I think it might be fairly simple to cut down the # of words.
On thermodynamics you could cut it down to
Quote:
|
When creationists claim that evolution violates the 2nd Law, they overlook the fact that organisms are not closed energy systems. There is nothing in thermodynamics that precludes increasing degrees of order or complexity in open systems. As such, evolution does not violate the 2nd Law. This is an entirely uncontroversial view in the scientific community.
|
On the atmosphere you could cut it down to
Quote:
|
Mr. xxxx apparent claim that life couldn't have developed in a non oxygen rich enviroment is simply wrong. We know that the atmosphere was not always oxygen-rich, and we also know that earliest life forms were anaerobic (many still are). This poses no problem for evolution.
|
The helium argument could be reduced to
Quote:
|
Mr xxxx claims that there is to much helium in the atmosphere. In fact, the rate at which helium escapes has been calculated to be nearly identical to the rate of production.
|
Quote:
his comments on neutrios are puzzling. Neutrinos are a byproduct of fusion reactions that keep the sun burning and are constantly streaming to Earth from the sun.
Fewer neutrinos were found than expect and creationists claimed this as a victory saying there was to little fusion for billions of years.
This problem has been recently solved, and the solution supports the standard solar model (as well as an ancient age for the sun).
|
Quote:
|
The salt in the ocean argument rests on the false assumption that the rates are constant. By this logic, the same argument applied to alluminum would show the earth to be less than 100 years.
|
Quote:
|
Creationists give the false impression that biologists question evolution by quoteing them out of context. The so called creation scientists sign away their credability on a strict statement of faith. The bible must be true. Regardless of evidence.
|
On the lady hope story you could say.
Quote:
|
"Darwin's recanting of evolution is a myth debunked years ago by his daughter and not even Answers in Genesis, a YEC group, uses it."
|
Unless I missed something when pasteing this in word (what, I should count the words anually?
) this reduces it to 303 words.
It boils down to
[B]
Quote:
When creationists claim that evolution violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, they overlook the fact that organisms are not closed energy systems. There is nothing in thermodynamics that precludes increasing degrees of order or complexity in open systems. As such, evolution does not violate the 2nd Law. This is an entirely uncontroversial view in the scientific community.
Mr. xxxx apparent claim that life couldn't have developed in a non oxygen rich enviroment is simply wrong. We know that the atmosphere was not always oxygen-rich, and we also know that earliest life forms were anaerobic (many still are). This poses no problem for evolution.
Mr xxxx claims that there is to much helium in the atmosphere. In fact, the rate at
which helium escapes has been calculated to be nearly identical to the rate of production.
His comments on neutrios are puzzling. Neutrinos are a byproduct of fusion reactions that keep the sun burning and are constantly streaming to Earth from the sun.
Fewer neutrinos were found than expected and creationists claimed this as a victory saying there was to little fusion for billions of years.
This problem has been recently solved, and the solution supports the standard solar model (as well as an ancient age for the sun).
The salt in the ocean argument rests on the false assumption that the rates are constant. By this logic, the same argument applied to alluminum would show the earth to be less than 100 years.
Creationists give the false impression that biologists question evolution by quoteing them out of context.
The so called creation scientists sign away their credability on a strict statement of faith. The bible must be true. Regardless of evidence.
"Darwin's recanting of evolution is a myth debunked years ago by his daughter and even Answers in Genesis, a YEC group, rejects it."
|
Hope that helps.
07-05-2002, 06:14 PM
