a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics, at word an complete and deliberate untruth.

 

[james bond]

So if someone created a fake Roman antique and tried to sell it to a museum, that implies Roman history is false and Rome did not exist?
Your question is how evolution can occur if entropy of the universe increases over time! Really?? Why do you think it won't? Zang!

Yours is a specious argument because it did not address my question at all ha ha. What does a fake Roman antique have to do with fake evidence for a common ancestor? The latter is fact that it happened while we do not have any evidence for a common ancestor. What I was saying was why does one need to fake any evidence if it is true that we came from a common ancestor? Where is the non-fake or true evidence? And don't give me Lucy (australopithecus afarensis) because we know people don't accept that as evidence. It isn't from the same ape and it toured poorly. Moreover, why do apes and humans exist today, but no ape-men? We should be seeing ape-men if both exist today.

Next, you also fail to answer my second question in how can evolution occur if entropy of the universe increases over time? Shouldn't you have the answers on the tip of your tongue if you really have a PhD and know much about science?

 

[james bond]

Entropy predicts evolution, evolutionary entropy predicts the outcome of selection.

To that zing is not fact, it is at best a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics, at word an complete and deliberate untruth.

I think I understand entropy which has more to do with this than the second law of thermodynamics. The SLOT applies to "all" systems. How does entropy predict evolution and what is evolutionary entropy? How did evolutionary entropy predict the outcome of a species? Give us some examples. Thanks in advance.

 

[james bond]

Of course the creation story is a myth. But then you clearly do not understand either the scientific method or the concept of evidence. If you did you would quickly realize that there is no such thing as a "creation scientist".

I think you're out of your league with posters such as sayak83 and ChristineM. All you give us is opinion just like ST. Give us some real science.

And for Shadow Wolf, we now know about The Piltdown Chicken. I think we know that evos have given up on the birds from dinosaurs hypothesis. Now they're trying to convince us that its birds from reptiles.

 

[james bond]

Here's my point about entropy and that is if the universe or the earth is increasing in entropy, i.e. our environment is going from a state of order into one of more disorder or one from more energy to one of less energy (unavailable energy). Thus, how can evolution continue to happen since it states that we have a change from disorder into some kind of order. One person explained to me that it's like getting dealt a royal flush in poker. The chances are remote, but it does happen. He also explained that we have energy from the sun and the earth is an open system. I tried to explain to him that one would have to have a fair deck of cards to begin with, but he would not address it. Even if we have this system of order, then what mysterious force is causing this order? With natural selection, we already have the creatures in existence. What we don't have are the in-between creatures and how they got to the current state such as tetrapods to whales.

 

[sayak83]

Yours is a specious argument because it did not address my question at all ha ha. What does a fake Roman antique have to do with fake evidence for a common ancestor? The latter is fact that it happened while we do not have any evidence for a common ancestor. What I was saying was why does one need to fake any evidence if it is true that we came from a common ancestor? Where is the non-fake or true evidence? And don't give me Lucy (australopithecus afarensis) because we know people don't accept that as evidence. It isn't from the same ape and it toured poorly. Moreover, why do apes and humans exist today, but no ape-men? We should be seeing ape-men if both exist today.

Next, you also fail to answer my second question in how can evolution occur if entropy of the universe increases over time? Shouldn't you have the answers on the tip of your tongue if you really have a PhD and know much about science?

As far as I know you weren't there when Rome was an empire. What makes you believe Roman empire actually existed while humans did not evolve from ancient ape creatures?
If authentic Roman ruins actually exist why do people try to fake them?
Tiara of Saitaferne - Wikipedia

You failed to answer my question. Why do you think increase of entropy of the universe makes evolution impossible? I know of no reason that would be the case.


If Americans came from England, why are there still English people in England?

 

[Darkstorn]

Yours is a specious argument because it did not address my question at all ha ha. What does a fake Roman antique have to do with fake evidence for a common ancestor? The latter is fact that it happened while we do not have any evidence for a common ancestor.

That's some impressive mental gymnastics. Say, did you intend this to be a rational discussion? If you did, stop assuming that your premises are true.

I mean, you expect others to argue against your points when you haven't argued for it.

"The latter is fact that it happened while we do not have any evidence for a common ancestor. "

You need evidence to support this statement. Otherwise it just looks like his comparison is just as valid as it was before you tried to foul it with your failing logic.

Your entire stance is an argument from incredulity. What's alarming is that you expect us to argue your points while holding your argument from incredulity as the "default" view with no burden of proof.

But your point is too irrational to be evident. You DO need a better argument. You DO need to prove your claims.

/E: Forgot to mention. But even you believe in a common ancestor for humans. Or in this case, ancestors: Adam and Eve. Either all humans arrived simultaneously into existence or they have a common ancestor so to speak. I think it has been established beyond ANY reasonable doubt by both the scientific method and your bible that at the VERY least, all humans ARE related to each other. EVEN if you can't accept that we're apes and mammals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

+

Yours is a specious argument because it did not address my question at all ha ha. What does a fake Roman antique have to do with fake evidence for a common ancestor? The latter is fact that it happened while we do not have any evidence for a common ancestor. What I was saying was why does one need to fake any evidence if it is true that we came from a common ancestor? Where is the non-fake or true evidence? And don't give me Lucy (australopithecus afarensis) because we know people don't accept that as evidence. It isn't from the same ape and it toured poorly. Moreover, why do apes and humans exist today, but no ape-men? We should be seeing ape-men if both exist today.

Next, you also fail to answer my second question in how can evolution occur if entropy of the universe increases over time? Shouldn't you have the answers on the tip of your tongue if you really have a PhD and know much about science?

You are an example of an "ape-man". You are both man and ape You keep cannot refute an idea with a strawman. I suggest that you learn how evolution works so that you will not keep repeating the same old errors all of the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you're out of your league with posters such as sayak83 and ChristineM. All you give us is opinion just like ST. Give us some real science.

And for Shadow Wolf, we now know about The Piltdown Chicken. I think we know that evos have given up on the birds from dinosaurs hypothesis. Now they're trying to convince us that its birds from reptiles.

Since you have no clue at all when it comes to the sciences you are in no position to judge. I have offered to help you to learn the basics. There is no point giving you scientific knowledge that is years beyond you. Until you learn the basics, which you should be able to learn, you will not understand the refutations of the nonsense that you post. Most creationists are afraid to learn. Are you afraid too?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's my point about entropy and that is if the universe or the earth is increasing in entropy, i.e. our environment is going from a state of order into one of more disorder or one from more energy to one of less energy (unavailable energy). Thus, how can evolution continue to happen since it states that we have a change from disorder into some kind of order. One person explained to me that it's like getting dealt a royal flush in poker. The chances are remote, but it does happen. He also explained that we have energy from the sun and the earth is an open system. I tried to explain to him that one would have to have a fair deck of cards to begin with, but he would not address it. Even if we have this system of order, then what mysterious force is causing this order? With natural selection, we already have the creatures in existence. What we don't have are the in-between creatures and how they got to the current state such as tetrapods to whales.

The entire universe is going from order to disorder. On a small scale that is not the case. The total entropy must always be increasing But since the Earth is not an isolated system local increases in entropy are not a problem.

You should be able to see immediately that your strawman version of the laws of thermodynamics. In your version life itself is impossible. You represent a much greater concentration of energy now than where you were a baby. That would be a violation of your version of thermodynamics. That tells you that you are wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

I think I understand entropy which has more to do with this than the second law of thermodynamics. The SLOT applies to "all" systems. How does entropy predict evolution and what is evolutionary entropy? How did evolutionary entropy predict the outcome of a species? Give us some examples. Thanks in advance.

Obviously you don't know enough. The second law of thermodynamics can and is often stated in terms of entropy. The law explains entropy.

The second law of thermodynamics - The level of disorder in the universe is steadily increasing. Systems tend to move from ordered behaviour to more random behaviour.

I.e entropy.

I am not here to educate or even attempt provide you with public domain information for you to ignore, you can use Google (preferably but not necessarily google schollar) for that.

Your welcome

 

[ChristineM]

I think you're out of your league with posters such as sayak83 and ChristineM. All you give us is opinion just like ST. Give us some real science.

And for Shadow Wolf, we now know about The Piltdown Chicken. I think we know that evos have given up on the birds from dinosaurs hypothesis. Now they're trying to convince us that its birds from reptiles.

No one has given up on the birds from dinosaurs fact. Recent research and discoveries only confirm the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not only did you contradict yourself in the last two sentences, you've hit the nail on the head, Einstein.

So, just as the last time we interacted, you have absolutely nothing of value to say in response to my rather wordy post. Just some childish attempt at an insult. Try to come up with something wittier next time, will ya?

I don't know how you expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Of course the creation story is a myth. But then you clearly do not understand either the scientific method or the concept of evidence. If you did you would quickly realize that there is no such thing as a "creation scientist".

Creation scientist is a strange contradiction in terms being the majority of the subject matter outright rejects factual science itself.

 

[Polymath257]

I think I understand entropy which has more to do with this than the second law of thermodynamics. The SLOT applies to "all" systems. How does entropy predict evolution and what is evolutionary entropy? How did evolutionary entropy predict the outcome of a species? Give us some examples. Thanks in advance.

I'll challenge your understanding of the 2LOT and of entropy. You can convince me that you understand the basics of entropy by giving an answer to the following (easy) problem:

Give a common situation where the entropy of a system increases spontaneously. Explain both why entropy increases and why the change is spontaneous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creation scientist is a strange contradiction in terms being the majority of the subject matter outright rejects factual science itself.

Yep, in fact the scientists that work at such creationist sites as Answers in Genesis actually have to promise not to use the scientific method. That means by definition their work is not science.

 

[dfnj]

Hoo boy, Gulp.
The last story I post here is a good one. Sure, it is a fact that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but it becomes unavailable if it is sucked into a black hole. Isn't that considered a loss for us? It's still there, but it's unavailable. Can this theoretically create the end of our universe? Can someone explain?

Any time a creationist argues with science it is an expression of lack of faith in their own beliefs. An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including the fake carbon dating and fossil evidence. So once you accept or have faith your God is omnipotent, you are pretty much always right. So when you try to compete with professional scientists at their own game you look like a fool. Plus saying anything at all makes it look like you don't believe your God has omnipotent powers.

However, cosmology is fascinating science. There are many ways to interpret the evidence and experimental results. One of my favorites is the idea that our Big Bang is the result of star collapsing to a black hole in another previously existing space-time dimension. The idea is black holes create white holes. So any mass going down the drain is still conserved in its parent space-time dimension.

Another fun interpretation is the idea of after the Universe achieves a state of heat death in about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, there are a number of competing mechanisms that would result in another Big Bang creating an endless cycle to existence.

But again, if you are a creationist, stay away from science so you don't look like a fool.