Risiko

I don’t want to derail the thread, but how about these (beautiful) structures:

natural arches

Setting up and removing of the ”scaffolding” was done in a purely natural way (no “designer”).

ps418

The paleontological evidence is not merely consistent with evolution, it shows beyond any serious doubt that evolution really has occurred. One the other hand, the special creationist explanation of the distribution of taxa in the geologic record as a product of Noah's flood, is clearly false. A good place to start is Cuffey's article: The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

Patrick

HRG

Entropy can even decrease when there is no energy added to a system. Think of a slowly cooling white dwarf star: it is radiating energy as heat into the global energy-sink of interstellar space, all the time also losing entropy via delta-S = delta-Q/T.

Just wanted to correct a popular misunderstanding!

Regards,
HRG.

Dark Jedi

Even AIG says not to use the 2nd Law argument anymore:

Appendix 2: Common arguments for creation that should not be used

From http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1021re2.asp

*
Arguments creationists should avoid

o ‘Darwin recanted on his deathbed.’

o ‘Moon dust thickness proves a young moon.’

o ‘The Japanese trawler Zuiyo-maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand in 1977.’

o ‘Women have one more rib than men.’

o ‘Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe.’

o‘The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.’

o ‘Archaeopteryx was a fraud.’

o‘Dubois renounced Java man as a “missing link” and claimed it was just a giant gibbon.’

o‘The phrase “science falsely so called” in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.’

o ‘If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?’

o ‘NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” and Hezekiah’s sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.’

o ‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’

*
Arguments that are doubtful, and hence inadvisable to use

oCanopy theory

o ‘There was no rain before the Flood.’

oNatural selection is a tautology.

o‘The speed of light has decreased over time’ (c decay).

o‘There are no transitional forms’

o‘Gold chains have been found in coal.’

o‘Plate tectonics is fallacious.’

o ‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’

o ‘The Gospel is in the stars.’

Edited to add: This is my 1,971st post. Just to point out a completely arbitrary number for no reason whatsoever.

Valentine Pontifex

You have misread AiG. They merely said that the Second Law did not start at the Fall. They have NOT stopped using the nonsense of evolution violates the second law.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics by our dear friend Socrates.

More creationist links on this subject can be found at the T.O. Archive FAQ on thermodynamics: Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism

Smilin

Hindu woman...

Where are you posting?

I need a new site to participate in such debates..

Many regards...

~Smilin

hinduwoman

Smilin, here is it:

http://forum.faithfreedom.org/viewto...=5060&start=44

It is actually an anti-Islamic forum, but on this thread it veered off to evolution.
Don't know how much good you can do. He thinks all the fossils are fakes and wants me to read sites other than pro-atheist ones. Afriad he is suffering from the symptom: "My grandmother was a lady; not an ape".

Azathoth

Well,I went to that site,and read his postings.It looks like you've got a real prize,there,hinduwoman.

Since he's ignoring the moths,try these light and dark mice.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/2003/5/MICE.UAZ.html

And the peppered moth study wasn't quite as bad as he makes it out to be.The study was far from perfect,but not a failure.

http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Eleph...th-Update.html

This post of his is completely wrong.He's thinking of Archaeoraptor,not Archaeopteryx.And using Dr.Dino as a site for reference is just silly.For example,the Dr Dino site says with all seriousness,that god stopped time in order to keep the sun in the sky.Any site that states this is a scientific fact should be avoided.

The Archaeopteryx is not a fake,and numerous copies of the critter have been found.Here's a site with some quick information. It's not really detailed,though,and I'm sure you can find better.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsid...aeopteryx.html

And,of course,a Talkorigins page about it,but he might not look
at it,if he's that set against 'atheist supporting' sites.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

This site discusses what happened with the Archaeoraptor incident,just in case he brings it up.

http://ceirp.cornell.edu/Review/NGArtHlt.html

Well,if he wants CELLULAR evolution,try bringing up antibiotic resistance.I know he's really using the flagella argument,but antibiotic resistance is evolution,despite the semantics game played by creationist types.

I believe he's already screamed microevolution,with another example,though,so he'll probably dissmiss this,too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A535592

Here's a site about the possible evolutionary path that might have lead to the flagella.I remember a really good one that I saw here,that was far better,but I can't search for it right now.

http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Ph...s/flagella.htm

Show him this picture.He probably won't budge,but it might work.The top left skull is a chimp.The bottom right skull is a modern human.Everything in-between is intermediate.

(picture linked)
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/.../hominids2.jpg

And a whole bunch of intermediate examples.The skulls in the picture above are found here,as well.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/...ermediates_ex3

He also mentions mutations.Something about cosmic rays and ovum.Here's a faq that you can use to help him understand what's really happening.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#types

Also,that beneficial mutation he keeps yammering about wanting to see.

http://www.eurekalert.org/features/d...-tmm061302.php

nermal

Why even bother with him? I believe argument is as much fun as the next person, but refuse to argue with inanimate objects and irrational people. Let him live in his little world and move on.

It's not like you're arguing for the benefit of others on the site either, I'm sure they all sing in his choir.

Ed

mark24

False.

I have friends where the male is black, the female white, & the child white (a slightly, & mean slightly, darker colour than the mother). The truth is that skin colour is polygenic. ie. Many genes affect skin colour, thius inheritence patterns aren't easily predicatble. You seem, rationally, given your level of knowledge, to want to ascribe ALL character states a dominant & recessive relationship. The truth is much more complicated. Mendel was EXTREMELY lucky to study the characters he did in peas. Had he have chosen another plant, or let's be honest, skin colour in humans, he may very well have come to the conclusion that there were no discrete genetic characters that we now know as genes. Even flower colour show co-dominancy, or patterns that can only be ascribed to polygenic effects.

Mark