Fellbeast

Yes it is true that the seconed law is aplicable to heat but no where does it say that is all. have any of u read the article on fox about how people have supposedly found that common fish ancestor?

How many of you know what ENTROPY is? If not here is the definition Entropy-A measure of the disorder that exists in any system. How does this apply to there theory of evolution? Well you first have to look at the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What is this law? Well here it is The Second Law of Thermodynamics- The entropy of the universe MUST allways stay the same or increase. It can never decrease. How is this applicable to evolution? Well, if an advanced species(which is highly ordered) did evolve from a simple species(which is less ordered), then that organism would have, indeed, experienced a decrease in entropy. To make this consistent with the seconed law of thermodyanmics, then the organisms surroundings would have had to become more disordered so that the decrease in entropy of the organism could be offset. This is the only way evolution can be consistent with the seconed law of thermodyanmics.

Thus suppose a single-celled creature where to evolve into a cell that would cooperate with other cells. Evolutionists will tell you that this can happen if the cell's DNA were to undergo a mutation that would make the DNA a little more advanced. The problem is that the very instant that DNA mutated and became more ordered, there would have to be a corisponding increase in entropyin the organisms surroundings so the the total entropy of the universe would still increase or stay the same. No scientist can come up with a single idea of as to how that can happen. As far as anyone can tell, mutating DNA does not significantly increase the entropy of the surroundings.

So you see that the seconed law of thermodynamics doesnt really disprove evolution, but it does put some pretty strong conditions on it. The seconed saws that if evolution where to occure, then each step of that evolution must be accopanied by an immediate increase in the entropy of the surroundings. If anyone ever comes up with a mechanism by which this might happen, evolution could at least be made consistent with the seconed law of thermodynamics. Currently no one can come up with even a vague notion as how to this might happen. As a result, the current theories of evolutionare not consisten with the seconed law. this does not meen that the seconed law disproves these theories, however. It just meen that no one has come up with a proper mechanism for which this can happen. my personal opinion is that there is no such one.

Azure Phoenix, If evolution where true then there shouldnt be shell fish found in all rock layers(becouse they all are the same)

Cap'n Refsmmat the first paragraph in your carbon dating article says that SOMETIMES carbon dating is wrong and that if younger C-12 and older C-12 are mixed it couses the readings to be inacurate. tree ring dating is also faulty( becouse of the way tree rings are made)

This is from Darwins Black Box The Bio Chemical Challenge to Evolution :Behe has identified a number of biochemical systems that he says are 'irreducibly complex'. An irreducibly complex system is one made of well matched interacting parts that all contribute to the basic function. Take any one of them away, and the whole system stops working. A mouse-trap is an example of an irreducibly complex system - if you take any single part away, the trap does not work, and the mouse escapes. Behe says that such irreducibly complex biochemical systems could not be formed by a series of small changes, because the intermediate systems would not work.

Check this website out http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html#model

as to ur comment on the homosapien skull is it not a possiblility that it is a new species rather than an ansester?? i think also that most primate look a like well wouldnt that meen that chips will eventually "Evolve" into humans if Evolution is true or rather whose to say that we arent the "lower" race and chips are more Evolved than us?? plus they have only found a SKULL a body cannot be constructed from simply finding a skull or fragments of one. there is how ever more evidence supporting the bible and God than there is evolution. as to the comment about God "guiding" evolution i dont think so becouse its still to random for a God

Yes and i suppose you read carefully the first paragraph talking about carbon dating

Precisly Theory are not proven compleatly the supposedly have enough evidnce for "evolution" i would recomend reading the book Darwins Black box!!! if u have not read it it explains that something as "simple" as blood clotting is not explainable with evolution. Darwin took what is called an incorrect Extrapolation which is ment to only take small guesses.

Do you have any idea how much energy goes into keeping the sun hot? that allone should give u an idea of why the earth and sun cannt be millions of years old!!

Carbon dating is accurate up to a certain time. do you even know how carbon dating works?

Shells have been found in all rock layers (if evolution where true then there shouldnt be). there has never been any real physical evidence for evolution

Scientist have not been able to succesfully create the protiens needed for DNA admitadly this does not prove that evolution is not true. there are 200 proteins in the DNA they are all different

i belive also Evolution says that there was a big bang. how would this be so in the vacuum of space??? out side of galexies there is NOTHING so how would there even be able to be a big bang??

Firstly evolution is a THEORY, seconedly mutations are either bad or neutral, thiredly there is no fossil recoreds to support evolution( sea shells have been found in all rock layers, thius would not be so if evolution where true), fourthly the earth sun and such are not able to be old enough to support evolution, fifthly carbon dating is not accurate

First off there are too many holes in the Evolution THEORY, seconedly mutations are either bad or are neutral, thirdly the earth is not able to be old enough to support evolution nor is the sun

Has anyone seen this movie? the whole movie is about what would happen if the earths magnetic field stopped what would happen

I belive in your theory about light behaving as a particle and wave but ( and my knowledge is mostly from high school chem.) my theory is that E=mc2 is correct but i think that in some form we r just pure energy to an extent i cant remember what i was originally thinking ( not many people where i live enjoy this) but that was the generality of it

Hmm.... not to get into a debate... but here are MY hypothesis... feel free to dis it all you want... (A professor actually laughed at me when I said this...)

 

 

1.

Ok' date=' first off.... there is no such thing as speed

E=mc^2

 

that could mean either Mass * meter/second squared (acceleration) or Mass * meter^2/second (velocity squared)

 

*hang with me, this is long and silly*

 

Mass itself is the only constant in the universe... Time, Light, existance... all of that is relative. The REASON (I thinks) that mass 'appears' to become greater at higher speeds is because it is experiancing the effects of 'Time' in a greater degree.

 

IE. An object traveling at the speed of light doesn't become an infinate mass, but rather its mass experiences an infinate amount of time... to the outside observer there would be little difference

 

2.

Secondly...

Light, quite debated, could be either a wave or a particle.... my theory is that it actually is both and that waves and particles are not separate, but on the same spectrum... one being negative values and one being positive values (values of what I don't know) where Light intersects at exactly 0 *or 1, not sure*

 

IE. Once a mass exceeds the speed of light, its no longer comprised of particles, but rather of waves

 

3.

Light is nothing special

Using the speed of light as a goal if hardly a worthy endeavor. Its just another value, there IS nothing special about it... the universe does not depend on the fact that light is always 3x10^8 (or something) m/s and would not come crumbling down if prooven otherwise. Particles travel in relative motion. 2 objects at rest, though appearing to have no velocity, actually could be travelling several thousand m/s. Waves, on the otherhand, I think they do not exist relatively, but absolutely to some universal 0-point. The problem with current theory is they are dealing with Particle light, which APPEARS to travel at a constant velocity

 

IE. Waveform light may have an incredibly higher 'velocity'

 

In summary, since I got a little sidetracked... my Hypothesis is that Mass itself cannot exceed a certain ACCELERATION (velocity is moot). Then it does it becomes light and eventually a wave. While instantaneous to the object, from an outside view this process would appear infininate (effect of time on the object)

 

If I am right... I wonder what a Carbon-Wave would look like... it would appear as a form of radiation as far as we can comprehend

 

Posibilities:

The Tacion particle, the only known object to move faster than light... I think it is actually a Wave, with similar properties to light. What it is a wave of I don't know

 

Impossibilities:

Hey, I was sleeping when I thought this up... its probably screwy out the ying-yang[/quote']