Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[westwall]

Repeat your question. if you're referring to the birth canal it's due to heredity and perfections that were lost.

So, you're saying that evolutionary processes were able to warp mankind in a mere 6000 years. Is that correct? Or did God manufacture man with those flaws already inherent in His design?

Ok since you're are reasonable I will hang out for a while.I am saying yes the flaws were passed on to all. How long has man been on this planet I do not know. I say between 6,000 to 12,000 years.

God created man perfect and then handed down the punishment of death for sin ,and I believe he handed down his punishment through our genes.

You do know where the 6000 year figure came from do you not?

 

[Big_D2]

Creationists, why do you feel human defects such as blind spots or the detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerve exist? If God created us in our current forms, why did he create such defects?

the standard creationist answer will be because of sin.
they believe that in some fantasy past our bodies were perfect..
I find that odd as the basic design of humans is highly flawed..
if god wanted to fuck with us, why didn't he /she /it make most of us stupid.......?.......wait.... most of us are? ??

Why are they highly flawed then you have organs like the eyes,heart,and the brain ? How bout the spine and the central nervous system ?

So tell me where could these flaws come from since I educated you on it ? I will wait and see if you have the ability to reason from the evidence. If you draw a blank don't worry I will answer it for you.

Both evolution and ID have adequate reasoning why we have such developed and sophisticated organs such as the eyes, heart, and brain. However, only evolution have adequate reasoning why we have defects such as the detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

 

[Hollie]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

Oh no. Not this same silly Beisner cut and paste again.

Yet more silliness from the ICR.

E. Calvin Beisner

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy. He has published over ten books and hundreds of articles, contributed to, or edited, many other books, and been a guest on television and radio programs. A ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he has spoken to churches, seminars, and other groups around the country for nearly twenty years.


Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Beisner

Beisner is a political activist and dominionist who used to be a theologian at the Knox Theological Seminary (Ft. Lauderdale). He staunchly defends pretty much every kind of radical wingnut lunacy that exists, and generally vies with Brian Fischer for the position of the most fractally wrong delusional maniac alive at the moment.

 

[daws101]

No God did not show partiality.

Gen 3:14 And the Lord God said to the snake, Because you have done this you are cursed more than all cattle and every beast of the field; you will go flat on the earth, and dust will be your food all the days of your life:
Gen 3:15 And there will be war between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed: by him will your head be crushed and by you his foot will be wounded.
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, Great will be your pain in childbirth; in sorrow will your children come to birth; still your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your master.
Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, Because you gave ear to the voice of your wife and took of the fruit of the tree which I said you were not to take, the earth is cursed on your account; in pain you will get your food from it all your life.
Gen 3:18 Thorns and waste plants will come up, and the plants of the field will be your food;
Gen 3:19 With the hard work of your hands you will get your bread till you go back to the earth from which you were taken: for dust you are and to the dust you will go back.

None of which addresses the problem of children dying in childbirth BEFORE they can learn of the Word of God which dooms them to eternal damnation. Seems to me....if there was a God controlling all of that it would be counterproductive to produce a child only for it to be eternally damned.....without a chance.

One last response for the day it was not meant to answer your birth canal question only partially. It was mainly directed at your rhetoric concerning evil women.

another dodge...
the whole idea of original sin is not only counter productive it's silly.
if adam & eve hadn't done what they did there would be no human race..unless I'm wrong and god didn't like what he made...you know how kids can be a pain in the ass..

 

[daws101]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

bullshit

E. Calvin Beisner
E. Calvin Beisner is a founder of and the national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and formerly served on the pastoral staff of a church he planted, Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church, in Broward County, Florida. An author and lecturer on the application of Christian worldview, theology, and ethics to economics and the environment, political philosophy, public policy, and reaso…
World's Largest Professional Network | LinkedIn


Lee Spetner
Lee Spetner
Jerusalem College of Technology *>* Publications *>* B'Or Ha'Torah *>*Home
Lee M. Spetner is an American physicist and author, known best for his critique of the modern evolutionary synthesis. In spite of his opposition to neo-Darwinism, Spetner accepts a form of non-random evolution outlined in his 1996 book "Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evol…
en.wikipedia.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity.

You should post the Second Law. Then I'll be happy to show you the error in this claim.

 

[Hollie]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity.

Oh good gawd. Not another Henry Morris’ism.

Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics | NCSE


One of the cornerstones in the crumbling foundation of creationist "science" is the notion that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The classical version of this law may be stated as follows: The entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. (An isolated system is one that does not exchange energy or matter with its surroundings.) Creationists originally argued that a decrease in entropy is exactly what evolution requires, hence the conflict with the second law. This argument was used in an article by Dr. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) as late as 1973. As is the usual practice among creationists, he tried to support it with out-of-context quotations from the writings of respected scientists.

 

[Steven_R]

Real science does not contradict the bible it's that simple.

You mean like how the Bible says the geocentric model is correct (when it isn't advocating a flat Earth that is), but how We've known since 1610 that simply is not true.

Or how the Bible outright says the circumference of a circle is 3 time its diameter when every 9th grader knows it's really 3.14159... times.

Or maybe the time the Jews are told not to eat rabbits because they chew cud, but rabbits in the real world don't chew cud.

 

[itfitzme]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity.

Oh good gawd. Not another Henry Morris’ism.

Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics | NCSE


One of the cornerstones in the crumbling foundation of creationist "science" is the notion that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The classical version of this law may be stated as follows: The entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. (An isolated system is one that does not exchange energy or matter with its surroundings.) Creationists originally argued that a decrease in entropy is exactly what evolution requires, hence the conflict with the second law. This argument was used in an article by Dr. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) as late as 1973. As is the usual practice among creationists, he tried to support it with out-of-context quotations from the writings of respected scientists.

Undoubtedly, that is always the mistake, taking some science out of context, forcingbit to fit an incorrect and predetermined conclusion. There is a reason that, fundamentally, science is written in mathematical form. It is the langiafe of obnoxious precision. It workes because it is grounded in the most basic of natures elements, counting things... time, distance, mass, charge, ... I'm sure there are more... expression in measurement, in the context of the specific environment under which that measure is made is everything.

ΔS>=0 for a isolated system, is a the fundamental aspect of the second law.

I can only guess what the problem is but I believe it is the attempt to understand science in words only which opens up the potential to drop half the statement, overgeneralize, and apply it outside the context for which it is meant.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

YWC has already established that he is unqualified to engage on this topic.

Sorry, you were the one that turned tail and ran when asked to engage, why is that ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

"contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics"...

Oh, good god... Jesus Christ... For crying out loud...

Another bastardization of the second law of thermo. By that interpretation, my air conditioner and refrigerator wouldn't work. A steam locamotive wouldn't function. My car wouldn't run. Weather and climate wouldn't exist. Life itself wouldn't work.

This is right up there with saying that the theory of relativity means everything is a matter of opinion.

2nd Law of Thermo says that for a LARGE CLOSED SYSTEM, delta-entropy is greater than or equal to zero.

Life exists, functions, because it is not a closed system. It uses external energy to do work in opposition to the second law of thermo. The sun is where that energy comes from, and geothermal energy as well as gravitational energy.

It is a closed system and that is why we see entropy on all things.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, you're saying that evolutionary processes were able to warp mankind in a mere 6000 years. Is that correct? Or did God manufacture man with those flaws already inherent in His design?

Ok since you're are reasonable I will hang out for a while.I am saying yes the flaws were passed on to all. How long has man been on this planet I do not know. I say between 6,000 to 12,000 years.

God created man perfect and then handed down the punishment of death for sin ,and I believe he handed down his punishment through our genes.

You do know where the 6000 year figure came from do you not?

I should have worded that differently not how long man has been on the planet but how long ago did creation begin.

Yes I do,and I also know a day is a thousand years to the LORD, so were the the days of creation a thousand years each or were they like the days of man. If we go by the days of man somewhere around 6,000 years by tracing the ancestry of adam.

If the days of creation were a 1,000 years we are looking at around 12,000 years.

 

[Youwerecreated]

None of which addresses the problem of children dying in childbirth BEFORE they can learn of the Word of God which dooms them to eternal damnation. Seems to me....if there was a God controlling all of that it would be counterproductive to produce a child only for it to be eternally damned.....without a chance.

One last response for the day it was not meant to answer your birth canal question only partially. It was mainly directed at your rhetoric concerning evil women.

another dodge...
the whole idea of original sin is not only counter productive it's silly.
if adam & eve hadn't done what they did there would be no human race..unless I'm wrong and god didn't like what he made...you know how kids can be a pain in the ass..

No daws do you know the condition of the birth canal of eve 6,000 years ago ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

Oh no. Not this same silly Beisner cut and paste again.

Yet more silliness from the ICR.

E. Calvin Beisner

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy. He has published over ten books and hundreds of articles, contributed to, or edited, many other books, and been a guest on television and radio programs. A ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he has spoken to churches, seminars, and other groups around the country for nearly twenty years.


Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Beisner

Beisner is a political activist and dominionist who used to be a theologian at the Knox Theological Seminary (Ft. Lauderdale). He staunchly defends pretty much every kind of radical wingnut lunacy that exists, and generally vies with Brian Fischer for the position of the most fractally wrong delusional maniac alive at the moment.

Who you should be researching is Byles

 

[Youwerecreated]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

bullshit

E. Calvin Beisner
E. Calvin Beisner is a founder of and the national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and formerly served on the pastoral staff of a church he planted, Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church, in Broward County, Florida. An author and lecturer on the application of Christian worldview, theology, and ethics to economics and the environment, political philosophy, public policy, and reaso…
World's Largest Professional Network | LinkedIn


Lee Spetner
Lee Spetner
Jerusalem College of Technology *>* Publications *>* B'Or Ha'Torah *>*Home
Lee M. Spetner is an American physicist and author, known best for his critique of the modern evolutionary synthesis. In spite of his opposition to neo-Darwinism, Spetner accepts a form of non-random evolution outlined in his 1996 book "Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evol…
en.wikipedia.org

Like I told Hollie you need to research byles the evolutionist ,he is the one who gave the 9 conditions for mutation fixation to take place.

Dr.Lee Spetner is a very well respected among his peers. He is a Biophysicist and knows things beyond your comprehension who is a evolutionist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity.

You should post the Second Law. Then I'll be happy to show you the error in this claim.

1.second law of thermodynamics a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/second+law+of+thermodynamics

 

[Youwerecreated]

Real science does not contradict the bible it's that simple.

You mean like how the Bible says the geocentric model is correct (when it isn't advocating a flat Earth that is), but how We've known since 1610 that simply is not true.

Or how the Bible outright says the circumference of a circle is 3 time its diameter when every 9th grader knows it's really 3.14159... times.

Or maybe the time the Jews are told not to eat rabbits because they chew cud, but rabbits in the real world don't chew cud.

That is just ignorance of the scriptures for anyone to claim the bible teaches a flat earth ,you should stay away from your atheist hate sites they will mislead you.

 

[itfitzme]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

"contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics"...

Oh, good god... Jesus Christ... For crying out loud...

Another bastardization of the second law of thermo. By that interpretation, my air conditioner and refrigerator wouldn't work. A steam locamotive wouldn't function. My car wouldn't run. Weather and climate wouldn't exist. Life itself wouldn't work.

This is right up there with saying that the theory of relativity means everything is a matter of opinion.

2nd Law of Thermo says that for a LARGE ISOLATED SYSTEM, delta-entropy is greater than or equal to zero.

Life exists, functions, because it is not a closed or isolated system. It uses external energy to do work in opposition to the second law of thermo. The sun is where that energy comes from, and geothermal energy as well as gravitational energy.

It is a closed system and that is why we see entropy on all things.

Incorrect. Fundmentally incorrect.

[edit]
An isolated system is inherently closed. Open systems exchange energy and matter. Closed systems exchange energy, though not matter. Isolated systems exchange neither energy or matter.
[end edit]

This is so fundamental as to defy any more basic explaination. All life are open, non-isolated systems.

To say otherwise is to simply ignore a very basic concept of thermo.

"We see entropy in all things" is a meaningless point. We see energy is all things as well. We see matter is most things. We see time and space in all things.

Living things, by their nature, are open systems that absorb energy and matter, constantly using it to do work. Living things eat and excrete. That is an open system.

At least try not to be absurd.

 

[YWN666]

wait a sec...your "info" is from a creationist site..yes?
then this statement: Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations."
is then proven true by what you just posted.

Many members of creationist groups have agreed that their research will never contradict the bible. I keep asking YWC to address that issue but he keeps changing the subject or running away as creationists usually do.

Real science does not contradict the bible it's that simple.

BULLSHIT. Are you telling me that it is scientifically possible for a man to die and awake three days later?

 

[Youwerecreated]

"contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics"...

Oh, good god... Jesus Christ... For crying out loud...

Another bastardization of the second law of thermo. By that interpretation, my air conditioner and refrigerator wouldn't work. A steam locamotive wouldn't function. My car wouldn't run. Weather and climate wouldn't exist. Life itself wouldn't work.

This is right up there with saying that the theory of relativity means everything is a matter of opinion.

2nd Law of Thermo says that for a LARGE CLOSED SYSTEM, delta-entropy is greater than or equal to zero.

Life exists, functions, because it is not a closed system. It uses external energy to do work in opposition to the second law of thermo. The sun is where that energy comes from, and geothermal energy as well as gravitational energy.

It is a closed system and that is why we see entropy on all things.

Incorrect. Fundmentally incorrect.

A closed system is also refered to as an isolated system. This is so fundental as to defy any more basic explaination. All life are open, non-isolated systems.

To say otherwise is to simply ignore a very basic concept of thermo.

How so when scientists consider earth a closed system ? the reason is because no serious amount of matter enters and leaves earth. The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in. This is the only reason they say it is both open and closed but that is nonsense. The sun is pure energy and that is why the energy of the sun penetrates the earth's atmosphere.