Evolutionist Caught in a Lie (page 2)

skyman

Keep it up guys I have not weighed in yet. I have done much studying on this matter and I know that Creationist are ruled by emotion and not by provable facts. But some of the points on the side of evolution can not be proved yet either and here is what is interesting to me the Scientist for evolution are willing to change when they are proven wrong and the Creationist are never willing to change. To all of you that believe in creation I have a question that you must answer who created GOD. The every reason you will not believe in evolution is because you say someone had to create us then the same argument is back at you. Who created GOD someone had to.

Terry

Trust scientists enough to :

*let them build nuclear power plants within a few miles of heavily populated areas

France is pretty much powered by a proliferation of Nuclear Power Plants.

France is still there.

It is governments (such as the former Soviet communists) who build cheap and unsafe things including nuclear plants.

Here in Texas the game was played like this. 1.Commanche Creek was selected for the site of a nuclear plant. The cost of building the plant was announced. 2.Protests and intereference delayed the building month after month after month. 3.The plant was finally built and was way over budget. Who delayed the building and made the cost over-runs? There is a huge myth floating around in the U.S. that nuclear power plants are like bombs waiting to go off. The energy costs, as a result of not having enough nuclear power, go up and up and even reliance on fossil fuels is assured. I know you aren't speaking against nuclear power; but, I wanted to jump in and remind people what the political does to the scientific where science is left with the blame. In the Dallas-Ft.Worth area in Texas where I live we were to have a superconducting supercollider project. The local politics killed it. Stories filled the local and national news media about the wasted money spent on decorating offices, etc. and the public was turned against it. The legislature could step in as a result and kill it. Texas, by the way, is a fossil fuel Mecca. Makes you stop and think.

Terry

To all of you that believe in creation I have a question that you must answer who created GOD. The every reason you will not believe in evolution is because you say someone had to create us then the same argument is back at you. Who created GOD someone had to.

The unmet needs of man created God.

I can prove it.

God didn't even have a job description until man was in the hopper.

To be God you have to be a creator. But, before God created anything (for eons and eons) he was idle.

To be God you must be all-knowing. But, before God made anything there wasn't anyTHING to know.

To be God you have to be all-powerful. But, before God had his playthings there wasn't anything to exercise power over.

To be God you must be timeless. But, time is the distance between EVENTS. Until God purportedly commenced events there was no time.

Etc Etc.

God wasn't even an inkling of a thought, let alone Supreme Being, until man became imaginative enough to realize he needed one. At that point man made gods on his own level and they were everywhere. Only gradually did the inflation of diety become unmanageable. Credit the Egyptian weirdo, Ahkenaton, with the invention of a ONE GOD FITS ALL theory. The Canaanites living in Egypt, when they departed, spread the idea and the cult. Eventually the Jews honed it to perfection and the rest is history.

God is a tool we use to detach our deficiency from our awareness by operating ourselves by proxy on a higher plane.

p.s. It doesn't work very well.

skyman

That is an answer that you and I would use but what about the Creationist that argue the most unbelievable claims with real no proof but emotion. For Ex: they claim the Grand Canyon is proof of the Flood. No Way it is made up of Granite Rock that could not have eroded in 40 day's I don't care how much water went over it. Plus if this was true there would have to be at least Two Grand Canyon's on every Continent on Earth because the same amount of run off would have to have been duplicated on every Continent. They are run by what they believe and it makes me wonder who they are trying to deceive themselves no doubt. So you CREATIONIST ANSWER MY QUESTION PLEASE!

TadSexington

Maybe this is just the opinion of a semi-uneducated american,

But, I was wondering if there was anyone else out there that simply doesn't care?

I mean, it doesn't really affect my day to day life if I am the result of a mutated monkey, or if "The Good Lord" Jesus/Jehovah/Allah, or whomever created my ancestors?

There's a great deal of things we could be worrying about than this....

Tad's $.02

TadSexington

More important things I mean.....

RevFrank

Too many scientists are leaving the theory of evolution due to the Two Laws of Thermodymanics. The Two Laws of Thermodymanics are scientistic facts where basically all things in the universe are running down.

Evolution is basically where an old object has altered to a newer species or a different life form. This theory is based, not on facts, but an idea that's been around for over a hundred years

No facts are known, as of yet, that anyone has found anything new.The famous, "Missing Link," was suppose to be the ," Big Foot." No such finding exists. All evolution ever is and still was, just a theory.

RunningMan

Too many scientists are leaving the theory of evolution due to the Two Laws of Thermodymanics. The Two Laws of Thermodymanics are scientistic facts where basically all things in the universe are running down.

Well, now, you're just making stuff up here. You see, scientists, unlike creationists, actually know what the laws of thermodynamics are.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics : I can’t count the number of times that this law has been quoted to me by fundamentalists posing as engineering experts, most of whom couldn’t define thermodynamics if their life depended on it. To put it simply, the argument asserts that the second law of thermodynamics requires systems to increase in entropy over time. In other words, if left completely on their own, things decay, disintegrate, and become more random. So, evolution violates this law by proposing that life has ordered itself, actually becoming less random, all by itself. Creation, on the other hand, supports this law, because it begins with a state of ultimate order.
The first refutation involves the poor definition given by creationists. The second law of thermodynamics actually states: "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [1]
One of the problems with this is that the idea that order does not come from disorder is actually a spurious addition and simplistic misapplication of the law. We see seemingly spontaneous order all the time – snowflakes, crystals, sand dunes, etc. So, the second law does not say what creationists claim that it says. If order cannot come from disorder, why does it keep happening?
The other problem is that even if we grant them their definition, it would only hold true in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. Huge amounts of energy are added to our earth every second of the day, in multiple forms, such as heat, light, and radiation. We are also affected by the forces of external gravity and momentum.
So, the second law of thermodynamics does not indicate a creator. This claim shows a complete lack of understanding, not only of the law that it cites, but also of the nature of evolution.
[1] [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25]

GetBusyLiving

:No facts are known, as of yet, that anyone has found anything new.

Rev, what would convince you that evolution happened?

GBL

Quotes

RefFrank,

No offence, but you are so far away from knowing what you are talking about, it is embarrasing. I am embarrased for you.

It is not "Two Laws of Thermodynamics", it is the "Second Law Of Thermodyanmics". If you want to pretend to have it all figured out, at least try and get the words correct.

Imagine if you were discussion "Immaculate Conception" with a Catholic, and you referred to it as "Ejaculate Conception". Do you think the Catholic would think you have any knowledge about the subject, when you don't even know the proper name of the subject? Seriously.

BTW, this supposed "Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics" is a completely bogus argument, and has been show to be that. Do you refuse to believe in heavier than air aircraft (i.e. airplanes) because they would violate the laws of gravity? Of course not; the "2nd law" argument has been shown to be a very weak, pathetic "straw man" argument. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html if you care to see a straw man exposed as such.

Evolutionist Caught in a Lie

Share this