6 Falsified 'Scientific' Theories / 6 Scientific Facts.

[Sculelos]

Faith is the belief that something is true. Science is the study and observation of that which is true. Faith should always build up Science, and Science should always build up faith. If Science is not building up your faith then you have faulty faith. If Faith does not agree with Science then Faith must be abandoned. The problem with this logic and within this logic however is Science is Faith and Faith is Science. For example I will list many common deceptions that have been proven false and not repairable however I'm only going over the major flaws in brief as I could write thousands of pages of material on all these subjects but for the sake of brevity, readability and understandability I will only gloss over all the subjects as most here who believe in these theories will continue to believe in them anyways despite their obvious major flaws. (Sorry if I sound arrogant on this topic but I simply don't have time to deal politely with nonsense)

 

1. Charles Darwin s Theory of Evolution

2. Georges Lemaître's Big Bang (Lambda-CDM_model)

3. Galileo's, Newtons and Copernicus Heliocentric Universe

4. Newtonian Gravity

5. Albert Eistiens Relativity

6. Newtonian Physics

 

1. No Missing links have been found nor has any steady progression of change ever been found, this theory is totally bunk. This is Fact. 

 

2. Big Bang theory's most critical flaw is that the Universe is losing energy on a constant basis and has lost 11.32 x Times the physical charge of energy which equates to equilibrium loss of 1,738,329 times which means conservatively if we take the accepted age of the Universe as 13.77 Billion years and Adjust for the Equilibrium problem we go from 13.77 Billion Years the Universe at Most is only 7921 Years Old. Adjust for the math correction of Circle to Square and you end up with 6,217 Years further adjustment to reflect the 5% differential brings us to 5906 Years which is only startlingly only 5 years off of what the Biblical age of the Universe is. This is all Fact.  The Other Major flaw inherent to the big bang is that has been shown repeatedly that there is an energy signature outside our Universe that is marking every aspect of our World/Universe which includes all planets, all moons and the cosmic web (AKA Everything present inside our Universe including the Universe itself)

 

3. The Michael Morris Interferometer experiments have repeatedly shown that the Earth is not moving. This is Fact.  

 

4. Newtonian Gravity is simply an out-dated and wrong assumption from a person with no electrical knowledge and can be explained by 4 other forces. 1-64 charged Ions (Very Weak attraction), 65-128 Charged Ions (Weak Attraction), 129-192 Charged Ions (Strong Attraction) 193-256 (Very Strong Attraction). State of matter does matter when it comes to charge and any combination can work together as long as there is a energy source and conductor present.

 

5. GPS Proves time and time again that relativity is bunk. GPS has static conditions built into it, there are no relativistic corrections present even though GPS can only normally track your location if you are moving, this is because it triangulates your position in relation to the 3 G.P.S. Satellites it is using to triangulate your position and yes, it only works if there are at least 3 GPS Satellites in range. This is Fact.

 

6. Newtonian Physics are simply put wrong. in Short, Energy does not conserve itself. Energy is never completely inert as it is always decaying, the only way to slow down decay is by freezing objects or by removing thermal insulation down to next to nothing however you can only slow it down you can never stop it. His physics are just so messed up it's not worth trying to band aid. When an object hits another object there is no force transferred back into the original object the force is simply transferred from one object into another and the energy from the force that left the original target is removed but not regained. Objects also never gain speed in a linear fashion but a square fashion. If you take the same car and put a 160HP engine and if it does 105 mph if you increase the HP to 320 you will only be able to do about 157MPH. This is simply put due to the way electronic conductors work, week forces build up energy far quicker then stronger forces and the stronger the force gets the weaker the linear gains become. 0 Charge is not week nor strong, it is medium. That means Neutrons are Medium Charged Ions there is no Zero this is Fact. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

When You Really Really Look At It

 

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:  For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:14-17

 

We Share This Cosmos

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

At His Pleasure

 

This I recall to my mind, therefore have I hope. It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness. Lamentations 3:21-23

 

Now, Just How Wonderful Is That

 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

[Sculelos]

Good post FresnoJoe. Sometimes we have to humble ourselves. Like I believe Paul said if we have the gift of prophecy and know all the secrets of the World but have not Love we are nothing as Solomon put it, All is Vanity. Except I'd correct that to All is Vanity without Love. Solomon was one of the Wisest men in the World yet even he lost his love for God and turned away. We must remember to have faith so that doesn't happen. I'm just a deeply ostracized soul as I've tried to speak to people yet they turn away as if they don't even care what I have to say nor do they even really want evidence shown to them to change their mind. I'm beginning to think people are stubborn and only a very few things can truly change a persons mind and that's if they are only receptive to being changed, or if they are looking for change. 

[RobbyPants]

 

1. No Missing links have been found nor has any steady progression of change ever been found, this theory is totally bunk. This is Fact. 

There are plenty of missing links. Just to name a few:

• Paleothyris
• Morganucodon 
• Archaeopteryx 
• Homo erectus
• Homo heidelbergensis
• Homo neanderthalensis 
• Cro-magnon

The problem with asserting that there are no missing links is two-fold:

1. This ignores the fact that evolution is a gradual process. Literally every living organism is a transitional form between its parents and its offspring. The flaw relies on thinking of things as "final forms". Things just appear final to us because we either see things as they are right now, or as they are frozen in the fossil record.
2. Even when someone provides more "missing links", this technically doubles their work. If you tell me there is no link between A and Z, and I show you organism M that fills that gap, I now have two gaps to fill: A and M, and M and Z. It results in simply handwaving the results away as M being a "final form" and shifting of goal posts.

 

 

2. Big Bang theory's most critical flaw is that the Universe is losing energy on a constant basis and has lost 11.32 x Times the physical charge of energy which equates to equilibrium loss of 1,738,329 times which means conservatively if we take the accepted age of the Universe as 13.77 Billion years and Adjust for the Equilibrium problem we go from 13.77 Billion Years the Universe at Most is only 7921 Years Old.

My understanding of Equilibrium Cosmology is that it's largely founded on baseless assumptions. Is there any proof this is correct?

 

 

3. The Michael Morris Interferometer experiments have repeatedly shown that the Earth is not moving. This is Fact.  

What about the observations of Copernicus and Galileo, which cannot be accounted for with a stationary Earth?

[Meta_Agape]

Interesting post Sculelos and good points Joe.

To Robby:

Fossil record
Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps.  Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces.  It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse.  In between, the whole mass is shifting about.  In a few more minutes it may look like a bird.  The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record.  All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction".  That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name.  If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion.  For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing.  The whole process is random trial and error, without direction.  So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction.  It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts.  Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day.  He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous.  Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."  The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past.  Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture.  The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found.  There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true.  In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish.  In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish.  That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution.  The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
 

Evolutionists always point to Archaeopteryx as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird.  However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths.  Most people know "the stereotypical ideal of Archaeopteryx as a physiologically modern bird with a long tail and teeth".  Research now "shows incontrovertibly that these animals were very primitive".  "Archaeopteryx was simply a feathered and presumably volant [flying] dinosaur.  Theories regarding the subsequent steps that led to the modern avian condition need to be reevaluated." --Erickson, Gregory, et al. October 2009. Was Dinosaurian Physiology Inherited by Birds? Reconciling Slow Growth in Archaeopteryx. PLoS ONE, Vol. 4, Issue 10, e7390.
 

"Archaeopteryx has long been considered the iconic first bird."  "The first Archaeopteryx skeleton was found in Germany about the same time Darwin's Origin of Species was published.  This was a fortuituously-timed discovery: because the fossil combined bird-like (feathers and a wishbone) and reptilian (teeth, three fingers on hands, and a long bony tail) traits, it helped convince many about the veracity of evolutionary theory."  "Ten skeletons and an isolated feather have been found."  "Archaeopteryx is the poster child for evolution."  But "bird features like feathers and wishbones have recently been found in many non-avian dinosaurs".  "Microscopic imaging of bone structure... shows that this famously feathered fossil grew much slower than living birds and more like non-avian dinosaurs."  "Living birds mature very quickly and grow really, really fast", researchers say.  "Dinosaurs had a very different metabolism from today's birds.  It would take years for individuals to mature, and we found evidence for this same pattern in Archaeopteryx and its closest relatives".  "The team outlines a growth curve that indicates that Archaeopteryx reached adult size in about 970 days, that none of the known Archaeopteryx specimens are adults (confirming previous speculation), and that adult Archaeopteryx were probably the size of a raven, much larger than previously thought."  "We now know that the transition into true birds -- physiologically and metabolically -- happened well after Archaeopteryx." --October 2009. Archaeopteryx Lacked Rapid Bone Growth, the Hallmark of Birds. American Museum of Natural History, funded science online news release.
 

Now, lets skip the salad and get to the meat & potatos.
 

Violating the law
The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time.  If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium).  Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy.  Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work.  Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall.  Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder.  Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized.  We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials.

 

The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life.  Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears.  Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life.  No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids.  Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard).  If one were to succeed, you would know about it.  He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter.  For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials.  No exceptions.  A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.

 

When confronted with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolutionists usually use two tricks to try to escape.  The first is to state that "it only applies to closed systems, and biological creatures are open systems, so it doesn't affect evolution" (they actually intend to say isolated, not closed, but we know what they mean).  The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies.  The words "except for..." are not in this universal law.  A thermodynamics system is simply any part of the universe we want to study.  If we are doing an experiment in a bottle, the inside of the bottle is our system and the bottle itself is the "walls" of the system.  There are only 3 kinds of systems: if no energy or matter can pass through the walls, it is an isolated system; if energy can pass through but matter cannot, it is a closed system; if both energy and matter can pass through the walls, it is an open system.  Now, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are defined in terms of isolated systems, because that is the simplest way to express them.  However, experts who write textbooks on the subject are quick to say that isolated systems do not occur in nature.  For practical applications, a procedure called the Legendre Transform mathematically converts entropy to a variable called Gibbs free energy that is useful for working with real-world systems.  Most natural systems are open, but it is convenient to model them as closed.  For example, even though a bacterium is an open system, modeling it as a closed system makes it easier to understand chemical reactions in it.^2,8

 

You are an open system. You eat food (which comes from outside yourself) and your body survives and grows.  Evolutionists believe that all we need is an open system with sufficient energy flowing into it for evolution to succeed.  If that were so, you could just stand right behind a jet engine as the aircraft prepares for takeoff, absorb that blast of energy, and evolve to a higher life form.  In reality, of course, you would be incinerated because absorbing energy without a mechanism to convert it to a useful form and employ it is destructive or useless.  The mechanism must be very specific.  Sticking food in your ear will not work; it must go into your mouth and through the digestive system.  And the mechanism must be in place and functioning first, before energy is added, or the energy is wasted.  The "closed system" ploy is just an attempt to avoid dealing with the Second Law because the Law prohibits any functioning biological mechanism from falling together by pure chance, without assistance or plan, using only the properties of matter.

 

The second trick they use is to say that "when you freeze water, the disordered molecules become beautifully ordered ice crystals or snowflakes.  If water can bypass the Second Law and organize its molecules by a natural process, why not the chemicals of life?"  At room temperature, water molecules are bouncing off each other and you have water.  When you take away heat and they freeze, water molecules stick to each other with weak molecular bonds, forming ice crystals and snowflakes because of the shape of the H₂O molecule.  The same thing happens if you put a bunch of weak magnets in a jar and shake it.  The magnets bounce around.  When you stop, the magnets stick together.  They are at a lower energy level.  There is order, yet no complexity - just a simple repetitive structure that does not do anything.  The Second Law is not bypassed or violated.
 

But guess what.  Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature.  To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.¹⁷  It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began.

 

DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids.  Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each.  Even if the thousands of nucleotides needed to form a DNA molecule, or the hundreds of amino acids needed to form a protein molecule were able to combine from the mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all.  This is the problem of "chirality", and evolutionists have never been able to solve it.

 

Ilya Prigogene coauthored a paper in 1972 that says in an open "system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures.  This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals... Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures."³³  Prigogene won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977 for research on dissipative structures, such as tornados, for contributions to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and for bridging the gap between biology and other sciences.  Evolutionists wrongly claim he won for showing how thermodynamics could explain the formation of organized systems, from fluctuations in chaos, that lead to the origin of life.  They thought he was their hero.  Over thirty years later, nothing has come of it. There is no escape from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  It prohibits the spontaneous origin of life and macroevolution.
 

The Bottom Line
Evolutionists assume evolution is true, then write endlessly about when and where it happened, rates and lineages, etc.  But if macroevolution is physically impossible in the real world, and it is, then all the rest is fantasy.  There are only two possibilities.  Either every part of every living thing arose by random chance, or an intelligence designed them.  It is now clear that the theory of evolution's only mechanism for building new parts and creatures, mutation-natural selection, is totally, utterly, pathetically inadequate.  In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel.  They desperately hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity.  These are people of great faith.  And they are so afraid of connecting God with science that, like the Japanese Army of World War II, they would rather die than surrender.  Unfortunately, the staunchest defenders sit in places of esteem and authority as professors, scientists, and editors, and have the full faith of the news media.  The public is naturally in awe of their prestige.  But once the facts are understood it becomes obvious that the theory of evolution is long overdue for the trash can, and to perpetuate it is fraud.  Perhaps it made sense for what was known when On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, but not today.

 

Many scientists are with us
The only tactic left to evolutionists is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don't understand how their pet theory really works.  Here is a link to a roster of hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly understand evolution theory.  They also have the courage to defy the high priests of academia by voluntarily adding their names to a skeptics list against Darwinism.

 

Source: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
20 page list of Ph.D. holding skeptics of evolution: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
From: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Extra: http://www.godandscience.org/ and http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
Apologetics: http://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonableFaithOrg

Peace.
 

Edited August 27, 2013 by Meta_Agape

[RobbyPants]

 

Fossil record
Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps.  Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces.  It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse.  In between, the whole mass is shifting about.  In a few more minutes it may look like a bird.  The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record.  All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction".  That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name.  If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion.  For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing.  The whole process is random trial and error, without direction.  So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction.  It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts.  Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day.  He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous.  Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."  The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past.  Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture.  The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found.  There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true.  In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish.  In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish.  That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution.  The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

There are a few problems with this:

1. Any individual creature is a complete, "finished" creature. It's not like evolution posits that your pet dog might wake up a cat the next day.
2. We do have useless growths on/in us. See our appendix, tail bone, and the remaining bits of a nictitating membrane in our eyes.
3. There are existing organisms that show less evolved characteristics. Take the oft quoted "eye problem" from Darwin. There are animals with eye spots that only sense light and dark, there are animals that sense light and dark with direction, there are animals that see detail, but no color, animals that see detail and color, and animals that can see outside of the visible spectrum.
4. The fossil record won't be "complete" because the vast majority of fossils are not preserved. You would expect there to be holes.
5. There are plenty of transitional forms for complex invertebrates and fish:

• Invertebrate to Vertebrate
• Unnamed Upper (U.) Pre-Cambrian chordate -- First to bear a primitive notochord; archaetypical chordate.
• Pikaia gracilens -- Middle (M.) Cambrian chordate with lancelet-like morphology.
• Haikouella -- Lower (L.) Cambrian chordate, first to bear a skull; archaetypical craniate.
• Haikouichthys -- L. Cambrian quasi-vertebrate, intermediate in developing a vertebral column; archaetypical vertebrate.
• Conodonts -- U. Cambrian to Triassic quasi-vertebrates with spinal cord; "bug-eyed lampreys".
• Myllokunmingia -- L. Cambrian vertebrate with primitive spinal column; oldest true crown-group vertebrate.
• Arandaspis -- L. Ordovician vertebrate, armoured jawless fish (ostracoderm), oldest known vertebrate with hard parts known from (mostly) complete fossils.

 

• Jawless Fish to Jawed Vertebrate
• Birkenia -- Silurian primitive, jawless fish, a typical member of the Anaspida
• Cephalaspis -- Silurian armoured jawless fish, archaetypical member of the "Osteostraca," sister group to all jawed vertebrates.
• Shuyu -- Silurian to Devonian, armoured jawless fish belonging to Galeaspida, related to Osteostraca. Internal cranial anatomy very similar to the anatomy seen in basal jawed vertebrates. This similarity is directly implied with the translation of its name, "Dawn Fish," with the implication that it represents the "dawn of jawed vertebrates."

 

• Acanthodian to shark
• Ptomacanthus -- sharklike fish, originally described as an acanthodian fish: brain anatomy demonstrates that it is an intermediate between acanthodians and sharks.
• Cladoselache -- primitive/basal shark.
• Tristychius -- another sharklike fish.
• Ctenacanthus -- primitive/basal shark.
• Paleospinax -- sharklike jaw, primitive teeth.
• Spathobatis -- Ray-like fish.
• Protospinax -- Ancestral to both sharks and skates.

 

• Primitive jawed fish to bony fish
• Acanthodians -- superficially similar to early bony fishes, and some have been identified as being the ancestors of sharks.
• Palaeoniscoids -- primitive bony fishes.
• Canobius, Aeduella -- palaeoniscoids with more advanced jaws.
• Parasemionotus -- combination of modern cheeks with more primitive features, like lungs
• Oreochima -- first teleost fish
• Leptolepids -- vaguely herring-like ancestors of modern teleost fish. Lung modified into swim bladder.
• Amphistium and Heteronectes -- percomorphs that demonstrate the transition of the eye location of flatfishes.

 

 

 

 

Evolutionists always point to Archaeopteryx as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird.  However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths.  Most people know "the stereotypical ideal of Archaeopteryx as a physiologically modern bird with a long tail and teeth".  Research now "shows incontrovertibly that these animals were very primitive".  "Archaeopteryx was simply a feathered and presumably volant [flying] dinosaur.  Theories regarding the subsequent steps that led to the modern avian condition need to be reevaluated." --Erickson, Gregory, et al. October 2009. Was Dinosaurian Physiology Inherited by Birds? Reconciling Slow Growth in Archaeopteryx. PLoS ONE, Vol. 4, Issue 10, e7390.
 

"Archaeopteryx has long been considered the iconic first bird."  "The first Archaeopteryx skeleton was found in Germany about the same time Darwin's Origin of Species was published.  This was a fortuituously-timed discovery: because the fossil combined bird-like (feathers and a wishbone) and reptilian (teeth, three fingers on hands, and a long bony tail) traits, it helped convince many about the veracity of evolutionary theory."  "Ten skeletons and an isolated feather have been found."  "Archaeopteryx is the poster child for evolution."  But "bird features like feathers and wishbones have recently been found in many non-avian dinosaurs".  "Microscopic imaging of bone structure... shows that this famously feathered fossil grew much slower than living birds and more like non-avian dinosaurs."  "Living birds mature very quickly and grow really, really fast", researchers say.  "Dinosaurs had a very different metabolism from today's birds.  It would take years for individuals to mature, and we found evidence for this same pattern in Archaeopteryx and its closest relatives".  "The team outlines a growth curve that indicates that Archaeopteryx reached adult size in about 970 days, that none of the known Archaeopteryx specimens are adults (confirming previous speculation), and that adult Archaeopteryx were probably the size of a raven, much larger than previously thought."  "We now know that the transition into true birds -- physiologically and metabolically -- happened well after Archaeopteryx."

 

I'm confused why stating that something has some avian and some reptilian traits would disprove that it's a transitional form between reptiles and birds.

 

 

 

 

Violating the law
The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time.  If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium).  Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy.  Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work.  Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall.  Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder.  Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized.  We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials.
 

...
 

When confronted with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolutionists usually use two tricks to try to escape.  The first is to state that "it only applies to closed systems, and biological creatures are open systems, so it doesn't affect evolution" (they actually intend to say isolated, not closed, but we know what they mean).  The fact is that the Second Law applies to all systems, open or closed, and to all actions and chemical reactions, from molecules to galaxies.  The words "except for..." are not in this universal law.  A thermodynamics system is simply any part of the universe we want to study.  If we are doing an experiment in a bottle, the inside of the bottle is our system and the bottle itself is the "walls" of the system.  There are only 3 kinds of systems: if no energy or matter can pass through the walls, it is an isolated system; if energy can pass through but matter cannot, it is a closed system; if both energy and matter can pass through the walls, it is an open system.  Now, it is true that the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are defined in terms of isolated systems, because that is the simplest way to express them.  However, experts who write textbooks on the subject are quick to say that isolated systems do not occur in nature.  For practical applications, a procedure called the Legendre Transform mathematically converts entropy to a variable called Gibbs free energy that is useful for working with real-world systems.  Most natural systems are open, but it is convenient to model them as closed.  For example, even though a bacterium is an open system, modeling it as a closed system makes it easier to understand chemical reactions in it.^2,8

 

You are an open system. You eat food (which comes from outside yourself) and your body survives and grows.  Evolutionists believe that all we need is an open system with sufficient energy flowing into it for evolution to succeed.  If that were so, you could just stand right behind a jet engine as the aircraft prepares for takeoff, absorb that blast of energy, and evolve to a higher life form.  In reality, of course, you would be incinerated because absorbing energy without a mechanism to convert it to a useful form and employ it is destructive or useless.  The mechanism must be very specific.  Sticking food in your ear will not work; it must go into your mouth and through the digestive system.  And the mechanism must be in place and functioning first, before energy is added, or the energy is wasted.  The "closed system" ploy is just an attempt to avoid dealing with the Second Law because the Law prohibits any functioning biological mechanism from falling together by pure chance, without assistance or plan, using only the properties of matter.

 

Actually, the second law states that the entropy in an isolated system never decreases. So, it wouldn't apply to open or closed systems. The idea is the universe is an isolated system (no energy coming or leaving from it). Our bodies are not isolated systems. Our planet gets energy from the sun, and we get radiation from the sun, which causes mutations.

 

The second law of thermodynamics in no way applies to evolution. This isn't a "ploy" to avoid dealing with it. The law quite explicitly states it applies to isolated systems.

[ollkiller]

Point 3 about the earth being fixed and not moving. Apart from the OP does anyone else think its fact. It's the most bonkers thing I've ever heard. We orbit the sun. Fact. End of.

[JDavis]

Just wanted to point out that the appendix is in no way useless.

[RobbyPants]

Point 3 about the earth being fixed and not moving. Apart from the OP does anyone else think its fact. It's the most bonkers thing I've ever heard. We orbit the sun. Fact. End of.

 

I have never heard anyone state this in the last 500 years (not that I was alive 500 years ago! )

 

 

 

Just wanted to point out that the appendix is in no way useless.

 

What do we do with it? I thought it was used in rabbits still to digest coarse vegetable matter, but it served no purpose in humans.

[alphaparticle]

I don't see how evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The issue I have with these arguments is that they tend to be very vague, 'systems tend toward increasing disorder, not order!' That's not a very helpful premise as it stands. I find it more helpful to make it more specific and in terms closer to how it originated in thermodynamics, perhaps, in terms of energy available to do work. As systems develop with time, the amount of energy to do work goes down. In fact this is one way we know how the arrow of time goes at all. If I drop a bucket of paint into a swimming pool, and record it, you can very easily tell if I try to run the video backward. If I put an ice cube in the middle of my floor, it will melt as it comes into equilibrium with the surrounding environment, thereby increasing entropy also. But suppose I put the ice cube instead in my freezer, which uses mechanical energy to pump heat. Now the ice cube won't melt, but at the expense of pumping more heat into my environment. So if the ice cube is the system, the entropy remains the same (and I could use it to decrease the entropy of other 'systems'),  but if you consider the environment of my room, it is still increasing.

 

That's why I don't find the argument brought up in your snippet helpful. It matters a great deal that the earth is an open system. What is needed is a way to take energy from the sun, which constantly irradiates the earth, and turn it into usable energy, or energy in sea vents from the hot core. Then at least you have a temperature differential which could drive mechanical processes or, more importantly here, chemical reactions. Then you can have local decreases in entropy, at the cost of the larger system.