- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
05 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI have to admit to being wrong on that little footnote of mine. Well done, and thank you.
Entropy Definition: The measure of the disorder of a system, usually denoted by the letter S. A highly ordered system has low entropy.
Example: A block of ice will increase in entropy as it melts.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/a/entropydef.htm
05 May 14
6 edits
Originally posted by C HessHowever, RJHinds is still completely wrong and delusional about what he claims to be the implications of the second law of thermodynamics, something he has in the past repeatedly demonstrated understands nothing about and which has no implication for evolution since thermodynamic order has nothing to do with anatomical order or any other kind of biological order and life isn't a closed system anyway thus you can, and usually do, have increasing thermodynamic order without breaking that law. It has been just amazing how much he reads about it and then copies and posts into his post as if he understands it and yet doesn't really understand any of it! I guess you would surely actually have better understanding of it than him but it is a tragedy that those that are least sure of themselves understand the most while those that arrogantly think they know it all like the likes of him actually understand the least.
I have to admit to being wrong on that little footnote of mine. Well done, and thank you.
His same old 'arguments' (a misnomer since they consist of a series of clearly false premises and false inferences ) have been debunked again and again by me and others here and yet he continually forever repeats them as if they are still valid -because he is a moron. It is simply no good trying to reason with such a moron.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
05 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIcon 1: Miller Urey experiment
Biologist Exposes Lie of "Overwhelming Evidence for Evolution¨
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LTaPIK7maY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcjglx4Lt1k
In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller's experiments
of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin's
envisioned "warm little pond", Miller had also performed more experiments, including one
with conditions similar to those of volcanic eruptions. This experiment had a nozzle
spraying a jet of steam at the spark discharge. By using high-performance liquid
chromatography and mass spectrometry, the group found more organic molecules than
Miller had. Interestingly, they found that the volcano-like experiment had produced the
most organic molecules, 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules,
which could have been formed by hydroxyl radicals produced by the electrified steam. The
group suggested that volcanic island systems became rich in organic molecules in this
way, and that the presence of carbonyl sulfide there could have helped these molecules
form peptides.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
Icon 2: Tree of life
You will notice that he says: "the fossil record for instance, does not show this
branching tree pattern. When you look at the different types of animals they appear at
pretty much the same time."
"Pretty much the same time" as in enough transitional fossils of now extinct animals to
cover a timespan of at least ten million years. You will notice that his "pretty much the
same time" conveniently avoids this fact; a fact anyone with eyes can observe in any
museum on natural history.
Icon 3: Homology in vertebrate limbs
It's true that you can "explain" this with a creator poofing vertebrates into existence using
similar bone structures. Similar enough to perfectly fit the idea of common descent, in fact.
To say that the creator could have used variations of the same basic parts, in no way
refutes that this homology is beautifully predicted by the theory of evolution.
* predicted as in the theory suggests that we should find such homology if evolution is
taking place.
Icon 4: Heckle's embryo drawings
PZ Myers (from: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/15/wells-and-haeckels-embryos/):
Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited
theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The
biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern
evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence
and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is
part of “our best evidence for Darwin’s theory.”
Icon 5: Archaeopteryx
You know what? I'm out of time here, but suffice it to say there are rebuttals to all his
claims.
05 May 14
Originally posted by C HessNo evidence of the truth of evolution here.
Icon 1: Miller Urey experiment
[quote]In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller's experiments
of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin's
envisioned "warm little pond", Miller had also performed more experiments, including one
with conditions similar to those of volcanic erup ...[text shortened]... know what? I'm out of time here, but suffice it to say there are rebuttals to all his
claims.
05 May 14
Originally posted by C HessWell, none of that proved him wrong in my opinion. It just seems to support that there are a bunch of frauds in the evolution camp.
That wasn't the purpose of my post. The purpose was to show how his so called icons for
"evolutionists" is in fact easily refuted straw men.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
05 May 14
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsScientists discredited most of Haeckel's so called theory of recapitulation a long time ago.
In the area of evolution, science seems not to be in much of a hurry weeding out the frauds in the textbooks and museums of natural history.
It's history. If you find it in a textbook you need to replace it with a book that doesn't use his
theory.
Unless that book is to teach about the history of evolutionary theory, in which case it's
right where it belongs, of course.
05 May 14
Originally posted by C HessI am not in charge of deciding what is in textbooks. The evolutionists seem to have a strangle hold on that now.
Scientists discredited most of Haeckel's so called theory of recapitulation a long time ago.
It's history. If you find it in a textbook you need to replace it with a book that doesn't use his
theory.