| QUOTE | Alternate science???? I am not the one trying to twist physics to accommodate my desired history of the world. Energy gets used up, that is fundamental and basic physics.
The car battery that was thrown at me is a GREAT example. It must be constantly charged by the alternator which is powered by the engine which relies on gasoline. When the engine runs out of gas it stops and the alternator then stops and the charging of the battery stops. Is there an endless supply of gas? Even if there were, would the battery, alternator, or engine last forever? The same can be said about this universe, it will eventually use itself up. The laws of physics dictate it.
Are you trying to say the sun is an endless supply of energy? I assume you do know that it is a big ball of fire. All fires eventually burn themselves out. Just as the Earth does not have an endless supply of oil, the sun does not have an endless supply of hydrogen.
Clinging to “closed systems” as your rescue is weak at best. Are you saying the laws of physics only apply to laboratory settings?
The BASIC laws of physics do not allow for eternal perpetual motion. Please give me your version of (alternate?) science that disputes that.
Fundamental physical laws do not allow for an eternal universe. If our universe is not eternal it must have had a beginning and consequently a Beginner.
In regards to showing God’s fingerprint, do you need flashlight to see the sun??? |
I agree to a degree. Eventually the sun will burn out and compress into a neutron star and all life on Earth will cease. Eventually, the energy and matter in the universe will equalize and all life will cease everywhere., as no more energy will be available to inject into sub-systems. If, as a Creationist, you insist that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution, then you are at the same time faced with problems in explaining how a snowflake forms, a baby gestates and how you are able to use the electronic computer to type your ridiculous mis-statements concerning physics.
| QUOTE | | Where is the evidence for evolution? There is no evidence; species simply and abruptly appear in the fossil record. Consider this from a prominent EVOLUTIONARYbiologist: |
The fossil record is a record of the death of species, not the birth or life of species. Your argument is a nonsequitor, in that using it one can say that the population of humans throughout history is small, because we only have a small amount (perspectively) of the remains of the humans that have lived. It is extremely rare that a life form becomes fossilized, as most are consummed by other life forms and never are in the condition or position to become a fossil.
| QUOTE | | "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?," Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1980, p.127). |
You make a fundamental eroor in pasting quotes from creationist sites or publications. Like the deceitful frauds they are, the quotes are taken out of context , changed or incomplete. Why would a Good Christian ™ engage in this type of deciet? Here is the full quote:
| QUOTE | | In another publication, Gould described the lack of fossil evidence for serial change between major groups of organisms saying, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" (Gould, Stephen Jay, "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?," Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1980, p.127). |
Notice that Gould was not saying evolutionary science is without foundation and has problems. He was saying that the gradualistic theory to explain the observed fact of evolution is inadequate. This is how science works, a theory is proposed and tested to determine if it can explain an observation. Gradualistic evolution, in this case, is not incorrect, it just does not provide a full theory or explanation to address the observed fact that life evolves. The purely gradualistic theory has been expanded to incoroprate punctuated equilibrium, which has further refined evolutionary theory and has been observed in the rapid mutations of pathological organisms. But don't let the truth of the matter bother you, keep lying for your God.
| QUOTE | "The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most biologists that natural
selection was the only directive influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random mutations could account for
observed levels of adaptation." (Leigh, Egbert G., Jr. [Biologist, Smithsonian Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp.495-498, December 1999). |
Again, this is taken out of context. The "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" was developed by two Christian scientists who were trying to integrate creationism (ID) and evolutionary biology. The critique igiven in the paper is against this inclusion of a "god of the gaps" explanation, simply because we do not have a completely adequate naturalistic theory yet. In short, again this is a clever way of lying used by the moral people of Jesus and in fact argues against their magical explanations, when read in context. See: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Modern-evolutionary-synthesis
Invictus, if you are going to claim to be a Christian, at least act like one...you know..the whole "Thou shalt not lie" part.
//Bruce//
|
Celsus did this? I thought people in 170 AD was phililstines.