START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
Science & Technology

Rave

Laws Against Evolution

Posted 13 months ago|85 comments|921 views
Laws of Nature... also against Evolution
VIDEOS
Written by
Some say that there should be laws against stupidity... thankfully there are laws against Evolution... covered in the logical laws of thermodynamics. Entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics shows how things do NOT evolve into a more ordered state...
rather chaos increases, and things degrade into their surroundings.
Things become less ordered over time... not ordered.

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to "mix" with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state."
http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

"To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run."
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/e...

This is one such law of Nature that agrees with the Biblical Event of Creation... God said in Genesis that He created everything in a formless (or chaotic) state, then he formed it (or fashioned it) completely perfect; it could only go "down-hill" from there, back to it's former formless or chaotic state. Seeing that all things are in a state of entropy, goes to prove that all things were in an ultimate state at one time... though things change, they do so to the negative or chaos.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.... God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."
(Genesis 1:1-2, 31)

Without the active force of "intelligent design" there would cease to be any order... everything is held together by some force of order and balance...
...the Bible attests is God, some may doubt it is the God of the Bible...
...but fewer scientists doubt it's (this force's) existence.

Creationist are usually accused of the "leap of faith" when it comes to Creation...
when the natural logical laws uphold the Biblical account of the origins of our existence. The "leap of faith" is actually more obvious in the Evolution camp... where their theory is given "factual" credence by mere verbal repetition than observable facts what so ever.
One could say the Evolution Theorists as the real proselytisers...
trying to amass sheer numbers to establish their faith... rather than evidence.

At this point it is not a case of Evolution vs Creation...
...but rather Evolution vs Logic.
UPDATE - 2 months ago
John Piper - "Don't Waste Your Life"
http://dwynrhh6bluza.cloudfront.net/reso...
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
13 months ago: Truthbrary, you just better tell all the scientists then.

But scientists already know about entropy. More than you do apparently.

Why do you keep saying that "logic" is behind faith? That's not faith at all.

You're not serious right?
13 months ago: Forget faith... evolution says everything gets better... but the the second law of thermodynamics is against that... even in the genetics of human origin.
13 months ago: Look, it's best not to pretend you know about either of these topics.

That you don't know about them and make proclamations like you do is embarrassing.
13 months ago: Don't be embarrassed Stan, enlighten us...
13 months ago: More of the same "Scientists don't know as much about science as Truthbrary", claptrap you are running, Truthbrary.

Does entropy stop animals and plants having offspring? No.
Should it, theoretically stop animals and plants having offspring? No.
Do the baby plants and animals ultimately get energy to build their bodies from the Sun? Yes.
Do the offspring gain attributes from their "parents"? Yes.
Do the better adapted offspring succeed where the less adapted fail? Yes.
Does "entropy" disprove the possibility of ongoing life? Not even remotely.
Does "entropy" disprove evolution? Not even remotely.

Does the disingenuous "entropy" nonsense spouted with a fraudulent air of authority by desperate dissembling spruikers have anything to do with science, or honesty or facts or anything worthwhile whatsover? No.

Why would someone make such an argument as if it were conclusive when they know nothing about it? Bad faith.

What if they thought that any argument was a good one, no matter how much nonsense, if they could use it to convince someone even more ignorant than themseleves of their views of God, by the use of falsehoods? I would not look on them as wise or honorable.

Case closed. Get a grip.
13 months ago: "As Harris points out, the law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity. Creationists have been pointing out this serious contradiction for years, and it is encouraging that at least some evolutionists (such as Harris) are beginning to be aware of it.... This, indeed, is a good question, and one for which evolutionists so far have no answer. Some have tried to imagine exceptions to the Second Law at some time or times in the past, which allowed evolution to proceed in spite of entropy, but such ideas are nothing but wishful thinking."
http://www.icr.org/article/does-entropy-...
13 months ago: While you are at it, tell the Scientists how it is impossible for a seed to turn into a tree.
13 months ago: Stan,

SO you did watch the video... the only thing that adding energy from the sun makes better is plant life... everything else is destroyed by the sun. The day that you can prove the genetics of man is getting better; or the state of the Earths magnetic field is getting better; gravity, orbit.......... and so on you may have a point. LIKE I said it is not Evolution against Creation... but Evolution against LOGIC !:]
13 months ago: Oh, right, everything is destroyed by the Sun.

That's why after all this time with the Sun hanging around everything has been destroyed and no child is born or grows to adulthood, right?

And magnetism and gravity and orbit? Please.

"prove the genetics of man is getting better" I think you should take a break. That you think it is reasonable to make bizarre pronouncements unrelated to the argument is only going to embarrass you when you learn more.
13 months ago: Stan,

I was just sitting here with a friend and we are having a blast, you are way too easy, I don't know if you are cheap... but definitely way too easy !:]
13 months ago: Stan,

What I want to know is if you are the only Dawkinsian left to defend the "Mothership?" ...or are there a few more cling-ons that need to be wiped out?
13 months ago: I don't think I've dragged Dawkins into this.

While you are out genociding the rationalists in your fantasy world, you might not have noticed that it is indeed a fantasy world.

You can just keep getting your science and knowledge out of the Bible, and the people in the real world will get on with their business of looking after you, with their medicine and agriculture and combustion engines and universities and technology and whatnot, and discovering evolution and entropy for you to misunderstand.

Otherwise, I look forward to hearing you've joined a proper science-rejecting Biblical enclave in the Holy Land. You will have to tell someone who uses the Devil's internet so they can post the message for you.

There's a few rationalists left. Since the end of the Dark Ages, they have been doing very well.

However, many of them are not interested in debating against non-rationalists, so you might not run into them.
13 months ago: "One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more order."—*Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity," in Science, September 24, 1982, p. 1239.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedi...
13 months ago: Let me help you with a little light reading so you can familiarize yourself with the real argument at hand...

"The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)"
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp
13 months ago: Oh, another Christian "science" site written by an eccentric.

" a handful of dogmatic evolutionists " Oh my. Now I know where you get your wishful-thinking, and actually dishonest, fantasy views of the world from.

He is like Comical Ali. "A handful of dogmatic Americans have entered Iraq."
13 months ago: "Contrary to popular belief, not a single star, planet, or galaxy has ever been seen forming spontaneously out of cosmic debris. Such imaginary evolutionary processes do not even work on paper! Why, then, are we continually told that we live in an evolving universe rather than a degenerating universe? Because of the implications of such an admission, a universe that is running down demands a Creator who `wound it up' at the beginning. And astronomers today have a morbid fear of the stigma of creationism."—H.R. Siegler, Evolution or Degeneration: Which? (1972), p. 52.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedi...
13 months ago: "Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."—*John Ross, Chemical Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 40 [Harvard University researcher].

"The cosmological arrow generates randomness or disorder, whereas the evolutionary arrow generates complexity. A fully reductionist theory of evolution must demonstrate that the evolutionary arrow can be derived from the cosmological arrow."—*Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion," in Journal of Theoretical Biology (1979), p. 349.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedi...
13 months ago: Why don't you put a stop to posting crackpot's views and wishful thinking about wiping out the non-believers and just tell us what the scientific consensus says?

"The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[30] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[31] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[32]

In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[6] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[20]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_su...

Not hard to do, right?
13 months ago: "Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)
13 months ago: Stan,

Your "vast majority of the scientific community" is on the state-paid "religions" welfare! They would loose there tenier if they used their sense of observation. How many pastors and priests are out there just because they are getting paid? Probably the same amount. Just because a "majority" is in favor of a particular fraud... one must ask why? They are getting paid to! Again check out the evolution fraud...

"In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic"
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud...
13 months ago: Stan,

For every opinion of yours I will post a response from someone that is accepted in the area of discussion we find ourselves in. AND if you don't comment I will anyway !:]
13 months ago: I believe that you fully do not know why the links you post about evolution being impossible because of entropy have some probative value.

Sadly, they don't.
13 months ago: Stan,

"...entropy proves that it is scientifically impossible for evolution to occur under any conditions."
http://www.hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/Evolution...
Content Removed by Truthbrary
Content Removed by Stan Five
13 months ago: Here is an index to many Creationist Claims...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list....
13 months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support
13 months ago: Argument against evolution - Today's Christian Videos
http://www.godtube.com/watch/?p=10&v=90F...
13 months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support
13 months ago: "Of course, the fact that no exception to the law of increasing entropy has ever been observed does not prove such a thing never happened. It simply shows that such ideas are outside the scope of science. Evolutionists are free to believe in such "singularities" by faith, if they wish (e.g., the inflationary universe, hopeful monsters, etc.) but they have no right impose them on unsuspecting young minds in the name of science. The more common rejoinder to the apparent creation/evolution conflict, however, is simply to dismiss it as "irrelevant" on the basis of the naive and incorrect belief that entropy only increases in so-called "isolated systems" - that is, systems closed to any external organizing energy or information. Lewin expresses this curious idea:

One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order. One legitimate response to this challenge is that life on earth is an open system with respect to energy and therefore the process of evolution sidesteps the law's demands for increasing disorder with time."
http://www.icr.org/article/does-entropy-...
13 months ago: Well, that's fantastic to get a view on the fundamentalist community's views on science.

If you're not impressed by the scientific community's views on science, then I know not bother with that.

Yes, Truthbrary, what lovely links you have posted. The nobel prize committee will surely be impressed. When handing out the Nobel Prize for creationism, you will definitely be a candidate.
13 months ago: World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics said:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."
http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolu...
13 months ago: Just tell me, Truthbrary, do you find it incongruous that the scientific community sees these fringe creationist dogmas as not being scientific?

I'd just like to see where you get the idea that scientists are the ones who know the least about science.

13 months ago: Stan,

I guess it is the same deduction that people have of preachers, how can they be on the level and objective if they are being paid to preach a certain viewpoint. In the same fashion you have your paid public-school preachers indoctrinating the sheeple that are too naive and young to really think out-side of the box... something that their teachers never did. NO they must meme the falsified and fraudulent stuff in outdated stuff in the textbooks. Like all those "missing links" that are still missing... based on as little as a pigs tooth! DON'T confuse yourself, teachers are not scientists... at best they are proselytizers. NONE of them have done any independent research, they have only preached what they have been paid to preach.
13 months ago: "...many notable scientists who have thought logically about the matter to draw conclusions similar to Nobel Prize winner Sir Ernest Chain who said: "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
http://www.aboundingjoy.com/2ndlaw-fs.ht...
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: I am sorry I missed this discussion -- would have weighed in sooner.

Fritjof Capra solved this problem, TB. Turns out that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not hold up in systems that are not in equilibrium -- such as living systems. Capra had the same fundamental question as you. Fortunately, he is a physicist turned biologist and was able to solve his own mystery -- and he needed neither an intelligent designer nor God, just a laser. Would recommend reading his book called The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: Which, by the way, the universe is not necessarily an equilibrium system.
13 months ago: I believe that gentleman may have been dealing with the origin of life moreso than the evolution of species.
13 months ago: Fritjof Capra has opposition by those in the same field and his findings are more "holistic" than mathematic... like Prigogine Nobel Prize winner and others... though evolutionists... they disagree sharply... like textbooks, ever changing... all the while claiming! I call that stalling. Nice try.. is that all you got?

"Fritjof Capra, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, one of the prominent scientists involved in the New Age Movement, which tends to associate evolutionary advance with catastrophic revolutions. He believes that, in some mysterious fashion, chaos can produce evolutionary advance."
http://ldolphin.org/chaos.html
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: In any case the fact that life exists in apparent opposition to 2nd law (a) was disproved see above and (b) has zero to do with evolution.
13 months ago: CR,

Evolutionists declare their theory to be above the law...

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observation. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus `outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validly. They have become part of an EVOLUTIONARY DOGMA accepted by most of us as part of our training."—*P. Erlich and *L.C. Birch, "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, Vol. 214, April 22, 1967, p. 352.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedi... Fortress
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: As majored in biology and chemistry and taught both in excess of 20 years, I see that you fall into the same trouble a lot of beginners fall, you do not differentiate evolution of species from origin of species.

Evolution is the change in gene frequencies through time as selected for by outside influences. From a scientific point of view, there is substantial, incontrovertible evidence for evolution. It is scientific fact and not really debatable. What is debatable at this time is what influences the changes, whether survival of the fittest was over-valued by Darwin, and other various nuances.

When it comes to origin, however, there are any number of possibilities. It is possible that life came to exist spontaneously in clay pockets all over earth and, indeed, the universe. Is it possible that an intelligent being created life? Sure, it's also possible it came into existence randomly in clay pockets. Why would scientists choose the random-clay-pocket approach rather than the intelligent designer or God-designed approach? Because they can design experiments to test their hypotheses related to life in clay pockets approach. Try as we might, however, we cannot seem to come up with any scientific way to prove that God exists. Believe me, many have tried. Would it be easier just to say, "Well, in the absence of any other answer or possibility, it just must be that God created it all."? Yes, yes it would, but scientists, unlike theologians cannot do that. In the science box, you know I refer to the God box, you cannot use God as the answer to questions or the solution to problems.

This inadvertently also explains why the Intelligent Design explanation doesn't hold up in the true science box because in the science box, you cannot explain things using something that cannot be proven to exist – where is this designer? Where did he/she go?
13 months ago: CR,

You stated that you "majored in biology and chemistry and taught both in excess of 20 years" ...in essence you were a preacher taking public money for the State-funded religion of Evolution. And by mere verbal repetition, you have established a theory now as "scientific fact and not really debatable" ...why is it called the Theory of Evolution? All you have stated is that your credentials are bought and paid for by a system that cannot be trusted and should have been tossed long ago... along with the textbooks that have falsified material that is proven to be fraudulent.

Why do these books still have outdated and falsified material... and why do teachers like yourself teach falsified material... BECAUSE if you wouldn't have you would have been fired and you would have ceased to be on the public payroll. YOU cannot say that your motives are pure when your livelihood depends upon it! You can say that you are not a free thinker and teach the prescribed nonsense because you were paid to do so. THE only thing you have on your side is public funding. THE evidence is on the side of laws that cannot be arbitrarily broken.

"Scores of distinguished scientists have carefully examined the most basic laws of nature to see if Evolution is physically possible - given enough time and opportunity. The conclusion of many is that Evolution is simply not feasible. One major problem is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics."
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/e...
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: TB,
You make some great assumptions – but you know what happens to people that make assumptions. I wonder how you are so well-equipped to make all these grandiose pronouncements about me, when you know so little about me, but I do not make any about you. I guess soon enough turn-about will be fair play. I generally wait some time, get to know a person better (as well as one can via anonymous blogging), before I lay into their entire credibility and value system.

So, let's dispel just one of your presumptions. I taught my entire career in independent schools (one of which was a Christian school). Ooops. I didn't take a dime of public money. Oops, I didn't work at state-funded schools preaching the State-funded religion. Now what?

My credentials were bought an paid for by a system that cannot be trusted?
Hmm, I attended a private college on nearly a full scholarship for my undergraduate work, and I attended private university for my masters degree which was paid for in part by my school (again private money) and by myself (which I think of my money as my own private money and since my income was not derived from state money, I would say it was realliy private money). So ooops.

I wonder what system you do trust. Apparently not the rational thinking mind of another person, I would have said peer, but I don't know if I've earned the right to be called you peer or, candidly, if our debates will be civil enough for me to want to be yours in the first place.
13 months ago: CR,

Maybe the US is different than Canada on this point... all schools get public money if they follow the prescribed criteria... and it is Evolution (the state-funded religion) that I referred to. IF you received payment for teaching you in essence received public money... and if you taught evolution... the school that hired you should get a refund.

BY chance you were as a tutor for evolution, or that the schools you taught at were truly private and only private money... I APOLOGIZE for stating otherwise... and those who paid you should still get a FULL REFUND. Because of the many fraudulent claims evolution has made with public money for public textbooks... a nation-wide apology should be made with a full disclosure of the frauds perpetrated on the public.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gsrl1IBj...
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: ...continued...


I wonder if God told you evolution was true if you'd believe it was true. I wonder if rather than tell us, God endowed us with the most sophisticated reasoning-based organ ever evolved or created depending on perspective on earth, so that we might be able to figure out the processes of the natural world including the theory of evolution.

I've never gotten religious scholars who know for a fact that man is fallible but cannot accept that man is fallible. Science knows it is fallible, mutable, and ironically grows / changes as human knowledge expands and reveals.

It is possible to look at this as one of God's great gifts where science illuminates the majesty of His creation. It does seem, after all, a little odd, that God would endow us with such brain capacity and not want us to discover and uncover.

It is also possible that no matter how great King James's scholars and the 60 or so odd people divinely inspired over 1200 years to write that which became to be known as the Bible, didn't know enough at the time to make sense of what was being revealed to them. It is possible, because anything is possible, that the information was misunderstood, transmuted, transliterated, and so on. There may even be proof that God was angered by things people got wrong in writing the Bible and sent the Archangel Gabriel with corrections, but I'm pretty sure you know of that and have discarded it as nonsense. So, I won't cloud this thread with that.

I'll simply say, be careful making assumptions and presumptions about another person. You will note how I carefully avoid directing criticism or attack directly at others. I simply try to state my view and leave it at that.

It's also important, I think, that we all realize we are either complex enough to be deeper than face value or not. I don't make assumptions that I'm smarter or know more about anything than anyone else unless they reveal deficiency of knowledge first.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: Oh, it is different in the USA. Private schools are private and receive little if any public money.

As for the refunds that should be issued, not only was I hired to teach biology and chemistry, but I was hired to teach evolution. It is not state-funded religion, in fact it is sound scientific theory, much like Einstein's theory of special relativity. Moreover, it would have been criminal in the USA if not Canada and the rest of the world, not to teach evolutionary theory as that is what students will be tested on when they take their AP exams, SAT II subject tests in biology, and their ACT. This is what they will be expected to know if they ever go to public or private university in the USA and around the world. Failing to teach them evolutionary theory would be as ricuous as failing to teach them Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics you know so much about.
13 months ago: To further my point CR,

As a teacher did you or your school offer an apology to your students for the fraudulent teachings passed off as facts? Or did you encourage your students with contrary evidence so that they would have the very freedom to think, or did you require students to follow prescribed tests that are now found lacking?

"In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic"
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud...
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: I will review your video link in a moment. First I must say, there still seems a word choice that must be reconciled for sensible debate on this topic. There must be a differentiation between the concept of evolutionary theory and the use of it to determine the origin of life on earth, the origin of mankind, etc. In the science box, there is currently no / zero / despite what you may read all the time on anti-evolution websites scientific evidence to the contrary for the basic tenet of the theory of evolution which I have spelled out numerous times: gene frequencies change over time in a population based on selective pressures from outside forces. There are literally millions of examples and incontrovertible evidence that gene frequencies in a population change over time. Selective breeding accelerates the process as do world disasters. Evolution is a fact of life. Now, what constitutes an outside force capable of causing changes in gene frequencies can be debated as can which factors outweigh others in importance in causing gene frequency changes. There are many nuances such as punctuated equilibrium and the excellent work of Lynn Margulis that have given us modifications to the basic understanding that Darwin (who developed his hypothesis for evolution prior to the discover of its basis in genetics) had. One of the great things that lends credibility to his hypothesis and justifies the designation of Theory is that, in fact. That we can now account for virtually of what Darwin observed in the natural world as being rooted in the very genetics themselves right down to natural variation in a species being a product of the gene frequencies and combinations as expressed phenotypically.

In any case, if you want to talk about origin of life or human kind, it's not the best choice of words to use Evolution.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: To answer your question about teaching prescribed texts, etc. funny you should ask. I began my two-year course in integrated bio and chem with a week on truth and what it is. I explained to my students that there is no way to determine what truth is and that they would have to come to their own conclusions about everything in the world. In the science box, we would learn a system of working to uncover scientific truth. We would be forced to use those rules for our work, but they might find themselves working in other boxes with other rules later in life. Eventually, each of us has no choice but to reconcile or ignore variances in the rules between our boxes. I was mindful of the fact that I had devoutly religious students from all faiths in my classes as well as atheists, and people who just want to know what the text said so they could get and A and move on. I believed it was important for them to feel free to understand that science truth is no more or less valid than any other kind of truth. We examined legal truth, religious truth, philosophical truth, moral and ethic truth and scientific truth. Their final project for that week was to prove they existed. We did a lot of reading from Sagan's Demon-Haunted World, because I thought it was also important, especially for the religious ones, to know about the battle between science and religion in the USA and how there is a growing concern in the scientific community that forces in North America are trying to remove the science box from the curriculum. I left it up to them to draw conclusions later in life as to why that might be. This was one of Sagan's greatest fears. Ironically, in a nation with freedom of religion, it makes more sense to stick to the science box when you are teaching a class of mixed religions and leave it at that. It's less messy, fits with the Constitution, and gives freedom from religion to all.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: Ok, I thought it was a video you were linking to, but instead it's a web site. Ok, so, just stipulating for the moment that everything on the pages is verifiable fact within the news media box as it will take a long time to go through that site point by point, we can also stipulate to the fact that men are inherently on a spectrum from wicket to rituous to self-rituous. Then I ask why are only men of science ones who make stuff up for their own gains? Do not men in the business world box? (car salespersons) Do not men in the legal box? (lawyers defending the guilty have little choice) The easiest boxes to make stuff up in are the philosophy and religion boxes. Why? Because everything about the boxes is made up. They are entirely mental con structs. To clarify what I mean, if I'm trying to prove that acids and bases when mixed in equal normalizations neutralize, I can mix up an acid and a base and then mix them together and see or test for the result, I can perform the experiment 1000s of times all over the world using every possible acid and base. From this I can draw conclusions that ultimately migth yield a law. In the philosophical and religious world, there's no equivalent. It's all thought-based. There's no real experimental way to get at truth.

I used to use Freud as an example. Nearly all of the stuff he developed about human psychology was made up in a psychology box. Only in recent years, has modern science been ablt to unlock more and more of the mind's secrets to put a scientific basis to the psychology box therefore legitimizing it.

So as to any box, there are people who make stuff up for their own ends.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: You attempt, with apologies, badly to say that science and religion both require faith. Unfortunately, you are not correct because within the science box, faith is not allowed. In the science box, you cannot just accept things or explain them away based on faith. You have to use the rules of the science box which involve experimentation, hypothesis, data, analysis, conclusion, and theory.

In the God box, you can use all the faith you want. You can have faith in the Bible as God's word and God's explanation of things and that people never misinterpreted God's words or wishes.

C.I.P.
Genesis 1:26-27: Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22: Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

In the science box, these kinds of contradictions of which there are countless in the Bible would not be acceptable. Data with contradicts causes hypotheses to be discarded. But in the God box, it's all perfectly chalked up to that's just the way God wanted it.

It's the fundamental difference between the two boxes. In the God box, everything is based on the fundamental faith that God exists and the rules within fan out from that one first leap of faith. In the science box, everything is based on the fundamental fact that energy exists and manifests itself in various forms included matter and all rules fan out from that fact.

Which approach is correct? Neither, either, both. It all depends on the point of your work. In my work as a science teacher, I could not use the God box to explain things. In my approach to life, I can choose or not to use the God box. I was raised to believe in God.
13 months ago: CR,

Faith is not allowed in the science box?? What is postulation? What is theory?

Postulation:
1 suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/...
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: I thought I said, "not required". Faith is not required. Do you need faith to know that when you drop a brick off the tail gate of a truck it will fall and hit the ground unless it's path is interupted? The science box is a construct with rules and parameters, strict steps for proving things and disproving them, and lofty quantities of data before anything moves to status of theory or law. In science, of course, a theory is a statement of explanation for natural phenomenon for which, at the current time in history, there is no evidence to the contrary. You will notice qualifiers of time. This is because scientists know that with time, things change, new information arises, and mysteries become less cloudy. Everyone, I think, knows that Newton's Laws of Motion and Thermodynamics were challenged by Einstein who said they didn't apply to subatomic wave particles. Newton, of course, did not know of the existence of electron, or maybe he would have taken this into account in devising his experiments and work.

Now, is there room for God in the science box? I'd say no. I would say, however, that there is room for God outside it. Could God have created the science box? Well, God created everything, so yes. Could God have created the parameters of the science box (in other words the rules that work in side it)? Absolutely. We don't have any sciientifically accepted proof that God exists, but we never used to have any scientific proof that the sun was the center of our solar system. Is it possible that all evolutionary theory is plain wrong? Sure, and so could be the law of gravity. It's also possible that you or God dreamed all of this up so we might have this debate. And that's the beauty of the science box. We don't have to entertain such philosophical notions because they don't apply within the science box.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: I was not raised to believe in organized religion. I most certainly was not raised to believe in the Christian portrayal of God because both of my parents saw way to much incongruity especially in the differing rules of the God boxes used by Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Baptists, Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and so forth. So, in my happy little world where I co-mingled my Science and God boxes for my own delight, God was the creator of the science box -- done and done.
13 months ago: CR,

What does religion have to do with the laws of thermodynamics???? I don't care what I believe or what you believe... evolution is against the law!
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: No, the 1st law of thermodynamics suggests that systems move automatically from high to low energy states, and the second suggests that systems automatically move from organization to disorganization.

Just as Einstein realized that Newton's laws of gravitation and motion broke down for wave-particles like electrons, Capra realized that Newton's laws break down for systems that are not in an equilibrium state. Cells are not equlibriium systems. They are constantly, in the case of animal cells, giving off more carbon dioxide than they take in and taking in more oxygen than they give up. In fact, a cell that has reached equilibrium is dead.

It turns out that lasers work in opposition to these same laws for the same reason.

In any event, as I have written several times now, the entire premise of your rave is incorrect because even if there had never been Fritjof Capra to explain how life exists in apparent opposition to Newton's Laws, this has nothing to do with evolution. To people versed in this subject this sounds as silly to us as if I said, because we just found out that George Bush was born in Texas so was Jesus. There is zero overlap between the theory of evolution and Newtonian law. Plain and simple, zero overlap.
13 months ago: THE SECOND LAW IS AN IMPREGNABLE FORTRESS

In reality, nothing created can overthrow this law.

"[A law] is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises; the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown."—*Albert Einstein, quoted in *M.J. Klein, "Thermodynamics in Einstein's Universe," in Science, 157 (1967), p. 509 and also in Isaac Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 76.

"No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles."—*Harold Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1962), p. 119.

"If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it [your theory] but to collapse in the deepest humiliation."—*Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedi... Fortress
13 months ago: You REALLY have an anointing for dealing with hard heads.

Be blessed.

HN
13 months ago: BTW - scientists explain stuff away all the time based on their faith. LOL!
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: Similar writings can be found about Newton's laws of motion. Unfortunately, these were all written before Einstein began to understand that electrons are not tiny particles that would have to follow Newtonian mechanics, instead, they are wave-particles that operate on their own set of principles. You will notice that all of your quotations pre-date Capra. Just because you have not taken the time to read Fritjof Capra does not mean his work does not exists. You might find you like him. He's a pretty open-minded scientist.

Have there never been arrogant scientists? Of course there were. There still are. There are scientists who say XYZ, only to have every one of their principles blow up in their face. Even Einstein – though he wasn't characteristically known for being arrogant.

Now, of course, there are many scientists out there who cannot see the incongruity between the laws of thermodynamics and life. This is because they mostly still apply. If you put a cell in a warm bath, it warms up. If you put it in distilled water it will burst. The salient fact is in the idea of why life would exist at all when these two fundamental laws of physics suggest life is impossible. Living things live as a contradiction in that they grow increasingly complex and are at higher and higher energy states. But, again, Capra speaks to all of this in The Web of Life.

I think even Capra would admit that if scientific discovery is fostered for more centuries to come, nuances and new things will be uncovered to modify his work. That's the way it goes in science. Which is one of the reasons some scientists have problems with organized relgions that adhere to things that don't make sense. Rather than accepting that it's possible that the dates got messes up or the meaning, it's easier to say, yeah, the earth is at most 6,000 years old, all this fossil and tectonic proof is either fake or misunderstood, carbon dating isn't real, and it's the work of the devil, and so on. Oh, and dinosaurs and people walked the earth together just like on "The Flintstones". You know what, maybe they did and maybe we came from Mars. You know what, the bottom line is, we just don't know where e came from.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
 Philadelphia, PA
13 months ago: For every complex issue, there is always a simple solution that is wrong.

look at the tea party!
13 months ago: Tom,

Is the Tea Party an example of increased entropy or evolution?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: Tom Wing, you are my hero!
13 months ago: Based on the education provided by Truthbrary, I have come to understand the following:

The so called "laws" of thermodynamics are just theories made up by scientists who are trying to look smart but are paid by the global atheists conspiracy.

This so called "science" is based on determinism, to the exclusion of supernatural control. Accordingly, priests have recognized for centuries that science must necessarily be counter to God, and be suppressed.

Unfortunately, priests are no longer running the world since we came out of the Dark Ages.

If entropy was real, nothing could ever get better and Jesus could never save anyone.

If entropy was real, no plant or animal could be born or grow. Nothing could live.

If entropy was real, God couldn't have made the world. It would have been impossible.

It just make sense.

Luckily the world is not governed by physics or any such nonsense, but by the supernatural hand of God, doing whatever he feels like at the time.

Eccentric fringe Christian websites are the only true laboratories of proper, Religiously-Correct science.

Trust them. You know it makes sense.
13 months ago: Stan,

So far CR has been the only one who has given a name to the "scientists" that can present even a holistic argument against the second law of thermodynamics in support of evolution... one out of "70,000 scientists" ....HA! Does that mean Richard Dawkins is fired from being the Pope of Atheism? One lonely "scientist" personally given over to New Age... and all 70,000 "scientific" memes follow the rest of the lemmings over the cliff!

Leave God out of this... it is purely stupidity on the part of the holistic "scientists" today that have traded the "dark age" for the new age... this is your time to shine! You can call these "fringe" scientists... but they do their research out of their own pocket... not bought and paid for by the State-paid-religion of Evolution.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: Stan, you just about hit the nail on the head!
13 months ago: Mock on you evangelists of evolution... what has your religion brought the world?

Increase in Suicide (no meaning or purpose in life); Increase in Murder (there is no moral law); Abortion (no value to human life); Increase in Rape (no higher moral conviction); STDs (no moral conviction); Increase in unwanted pregnancies (no humanity); Increase in Pornography and child sex trade (animalistic and without conscience); Global Slavery (sweatshop countries); Racism (men from apes); Decrease in Marriage stability (only focused on self).... See what your EVILOUTION has brought the world? AND you are it's preachers... you will be held in greater judgement! You destroy faith in what is right and good, so you can be immoral and act irresponsibly... again where has your faith and teaching helped anyone ever?

IF I am wrong... I have only helped people to have a greater conscience and responsibility. IF you mockers are wrong... You have helped destroy many lives now and in eternity. YOU might win a popular vote being a meme... but your victory will be short lived in eternity, when man goes to his long home.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: Is this a bad time to mention the biggest scandal of religious proportions of the past 100 years. It has to do with Catholic Priests and young people. No, I think that's probably due to the moral degradation brought on by people who would prefer to seek to understand the mystery of the natural world rather than just say, "God made it so, so there you go." Why did God waste all this time creating a mind as fertile and inquisitive as the human brain only to put it all to waste.
13 months ago: The Evils of Evolution...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/are...
13 months ago: According to your link, Truthbrary, evolution leads to

ABORTION
PORNOGRAPHY
HOMOSEXUALS
LAWLESSNESS

Is it the threat of torture that makes you abhor abortion, pornography, homosexuals and lawlessness?

That is, is it only God's law, backed up by eternal damnation, that make these things undesireable?

Or would you have known they were undesireable, otherwise.
13 months ago: Stan,

I thought you didn't read any of the article, the topics listed are contrasted with Biblical understanding... the evils of evolution gets into an in depth study of our history and social engineering today.... you obviously have no idea what the article said. It would be like you giving me a dictionary and then surmising that you were hung-up on certain topics simply because they were among the words listed. Try again.
13 months ago: The article says "As the creation foundation is removed, we see the godly institutions also start to collapse. On the other hand, as the evolution foundation remains firm, the structures built on that foundation—lawlessness, homosexuality, abortion, etc.—logically increase."

So, I was wondering if you would condider that lawlessness, homosexuality, abortion, etc were evil if not for the Godly punishment promised for them.
13 months ago: Stan,

Let's be clear on one thing, "lawlessness" or sin is as it's own description of the word in the Bible... which means "missing the mark" ...that being said, Jesus is the cure. Pointing out what is wrong in society is not the "goal" ...it is the finding of the cure for all our missing the mark, point, destiny or purpose... all of which is found in our Creator. If you think that I for one moment want to see someone punished you are very wrong... I want to see others like myself find the fulfillment of life in Christ. Like the statement "friends don't let friends drink and drive" ...in similar fashion friends tell friends the truth... "friends don't let friends walk down the wrong path".
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: The beauty of America is that (a) there is freedom of religion and (b) freedom of speech. So "Truth"brary, you can say and write and believe what ever you want and no one minds.

It's fun to argue and debate in good spirit. It's obvious that you take what you believe very seriously. What you need to understand is the freedom part. I am free not to believe anything you write or say. And that's the essence of life.

The bottom line reality is that you cannot prove you exist nor can I prove you don't. We cannot prove anything. We cannot get at the truth. You are going to believe what you want to believe and nothing is ever, apparently, even going to make inroads with you. Like I wrote before, even if God Himself came to you in a vision tonight and told you you were wrong, He did nothing more than ignite the Big Bang and all that has happened since happened without his intervention, the prophets including Jesus were all aliens from other worlds that evolved more quickly and were hoping to help prevent humankind from making the same mistakes they made, and, yes, he made gay people to be gay and doesn't care who marries whom, you'd say it was the devil pretending to be God.

"As long as we are immutable to the possibility that everything we know is wrong, we will never be open to the bounty of the universe."
–– Coloranter Raver, 2011
13 months ago: CR,

What you fail to understand is I wasn't always a follower of Christ. I was His enemy. I gave my life over to destruction and perpetrated evil... only to be interrupted by the power of God. Like an offer from any one... leaving all options open... like previously in my life giving it to Satan... I took Jesus up on His offer from the Bible. My life was changed! What you randomly refer to as religion or belief... is a person that changed my by His Word that was penned over 2000 years ago. What you say I "believe very seriously" is an understatement.. my entire life has been changed... rewired if you will... my very nature has been change from being a vicious animal to one who has patience and love and compassion. Understanding that the words I share today are not my own... regardless if they are politically correct or not... they transformed my life... to the which I am eternally grateful and in debt.

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
(John 14:6)

Your statement...

"As long as we are immutable to the possibility that everything we know is wrong, we will never be open to the bounty of the universe."
–– Coloranter Raver, 2011

...simply means that you are in a good place to accept the possibility that Jesus Christ may indeed be the answer to mankind... unless you really don't mean what you said... and you have hardened your heart to that possibility... and that the quote was meant for someone else, other than yourself who indeed knows everything.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
13 months ago: Coloranter most of the time you make a lot of sense but other times you are pretty fatalistic. While Truthberry and his ilk have faith in God and in the literal truth of the bible, Rationalists have faith in the scientific method, in logic, and rational thought.

Truthberry is obviously grasping at straws to use a misunderstanding of science to put a veneer of respectability on a superstitious denial of the truth.

The second law of thermodynamics applies only to energy states. Entropy says that energy always goes from a higher state to a lower one. (things cool off).

It doesn't have anything to do with biological processes where the reverse happens (until the sun burns out).

The two concepts are totally foreign to each other and like using an apple to explain oranges. Asimov however wrote perhaps his best short story called "The Last Question" about Entropy and theology. http://www.camturner.com/2007/09/the-las...

Moore's law is another example of evolution where computers keep getting "smarter" and more powerful. Ray Kurzweil believes that the machines will surpass humans in intelligence around 2029. At some point when machines which are smarter than people, start designing other machines that are ever smarter their intelligence will grow exponentially.

Kurzweil believes that during his lifetime he will be able to take his essence as a human, his memories, his personality, and put them into a machine/robot/ cyborg. Would this be considered the next step in evolution or the end of the human race? http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-acc...

If such a creature went back in time (say 2000 years) would he be considered a god? Since there are billions of other planets which probably have life, there may be many other civilizations more advanced than ours. Would they be considered gods?
13 months ago: Al,

I was wondering when you would grace us with your wisdom... did you even read what you wrote? Check this out...

"The second law of thermodynamics applies only to energy states. Entropy says that energy always goes from a higher state to a lower one. (things cool off). It doesn't have anything to do with biological processes where the reverse happens (until the sun burns out)."

...you said it all! Everything is dependent on the life giving energy sources that support our existence... thus the second law of thermodynamics applies to everything... just open your eyes... look at the hills and mountains constantly eroding and "leveling" ...this "slowing down" of increased entropy effects everything! IF we were here as long as the evolutionists say we would have already reached a state of equilibrium.

EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG EARTH...
http://www.drdino.com/evidence-for-a-you...
13 months ago: No matter how old the earth is, Evolution is impossible..
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/ea...
13 months ago: Debunking Evolution In Layman's Terms...
http://jasmine71.wordpress.com/2009/03/2...
13 months ago: Al,

You said "...until the sun burns out" ... this shows that everything is hinging on a system that is in a state of deterioration not evolution!
13 months ago: NUTSHELL TIME... science is primarily about what is observable. OK, open your eyes and see what is going on... is it getting better or worse? NOW add a million years...
...would it get better or worse? TIME is not the friend of the evolutionist.

THE "Big Bang" is chaos accelerated... not order. Creation on the other hand is what we have evidence for... ORDER slowly deteriorating.... the fact that we have deterioration, proves that there was a "higher state" from which it deteriorated from.
13 months ago: CAN ORDER COME OUT OF CHAOS?
http://ldolphin.org/chaos.html
13 months ago: We got the physical universe and it appears to follow Laws, that is, we watch it for a while and we observe it goes in a direction. But this is real slow. Long before the physical universe turns into a uniform sand pile, we have stars born and planets and water.

In these situations we find what has not been explored. Life. As Life evolves it does not follow physical universe laws. Instead of evolving into a pile of sand, Life evolves into higher and higher forms. At present, Mankind is the highest form we know of.

But notice, as Life evolves, each organism has a larger and larger potential effect in the physical universe. Until today, in man, we move mountains, we effect the atmosphere of our planet. We have much larger effects on the physical universe, than physical universe laws have. And this is increasing and not decreasing.
13 months ago: An existence of meaningless is what all the evolutionists peddle. They have zero answers as for how all this came to be. The have "educated" guesses that the masses are to swallow unquestioningly. If you beg to differ or see the evidence point in a direction they don't like or adhere to, one is labeled a fanatic, ignorant or weak.

Contradictions abound. Mutations are now good and entropy is not degenerative? It flies in the face of the very science they are supposed to arguing in favor of.

We are now supposed to buy that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QhuBIkPX...

I don't think so.

Keep your religion and I'll keep mine. Thanks.
13 months ago: Huey,

You Rock... with real rocks !:]
They should get Homie-D-Clown to do evolution... that would be cool!
13 months ago: So, How Did Life Begin?
http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/howli...

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave