b@rtleby

i was, i thought, debating evolution on another website, with some creationists when i got hit by this.
i thought i'd post it both because it tickled me so much and also as an example of what the education system is up against.
enjoy...

HIM - "Do you mean evelution as in Darwin? That breaks every known law of science. Esp. the laws they teach in grade school.

Christians are suppose to have the mind of Christ, so they would not be so stupid as to believe in Darwins theorys.

Christians maybe immature, even a child can be a christian, but they are not stupid."


ME - "well, i for one am curious...
could you explain to me perhaps how 'evelution' breaks newton's laws of motion? or in fact point to any of the scientific laws it actually breaks?"

HIM - "Newton's first law is Inertia. Objects at rest, tend t0 stay at rest while object in motion tend to remain in motion at a uniform speed and in a straight line.

If objects tend to remain at rest, then how can you have a big bang that began the universe in the first place. There has to be a cause to set everything in motion and Darwin denys that there was a cause and therefore violates the laws of motion.

Even after the big bang, once in motion all the parts and peices would just continue to at a uniform speed in a straight line. But Darwin says, they do not continue in the way but rather they form themselves into life.

In both cases, there is an effect with no cause, at least no know cause. Unless that cause was God, which Darwin denys.

Newtons second law is the amount of force needed to get something into motion. F=MA. That force has to be equal to or greater than the known universe. Again, Darwin denys such a force and violates newtons second law.

Newtons third law is that every force has a equal and opposite reaction. Not only does Darwin try to say there is an effect with no cause. He tries to say there is no reaction to that effect. This is to say there are no consequences.

Darwin does not deny the effect, he just denys the cause and the reaction. Without cause and without effect, you violate Newtons laws with darwins theory that has never been proved.

The only way anything near to Darwins theory will work is if you add cause, and reaction to effect. Then you really only have a theory that things adapt. That there is a natural and know adaption to the invironment or surrounding. For example animals change color to blend in with their invironment. They are brown in the summer and white in the winter or something like that."


BTW, just to add a little bit of detail but could i add that these posts are from a man who has children...

i've given him web addresses on evolution, big bang cosmology, and a brief overview of darwin but i must confess i'm quite stumped as to where to start showing him he's wrong as i can't really see a right place to start from...
any ideas?
bb

Amen-Moses

Lobotomy reversal?

Amen-Moses

Oolon Colluphid

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

-- Alexander Pope An Essay on Criticism

Learning is subject to an inverse law: the less you have of it, the more dangerous it is to your decision-making. In this case, half-remembered physics apparently makes him an expert on evolutionary biology. This guy is weapon-grade.

I wonder if musicologists has people criticise their work on the basis of primary school English Lit?

Oolon the incredulous

Oolon Colluphid

Why don't you invite him here?

Oolon

Corey Hammer

I'd start off with the following.

1) Newton is overruled by modern quantum physics. At the subatomic level, there can be effects with causes.

2) Newton's Law describe kinetics, not cosmology or biology. They are inapplicable to what he's talking about.

3) Evolution is not about first causes. Even if God created the first bacteria, evolution simply requires that life imperfectly replicate itself for it to work.

Of course, this also requires that his brain not be made of stone.

I ate Pascal's Wafer

LOL, that was hillarious. I don't even know if it's worth it to show him that he's wrong. It'll simply be a waste of time to do that as he will come up with some other lame reason that "evelution" is wrong. I do think it would be entertaining if you sent him to this forum and let him post his so called "thoughts" on the matter for us to see and enjoy for ourselves.

Nick

Quetzal

Maybe you could start by asking what "evelution" means. Does it relate to the parthenogenesis of Eve? You know, the whole rib thing?

b@rtleby

thanks for the responses,
the forum i'm on has been shut down over the weekend but its up and running again now so i'll have another go, failing that i'll invite him to this lions den...
bb