Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Dancing Mustard]

Mine are broke now. I'll order some new ones from you when you adjust them to incoporate high levels like this.

That will take quite some time I'm afraid Dr Snorri, these recent reeadings of stupid have been bigger and deeper than anything our sensors have previously detected.

[suggs]

Baldrick levels?
"STUPIDY, STUPIDY,STUPIDY, thats me"

[Snorri1234]

Baldrick levels?

I think it might have surpassed even that.

[Snorri1234]

For shits and giggles I decided to take out some of the stuff.

testing of the brain has proven that if we learned something new every second, it would take more then three million years to exhaust our brain's capacity. How, if evolution only evolves to what we need, did it make our brains capable of this?

Proof?

World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies

Not one couple.
Also, your math is wrong. I'll leave it to anyone with a fondness for math and the sense to question your numbers to explain it.

(By the law of diffusion, oxygen HAS ALWAYS been in the atmosphere, or it would not be today

?
You must have some weird sciencebooks, because there is no reason that oxygen should always have been in the atmosphere. Oxygen is a waste-product of plants, who don't actually need it, so I'm going to call you a huge idiot for claiming oxygen has always been there.

Also, have you ever studied the structure of a DNA molecule? Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine are the four base molecules needed to create a DNA strand, along with the end-molecules of deoxyribose. Each molecule boasts a number of atoms of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen. Yes OXYGEN. so, the Miller experiment failed to create life because oxygen was not administered, and it would have failed because oxygen cannot simple be "added" to a chemicle and expected to create life.

Shit?!
Did you just claim the gass oxygen is the same as the molecule oxygen?

Have you ever had chemistry?

Also, there are 20 amino acids on a strand, and since 200 are needed for life,

According to who?

Evolution is statistically impossible. Also, variations within a single kind of animal (kind means they can produce offspring together--cat and dog are not the same kind, but coyote and dog ARE because they are able to produce offspring) anyway, those variations within a single animal kind are not evolution. (If changing around the letters in the word "CHRISTMAS" cannot create "ZEBRA" then why can't the evolutionists figure out that random mutations are LIMITED to within a single animal kind). Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. Also, finding a skull that is half-human and half-ape DOES NOT prove evolution (it just proves that there was an animal that had both ape and human characteristics).

HOLY CRAP BATMAN!
They didn't? Okay, that just proved everything.

Besides, if evolution is true, then what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with?

Nothing, it split. Cells with sexual reproduction means don't exist.
There are however bacteria which exchange genetic info with other bacteria, one of the multiple reasons why finding new anti-biotics is important.

Also, if evolution is true, the did the first fish that evolved onto dry land have lungs or did it have gills?

You know frogs? Those things which can live on land as well as in water?
yeah...

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy—also known as the second law of thermodynamics—stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best-proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems—in fact all systems, without exception.

1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

[Snorri1234]

I could just quote a lot of talk.origins quote at the rest of it, but that would just be silly.

[Zaqq]

Juan, I missed the humor.

God Taylor that is one long post. I dont want to argue with all of it. I'm just going to pick out the peicees that bother me the most cuz I'm a lazy bastard this evening, mkay?

Life clearly can come from non-life, or we wouldn't be here. IF god created us, then he did so from nothing (which is clearly not alive). If god did not create us, then we are all very lucky firings of particular atoms or whatever and were created from non-life. The only possible way in which life DOES NOT come from non-life is if we are not alive, but figments of an imagination that lives in a world we can never know.

And individual does not evolve, but a population does. one dominant mutation at a time. If a dog does give birth to something particularily different, it will never mate and die without producing a new species. And there are too all kinds of "missing links" and fossil records of evolution. Dont believe we found a missing link? Well then YOU missed THIS link: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transit ... art2a.html

while you're at it, google the talk.origins that snorri spoke of. Then come back here, instead of simply working yourself deeper into your widening hole.

[Snorri1234]

while you're at it, google the talk.origins that snorri spoke of.

It's awesome. I could probably settle the whole creationism/evolution thread with it if I had the time.

[Neoteny]

Here's some backup for you Snorri...

Here are some more evidences of evolution being untrue.

testing of the brain has proven that if we learned something new every second, it would take more then three million years to exhaust our brain's capacity. How, if evolution only evolves to what we need, did it make our brains capable of this?

World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies

Have you ever heard of the Miller experiment? It was at the University of Chicago where they attempted to create life in the laboratory, thus proving evolution. However, they cheated by excluding oxygen (By the law of diffusion, oxygen HAS ALWAYS been in the atmosphere, or it would not be today). They excluded oxygen because they knew that oxygen would oxidize (which creates rust and decay) the material and they would not form life successfully. So, after cheating to overcome the oxygen hurtle, they STILL failed, by creating only a maximum of 8 amino acids (not even half of what is required to make a single simple life form).

If I remember correctly, the goal of the experiment wasn't to create life. It was to test the hypothesis of chemical evolution, which was supported by the experiment. Also, 8 amino acids isn't bad considering the experiment contained a rather small input and ran over a weeks time. Try it in an ocean for a few million years. And they excluded oxygen because they knew oxygen wasn't common in the atmosphere until after life began. Did you know that a large segment of bacteria are anaerobic (can survive without or are even killed by oxygen)? Clearly, these guys would be the dominant force early on. Guess what a common waste product of these guys are. I'll give you a hint: it starts with an 'o' and ends with a 'xygen.' In short, there was virtually no oxygen before photosynthetic archaea and bacteria. Point one, destroyed.

Also, have you ever studied the structure of a DNA molecule? Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine are the four base molecules needed to create a DNA strand, along with the end-molecules of deoxyribose. Each molecule boasts a number of atoms of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen. Yes OXYGEN. so, the Miller experiment failed to create life because oxygen was not administered, and it would have failed because oxygen cannot simple be "added" to a chemicle and expected to create life. Also, there are 20 amino acids on a strand, and since 200 are needed for life, the chance of random mutation occuring in the precise order for evolution to occure would be, in the simplest aspect, 20 to the 200th power!!! So, those chances are roughly .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 !!!

I've discussed oxygen, but this is also interesting. I'm assuming the '200' is a typo of '20?' With the notoriously high chance that it is not, I will address it. There are many different amino acids, but only 20 are necessary for life. We really had quite a bit to "choose from," for lack of a better phrase.

Evolution is statistically impossible. Also, variations within a single kind of animal (kind means they can produce offspring together--cat and dog are not the same kind, but coyote and dog ARE because they are able to produce offspring) anyway, those variations within a single animal kind are not evolution. (If changing around the letters in the word "CHRISTMAS" cannot create "ZEBRA" then why can't the evolutionists figure out that random mutations are LIMITED to within a single animal kind). Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. Also, finding a skull that is half-human and half-ape DOES NOT prove evolution (it just proves that there was an animal that had both ape and human characteristics).

Besides, if evolution is true, then what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with? Also, if evolution is true, the did the first fish that evolved onto dry land have lungs or did it have gills?

Quite a few unicellular organisms are capable of reproducing sexually and asexually. So the transition is not really that difficult to imagine, if you use you brain, of course. For the gills thing, look up "pharyngeal slits." It's a rather interesting thread in developmental biology.

Evolution Is Impossible

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy—also known as the second law of thermodynamics—stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best-proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems—in fact all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found—not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the `first law'), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.5
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists—that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.6
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermo-dynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. Evolution never occurred in the past, is not occurring at present, and could never happen at all.

You clearly don't understand thermodynamics or genetics. Stop reading Dembski. It'll save you a lot of heartache.

[Snorri1234]

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.6
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

I would be amazed at how you will point out that evolution won't meet these conditions that you speak off. As surely they apply to the earth and therefore evolution.

Also, if you just studied plants you'd know how that raw solar heat, wait a minute, it's not about solar heat as much as it is about light-energy. Plants use light to turn CO2 and other stuff into molecules that they need to survive.
Basically, plants only need the sun and molecules found everywhere to grow. They don't need other life for it.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermo-dynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

HOLY SHIT! That's just lying, usually considered bad form.

Try to stick to actual facts instead of making them up.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned)

Another lie! Damn son, you're making a lot of them now.
Mutations can certainly be beneficial, it has been observed and documented and denying it is silly. (The butterflies with different colors example is shown in most biology-handbooks.)

. Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

Except that you are bullshitting, again, because there are beneficial mutations.


I don't get it anyway. If all of what you're saying is true (which it isn't) then that means we would've died out pretty soon after God made the world.

(Also, can anyone explain why God created a world outside of paradise? Unless he was planning on kicking us out anyway ofcourse, which wouldn't suprise me.)

[Napoleon Ier]

Wha the f*ck is entropy? Seriously, I need to know this shit.

[Neoteny]

Wha the f*ck is entropy? Seriously, I need to know this shit.

Disorder in a system. It's really less abstract and vague than it sounds.

[Napoleon Ier]

Wha the f*ck is entropy? Seriously, I need to know this shit.

Disorder in a system. It's really less abstract and vague than it sounds.

What dyou mean disorder? Is it just unpredictability of results in a chemical reaction?

Why is it related to thermodynamics?

[Snorri1234]

Wha the f*ck is entropy? Seriously, I need to know this shit.

Disorder in a system. It's really less abstract and vague than it sounds.

What dyou mean disorder? Is it just unpredictability of results in a chemical reaction?

Why is it related to thermodynamics?

It's not really.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.
This does not prevent increasing order because {insert sciency stuff here}.

Basically, the total entropy of the universe increases untill everything is pretty much a bunch of atoms flying around. Then happens the gnab gib, or before that judgement day. It's a rather silly argument about misunderstood science creationists keep bringing up.

[TaylorSandbek]

Okay okay.. I admit I googled arguments for creation and copied and pasted to first one I saw.. It was dinner time and I didnt want to look like I was backing down.

So now I look like a retard.. I will argue in my own words from here on out, and just to let you know Im not backing down, Im going outside with my family atm, bbl to discuss this

[Snorri1234]

So now I look like a retard..

Word.

[Neoteny]

Okay okay.. I admit I googled arguments for creation and copied and pasted to first one I saw.. It was dinner time and I didnt want to look like I was backing down.

So now I look like a retard.. I will argue in my own words from here on out, and just to let you know Im not backing down, Im going outside with my family atm, bbl to discuss this

That's always wise. The internet spawns more than enough people who can make retards of themselves. Don't be one of them. Just so you know, you are discussing these things with people who have studied them closely. Just beware.

[suggs]

Nap, in layman's terms, entropy means decay.
Things fall apart.
Hence, ageing.

[InkL0sed]

Nap, in layman's terms, entropy means decay.
Things fall apart.
Hence, ageing.

Everything gold has entropy...

[jonesthecurl]

I think my stupid-sensors just overloaded.

Instruments here at Mustard Laboratories recorded a record-breaking emission of stupidonium at some time around 10:28 pm, senior researchers described the phenomena as "Quite frankly the stupidest thing I've ever seen", and as "implausibly stupid". The event is almost certainly likely to have major implications for the field of modern stupidity research, proving as it does that there are potentialy depths of stupid too great for even the most advanced devices to measure.

Mine are broke now. I'll order some new ones from you when you adjust them to incoporate high levels like this.

I have some stupidity instruments which measure in metric units.

Naturally, the standard unit of stupidity is the moron, unless we are specifically dealing with oxygen-related nonsense, in which case the unit is the oxymoron.

It may have been confusion between these which caused your stupidity-meters to go over the top, or you may have been trying to measure in the imperial (or, for our US friends, "customary") scale, where the standard unit is the go-on, sometimes pronounced thusly, as in "go-on, get out of here you stupid git", and sometimes pronounced without the hyphen , as in "your goon quotient is off the scale".

[protectedbygold]

Nap, in layman's terms, entropy means decay.
Things fall apart.
Hence, ageing.

Everything gold has entropy...

I resent that statement

[joecoolfrog]

Okay okay.. I admit I googled arguments for creation and copied and pasted to first one I saw.. It was dinner time and I didnt want to look like I was backing down.

So now I look like a retard.. I will argue in my own words from here on out, and just to let you know Im not backing down, Im going outside with my family atm, bbl to discuss this

Actually you looked like a retard the moment you started arguing in favour of creationism.

[FabledIntegral]

The hilarity of the proposal that evolution is impossible is not only mind-blowing to me, it absolutely astounds me. I utterly love the argument a few pages ago, "have you ever seen a dog reproduce and create a non-dog?" Haha. Why you even have to classify something as dog vs non-dog is amusing, as evolution would find hundreds, if not thousands, of intermediate "species," which through gradual change over time, would produce, under different environmental conditions, a different "species" as we (humans) have the need to classify organisms as. However, if you want to call those intermediate species "non-dog" then yes, there have probably been an innumerable amount of situations where a dog created a "non-dog." Although you wouldn't ever be able to tell the difference visually, and even most likely genetically!

Proof of evolution.

Dog breeders that use artificial insemination to try to produce pure bred dogs must first have the female dog reproduce naturally on at least one occasion. Although it would be much simpler to simply buy the male dog sperm and use typical In Vitro insemination, aka "test tube" reproduction, etc. they must, as stated prior, use natural reproduction once. Why? Because if dogs never reproduce naturally, their body adapts to the fact that they are reproducing via artificial insemination. If artificially inseminated first, the dog has the potential to never be able to reproduce naturally again (Evolution does NOT dictate that all changes must be beneficial for the overall survival of the species. Just as cancer cells act independently with much disregard for the entire organism and "selfishly" divide, for lack of better terminology, many evolutionary occurrences are harmful and thus "wasteful"). However if the dog reproduces naturally first, then it will most likely retain its ability to reproduce naturally for the rest of its life when fertile.

There is no scientific evidence ever suggesting that humans are the epitome of evolution, or anything suggesting that humans are at the top of the evolutionary ladder. In fact, in many situations depicted by evolution, simply bacteria is evolutionarily superior to that of humans, simply because they have the ability survive and produce viable offspring better than humans. In fact, evolution is simply species being the best adapted to their environment. Humans arose and were able to reproduce simply because that wit proved to be more important in the overall survival of our species than brute force, speed, or some other biological factor that species specialize in. Humans did not develop the intelligence because they "needed" to to survive. It was nothing more than the occurrence of continuous beneficial mutations over time that eventually led to those with higher wit to survive, reproduce, etc.

Another proof of evolution is in penicillin. Penicillin, discovered and manufactured widespread around the time of WWII, had the potency of around 4 ml per unit. Yes, when we first discovered penicillin on a cantelope mold, it was 4 ml per unit. Scientists have thus isolated that strain of bacteria and reproduced it on and on in cultures. Scientists subjected the bacteria to mutation, and screened the results. Over millions and millions of bacterias being subjected and screened, scientists would find and isolated certain mutated bacteria from the penicillin to see if it had higher potency (higher ml per unit content). When found (as was bound to happen over millions of test subjects, some producing different mutations that scientists didn't care about, some not having mutations at all, some having less potency aka smaller ml per unit content), the scientists would take the higher potency of penicillin and make it reproduce, create a new culture of bacteria, and then subject it to further mutation. This process done by scientists has resulted, over continued use, in developing strains of bacteria that contain over 50,000 ml per unit content. Yes, originally from 4 ml per unit to now 50,000+. Evolution right there. Is the penicillin amounts beneficial for the bacterium's survival? Probably not, it would most likely die rapidly in the wild. However, it shows how mutations can alter the genetic makeup of some living entity. If happened in the wild, where the mutation causing agents that scientists use are also found (extreme heats, UV rays, etc.), it's obvious that slight genetic alterations could, over time, create entirely new species (which would only require that they can no longer reproduce with each other, which was already addressed in the dog example that it's possible).

Sorry if parts of this doesn't make sense, I'm delaying a bio project atm... and am bored. Cheers.

And that is the DEFINITION of evolution. If you don't believe in matter coming from inanimate matter, or some other thing about the earth being billions of years old... that's NOT evolution itself. That's theories of our origin, etc. Evolution (what I just described) is a means of explaining things, whether or not we all came from a single cell or not does not disprove evolution. Even if the Bible was 100% accurate, evolution would still exist, as seen from what I just said. Maybe not species changing etc, but evolution would still be present, just as you are different from your parents, you have "evolved."

[Dancing Mustard]

So now I look like a retard.

/agree

[MeDeFe]

Okay okay.. I admit I googled arguments for creation and copied and pasted to first one I saw.. It was dinner time and I didnt want to look like I was backing down.

So now I look like a retard.. I will argue in my own words from here on out, and just to let you know Im not backing down, Im going outside with my family atm, bbl to discuss this

Well, facing the problem is the first step towards solving it, and the resolution to write what you post yourself in the future is probably a good second step.

[jay_a2j]

Good grief! Evolution isn't logical.


Hey anyone see that new movie by Ben Stein, Expelled?


Watch the trailer