Lets pick up where we left off:
11. Nature does not provide us with the proof for the ‘Tree of Life’ so glibly talked about by evolutionists. We do not find life starting as simple and then branching upward and outward as it becomes more and more complex. We do not find that life forms follow the pattern of a single tree trunk with many branches. The physical evidence provided by nature gives a picture of an extremely large orchard with all plant and animal types represented from the beginning with their own individual trunks and branches producing the variations within kinds that we have today, but no new kinds progressing from previous kinds.
He is right about this we don’t really see a “Tree of Life” but more of a, as I once saw AronRa say, a bush of life. We do not find complex organisms early in the fossil record as he would have you believe what we find instead it simple single celled organisms. But these found a niche so they are still alive today we then further up the bush find multicellular organisms. These take up less of the bush then the single celled organism but they each find their own niche and relatives of them are found today. We however do not have multicellular organisms appearing at the very bottom of the fossil layers as the author would have you believe.
12. There are no transitional forms found in the fossil record. In spite of all the reports people may have heard, we have never found the fossil of a plant or an animal which is a true intermediate form. The "missing links" are missing because they are missing.
It seems to me like we have heard this point before yup it is pretty much a repeat of point 4, really running out of points already come on. My evidence back would be the same as point 4 so in case you don’t remember go look there.
13. Be wary of artists renderings. An artist's depiction, conception or illustration is imaginary. Simply because we see an artist's illustration of a cow becoming a whale doesn't make it so. Human desire and imagination are not evidence.
He is right artists renderings are done so that a layperson can more easily visualize the creatures that are present in the fossil record. It also doesn’t show you the tons of information that leads scientists to the conclusions that they do. Oh and cows did not evolve into whales it was an organism more like a modern wolf, for more on whale evolution there are plenty of papers but I recommend this one: Thewissen, J., L. Cooper, J. George, and S. Bajpai. From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises. Evolution: Education and Outreach)
14. Ancient man was not primitive. Ancient human cultures had more complex languages than we do today. The engineering feasts of the past cultures are well recognized and in some cases have not been duplicated in modern times. There never was a Stone Age, Bronze Age or Iron Age. Man has used stone, bronze and iron tools in all "ages" of past human activity. Indeed, there is nothing new under the sun.
Why are the more complex because we currently cannot understand them? See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language#Number_of_words_in_English not only is English complex but it is growing constantly. Ask a former non-speaker how difficult it was to learn English yes I can assure you we have much more complicated languages now. As for the engineering it may seem hard but we know how they were done and despite what you might hear on TV if we needed or wanted to build what they built we could do and we could probably do it quicker than they did. Continuing on these ages are marked by what was used primarily and what was new. People did not use Bronze before the Bronze age nor did they use Iron before the Iron Age because it requires a set of skills that they had not yet learned. Finally on this point, did we always have internet, how about computers, or how about airplanes, cars, etc there is plenty of new stuff constantly coming out “under the sun.”
The observed Laws of Science contradict the various theories of evolution.
15. The law of Cause and Effect not only describes that for every effect there must have been a cause, it also tells us that the cause must be greater than the effect. No one can create anything greater than themselves. You do not get an increase in intelligence or complexity without the input from a greater intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics) Interesting a physics law being applied to biology. If you can find in there where it makes a statement about evolution go right ahead. As far as the intelligence part. Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants and saw further than they did. We continue to do that today we used what was learned before and build on it does that mean the people before us were more intelligent than us as the author would have us believe? No we just use what they knew to learn and it will be continued for as long as humanity exists unless we fall into another dark ages.
We are now half way done with his points everyone take a quick break.
Alright back to it.
16. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics work contrary to evolutionary belief. The First Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Energy Conservation) proves that the universe cannot be the reason for its own existence. According to the First Law the universe cannot have been anything less than it is, and if it cannot have been anything less than it is, it had to come into existence whole and complete. If the universe came into existence whole and complete, then it had to be created. Simply adding energy to a system will not cause an increase in intelligence or complexity. The addition of undirected energy to a system accomplishes nothing, except possibly for the destruction of that system.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Entropy) proves that evolution cannot happen. The Second Law stipulates (a poor attempt by scientists to describe The Curse of Genesis Chapter 3 and Revelation) that in all activities some of the energy becomes unavailable for further useful work. The universe is running down, not up.
I want to start by saying that this is the first time I have heard the First law of Thermodynamics used to argue against evolution so I will give the author props there but that is all he gets. He did however get wrong what the first law says (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics). It says nothing about biology and really cannot be used to argue any point in fact it is just a set up for the second law (which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics) and since there is no reason for me to argue a point that someone else has already done I pass you on to…ok so I found one for the first law so first to the ExtantDodo:
For the second law we go to again to the Dodo:
17. The concept of a ‘Big Bang’ producing the universe is absolutely illogical. Explosions do not produce ever increasing order and structure. Explosions produce disorder and chaos. Explosions break things down or destroy what was previously ordered.
Well then it is a good thing that the Big Bang was not actually an explosion but an expansion of space time. It also has zero to do with biological evolution of which was the point of this originally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
18. There is no substantiated method in nature which would allow stars to be ‘born.’ The Gas Laws prove that the pressure of hot gases expanding outward from a center is far greater than the gravitational force drawing them towards a center. Stars could not evolve into existence.
Whew it is a good thing that this has nothing to do with evolution. Oh wait you mean scientists have an explanation for how stars form? Really? Well then I guess I should link to it: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/stars/lifecycle/starbirth.shtml
19. The Law of Biogenesis (the Law of Life Beginnings) accurately states that life only comes from life, and that life only reproduces after its own kind. Life cannot spontaneously generate and life forms do not change from one kind into another kind.
Again it is a good thing that this doesn’t deal with evolution. Nevermind the fact that scientists don’t say that life came from nonlife. And that they actually say that organic molecules over time came together to form ever more complex structures and eventually from this life was able to develop. The question is where do you start life? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
20. The input of undirected energy accomplishes nothing. The input of undirected energy will destroy a system, not build it up. Only the input from a greater intelligence will cause a beneficial increase in order and/or complexity.
What scientific law is this? I can look out my window right now and can find an example that refutes what you are saying right away and that is simply the sun. The energy from the sun is just directed out into space but some of it happens to shine on us here. That sunlight though undirected is what allows photosynthesis to happen, it is what allows the ground to heat, my skin to burn etc.
So in Part 5 we will go through the final 10 on the list and finish up the rest of the article
No comments:
Post a Comment