Viewing Thread:
"More evolution flaws"

To all those who insist in following the Cult that is "evolution" here are yet more of the infinite flaws in the fairy tale. This is the side the evolutionist scientists of course don't tell you.

I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.

Doughboy writes the following from

http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm

Hi there!

I am very happy to receive your mail.

I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.

1. the laws of nature

The First Law of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.

The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.

This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.

For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.

This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.



One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.

Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.

Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.

the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).

Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.

I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!

If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.

Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*

This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.

I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)

Sincerely,

The Doughboy


DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.

Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> OR [URL]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3851.asp[/URL]
>
> Can you not just post the link in the first place?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?

And further, the problem I've got with these articles you are posting is that they all sound like a shopping channel extended advert for god.

A happy smiling wholesome american host, pearly white teeth almost singing, "Just thank the Lord you haven't got a 'hospital infection'. Some of the pills now made for fighting hospital superinfections cost $90 each!"

"Just turn to the good lord and everything will be a-ok"

Its really hard to take them seriously. (Oh, the science is bulls'''' too)

Forest Fan wrote:
> OR [URL]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3851.asp[/URL]

Can you not just post the link in the first place?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?

FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> On an even smaller scale, viruses evolve very quickly to cope with the
> vaccines used to wipe them out.
> As such, new vaccines have to be invented all the time to
> counter-attack the viruses adaption to the old vaccine, which no
> longer works to kill the virus.
>
> In other words, the virus has evolved an immunity against the
> vaccine.

I have answered this point which is contained in the article.

Tallan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Tallan wrote:
> I can give a real life example of evolution in action if you want,
> forestfan.
>
> Which would be, Tallan?
>
> In brief, humans made a chemical called DDT. It was an extremley
> successful pesticide and so was used widespread worldwide to kill
> bugs that devistated crops. Unfortunately, some of the bugs were
> naturally immune to the chemical. This was only a very small
> percentage that were immune, but none the less when its siblings died
> out, only the immune bugs were left. These quickly multiplied to
> create the so called superbugs. These bugs are immune to DDT and so
> this chemical is useless now and has been banned.
>
> This is evolution in progress on a single species of bug. Undeniable
> proof of evolution. Only the members of that bugs species that had
> 'mutated' to be resistant survived to breed, so all future
> generations are immune. 'The best adapted survive, the species has
> evolved'.
>
> Your thoughts on this, please.

My thoughts are it does not prove evoultion as this article will prove;



Super Germs! Do They Prove Evolution?

Lurking in even our finest hospitals is an unwelcome visitor — the supergerm. Doctors have exposed it to every available antibiotic, but it merrily goes on growing.

Next time you are shocked by the high cost of a medical prescription, don't complain. Just thank the Lord you haven't got a 'hospital infection'. Some of the pills now made for fighting hospital superinfections cost $90 each!


------------------------------------------
What is a superinfection?
A superinfection comes from a type of germ that occurs in hospitals (I venture to say only in hospitals) which is a real survivor type. It has been exposed to every available kind of antibiotic, yet it merrily goes on growing.

The formation of supergerms comes about in this way: When penicillin was first introduced, it really knocked out germs. But after a few years doctors noticed they had to use higher and higher doses, and soon infections were found that didn't respond at all.

The pharmaceutical industry was equal to the challenge, and a world-wide hunt for new antibiotics was on. One potent type was found in a fungus growing in the ground near a Venezuelan airfield (just to give you an idea of how intense the search was).

WHEN A PATIENT IS INFECTED
But what causes supergerms is this. When a patient is infected by a billion germs, and penicillin is given, all but a dozen or so will be killed. But the dozen that remain are all resistant to penicillin, and so are a proportion of their descendants. Since many germs can double their numbers every hour, a great deal depends on the natural strength of the patient. If his own immune system is strong enough to wipe out the remaining dozen before they turn into a billion again — which conceivably could take less than a day — the patient will recover. If there is no sign of recovery, the doctor will switch antibiotics. The new one, once again, may wipe out all but a dozen, and so the cycle repeats.

Of course the paragraph above is oversimplified, but if I were to tell you the whole story, you probably wouldn't take time to read it. But the question remains: does the existence of supergerms prove evolution? Were the Darwinists right when they said that the engine of evolution is 'the survival of the fittest'?

Perhaps it will be easier to understand if we leave germs, with which most of us are unfamiliar, and look at larger organisms. Let's take grasshoppers. They are a terrible threat to America's grain belt. DDT used to work havoc on them. If a billion were infesting a particular field, DDT would wipe out all but a dozen Now grasshoppers don't multiply like bacteria. They lay their eggs in the autumn, and after a good dusting with DDT there would be so few grasshoppers left alive that the males and females would have trouble finding each other.

However, if they do find each other, most, or a proportion, of their descendants will be resistant to DDT. And so the farmer must go to a more potent poison, and then another, and another, and another.

Are these superbugs? Is this 'survival of the fittest'? Well, let's move on to an animal we are even more familiar with. This process of so-called 'microevolution' can occur in any creature. Take, for instance, cattle. How does 'survival of the fittest' apply to cattle?

SELECTED BY MAN
In the wilderness, wild cattle are 'naturally selected' by their enemies for qualities such as speed, the herd instinct, fighting instinct, strength, length and shape of horns, and so forth. But the wilderness isn't the only place where cattle are selected. These days, they are mostly selected by man, and they are selected under entirely different criteria.

One of the best adapted wild cattle, for instance, was the Texas longhorn. Lean, tough, rangy, fast and armed with 30-inch (75 cm) spikes on each side of its head, the Texas longhorn survived well for centuries. Today, they would be extinct if they weren't raised especially for rodeos. Today, what kills cattle is not wolf packs, drought and prairie fires — but man!

And which cattle do the farmers kill?

'There's the records I keep', a big-time beef rancher told me. 'When we have what's called an open cow — one which isn't carrying a calf even though she's been left in with the bull — she goes to the meat-packer. We won't keep them around for the pleasure of their company, and we aren't going to feed them if they don't pull their weight.'

COWS ARE STILL COWS
'Those are my milk-production graphs', another farmer said. 'We can only milk about 60 cows, so every year those on the bottom end of the graph get turned into hamburger.' Today, cattle are bred for milk production, beef production and calf production. Those that don't measure up are killed. As only the 'best' cattle are then left, can we say this is an example of evolution?

No, because the genes for milk production, beef production and calf production were already there in the original cattle. They are still cows, and if you were to break down all the fences in the United States and let all the cattle of all the different breeds mate indiscriminately, in 10 years all cattle would be scrub mongrels again. They would revert to their ancestral type, and be indifferent producers of milk, beef and calves.

It is only by the most laborious sort of human effort that cattle genes have been sorted out and concentrated for milk, beef and calf production; but if the whole country were to revert to a wilderness, say after an atomic war, those three items would not necessarily help the species survive. In fact, a cow that put too much energy into milk production would be more likely to die than a scrub cow. A cow with the stocky, beef-laden build of a Hereford would not be as able to escape from predators. A cow that was always pregnant would not have the energy to survive, because she wouldn't have the farmer throwing a load of alfalfa over the fence every day.

The same is true of 'super' grasshoppers, and also of 'super' germs.

HOW TO STAMP OUT 'SUPERBUGS'
By the application of insecticides, we produce 'superbugs'. But they are only super in that one respect. If the entire nation were to return to organic farming, these superbugs would die out. They wouldn't be able to compete. They can only compete where insecticides have cleared away competing bugs and killed off birds and other natural predators.

(Did you hear of the great US grasshopper and cricket plagues of the 1880s? They didn't occur until after our forefathers foolishly wiped out the passenger pigeon — birds which existed in flocks so huge that one flock was reported to have taken three days to fly over.) Superbugs can't flourish except where farmers practise monocropping, thus providing them with ideal conditions for growth.

Without insecticides, these so-called 'superbugs' would be competing with crickets, beetles, cicadas, locusts, and many other insects; and in a few generations they would be no more.

Likewise, you contract a hospital infection only in a hospital. The hospitals are spraying disinfectants on every available surface to kill off their so-called supergerms, and, most importantly, dealing with serious clinical infections requiring powerful antibiotics. Maybe they would do better to bring in a few truckloads of dirt off the street every six months, and spread that around and sweep it off! Maybe the hospitals would do even better to do research on inoculating superinfection patients, not with more antibiotics, but with a competing infection that would crowd out the supergerms. (I doubt that this would work, but it's worth exploring, especially when germs that kill by bacteriotoxins are concerned.)

In places that are exposed to dirt from the street — such as your house — the supergerms are kept in their place not by powerful drugs and poisons but by competition with other germs. And their resistance genes are diluted by genes of the susceptible or non-resistant germs of the same species rather than being concentrated by selective breeding. That is why most non-hospital infections respond readily to antibiotics — the drug kills most of the germs, the body takes care of the rest. If it were not so, supergerms would escape from hospitals and sweep the world. So far they haven't.

NO SUPERGERMS WITHOUT MAN
Let us never forget that the term itself is misleading. A supergerm is not really a supergerm; the poor things are so delicate that they can't even exist unless man clears out all the competition.

Supergerms are not supergerms any more than hybrid corn is supercorn — today's hybrids are so delicate that they can't even sprout unless they are planted underground. They can't even grow effectively unless the ground is weeded. They can't even reproduce unless technicians at seed-houses mate them artificially and with great effort.

This is 'super' corn?

Supergerms, in other words, are not an example of evolution, but have been artificially bred by man, just as surely as Hereford cattle and Pomeranian dogs have been artificially bred by man. It was unintentional, but it was still artificial. The important varieties of supergerms, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, have not come about through mutation, nor have any superbugs. Artificial selective breeding by humans is explanation enough — and even then we must remember that the germ still remains a germ. It has not evolved into something more complex.

OR [URL]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3851.asp[/URL]

On an even smaller scale, viruses evolve very quickly to cope with the vaccines used to wipe them out.
As such, new vaccines have to be invented all the time to counter-attack the viruses adaption to the old vaccine, which no longer works to kill the virus.

In other words, the virus has evolved an immunity against the vaccine.

Forest Fan wrote:
> Tallan wrote:
> I can give a real life example of evolution in action if you want,
> forestfan.
>
> Which would be, Tallan?

In brief, humans made a chemical called DDT. It was an extremley successful pesticide and so was used widespread worldwide to kill bugs that devistated crops. Unfortunately, some of the bugs were naturally immune to the chemical. This was only a very small percentage that were immune, but none the less when its siblings died out, only the immune bugs were left. These quickly multiplied to create the so called superbugs. These bugs are immune to DDT and so this chemical is useless now and has been banned.

This is evolution in progress on a single species of bug. Undeniable proof of evolution. Only the members of that bugs species that had 'mutated' to be resistant survived to breed, so all future generations are immune. 'The best adapted survive, the species has evolved'.

Your thoughts on this, please.

Light wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
>
>
> Aye, we're all inbred according to the bible.
>
> Yup. Adam and Eve got booted out of the Garden of Eden and they begat
> Cain and Abel. Abel got Cainified to death, and then Cain lay with
> his wife (I think her name was Sarah but I may be wrong...).
>
> WHOA! Where the hell did she come from?!? Did she just magically
> appear, or is Cain chucking himself up his sister?!?!

Yep, Cain's wife was his sister. The curse of man, was not fully felt until later, so in those days there were no dangerous physical implications with incest, just like when Lot's daughters lay with him when he was drunk to repopulate the Earth.

Forest Fan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Isn't perfect, Evolution is a flawed cult of a theory. The idea we
> all evolved from a single cell is impossible, escepcially as science
> tells us we all have a common ancestor of a man and woman.
>
> Aye, we're all inbred according to the bible.
>
> Yes and science tells us excatly the same thing. And we know how much
> you like to argue with science, don't we?

Not really dear boy; single celled life forms use asexual reproduction, and as that's where all life originated from....



Jesus...this is like watching a kid who's learned that 2+2=4 going up and arguing with nuclear physicists cos that arithmatic is all they need...


Did you ever admit to being about 12, Gump? Or are you still keeping that one to yourself so people will talk to you?

Pandaemonium wrote:

>
> Aye, we're all inbred according to the bible.

Yup. Adam and Eve got booted out of the Garden of Eden and they begat Cain and Abel. Abel got Cainified to death, and then Cain lay with his wife (I think her name was Sarah but I may be wrong...).

WHOA! Where the hell did she come from?!? Did she just magically appear, or is Cain chucking himself up his sister?!?!

Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Isn't perfect, Evolution is a flawed cult of a theory. The idea we
> all evolved from a single cell is impossible, escepcially as science
> tells us we all have a common ancestor of a man and woman.
>
> Aye, we're all inbred according to the bible.

Yes and science tells us excatly the same thing. And we know how much you like to argue with science, don't we?