2007-01-27 02:26:56 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
how about the first and second laws of thermodynamics. that invalidates the entire concept of evolution right there.
2007-01-27 03:38:14 · answer #1 · answered by lordaviii 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
>"in accordance to evolution some thing like that must have not lengthy gone extinct so how does evolution clarify its extinction?" yet that is merely no longer authentic. there are various many causes a species can bypass extinct. Epidemic, climate change, the extinction of a first food source, a drop contained in the oxygen levels contained in the oceans (tremendous animals want various oxygen), and so on. If merely being a huge widely used predator become sufficient to make particular that some thing can't bypass extinct, then lets nonetheless be plagued with T. rexes. >"when I took Chemistry we were taught that a theory is in many cases larger in technology than a regulation ..." authentic. >"... because that's been shown previous any contradiction that won't be able to be accounted for by technique of experimental blunders." no longer authentic. that isn't any longer the reason a theory is "larger" than a regulation. A theory is "larger" than a regulation (extra respected) because a theory *EXPLAINS* phenomena, at the same time as a regulation merely *DESCRIBES* phenomena. It has no longer some thing to do with even if that's been "shown." You coach issues in Math, no longer in technology. that is because Math proves issues depending on common sense on my own, at the same time as technology is depending on *observations.*. Even "data" and "regulations" aren't any further "shown" to be authentic, they are *talked about* to be authentic. A counter-remark might want to ruin a 'actuality' or 'regulation' merely as instantly because it would want to ruin a theory. >"Evolution is extra like a hypothesis than a theory." on condition that you're predisposed to push aside the evidence for evolution that sort the concept for WHY biologists universally call evolution an finished-fledged theory, and not in any respect only a hypothesis. In different words, merely putting ahead evolution to be a hypothesis on your opinion, does no longer change the incontrovertible actuality that exceptionally a lot all biologists disagree with you.
2016-12-03 02:51:50 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not even one-do you think the creationists can get their heads round that? They cling to a belief system that hasn't put forward even one single valid challenge to evolution. How sad does that make them? They're reduced to using rhetoric and ad hominem attacks on science but can make no valid challenges to biological evolution.
2007-01-27 02:32:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I have been studying this issue over the past several years. I have found a website that sums up well a valid arguements as to the flaws found in evolution. Please check out this website.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml
2007-01-27 02:55:46 · answer #4 · answered by a.d.sanderson@sbcglobal.net 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One thing i've always thought is the second law of thermodynamics: The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
That means that left alone any system will go in a max disorder state. Planets, continents, mountains are levels of organization in the matter, the opposite of the disorder. Live, the most complex organized form of matter, could not just grow by itself without the help of something from outside.
2007-01-27 02:36:05 · answer #5 · answered by awoinar 1 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Nearly every "finding" has been "found to be false" in it's origin. The Evolutionaries are in too big of a hurry to check anything out and they jump on every wagon that is moving no matter it's direction. At least the early American settlers would check the direction prior to getting a ride WeSt. The HOLES in the THEORY outweigh the Theory itself at this time.
2007-01-27 02:33:40 · answer #6 · answered by Eds 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Not a single one.
Oh there are plenty of contradictions but all of them are based on myth and superstition. Not one of them is valid or based in reality.
2007-01-27 02:30:06 · answer #7 · answered by Yoda Greene 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
YES: you cannot create life from non-living substances. This cannot be recreated in the lab, therefore evolution, as most preach and teach it today, cannot be completely true.
While there are reports that certain proteins can be created in the lab, these are not the proteins of life.
I'm astounded that so many evolutionists conveniently overlook this simple, but profound, truth.
2007-01-27 02:36:54 · answer #8 · answered by Suzanne: YPA 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
How 'bout Information Theory?
2007-01-27 02:36:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
why the existing monkies , for example,have not evolved into human being
2007-01-27 02:36:38 · answer #10 · answered by muhammad elian 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋