Why Evolution Is Wrong

[Mr Skinner]

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons
The fact of the matter is that over time things break down and decay. If the universe were truly billions of years old, there wouldn't be any usable energy left

If you knew anything about physics, you'd know that energy doesn't decay. it merely changes form. There's ALWAYS the same amount of energy in the universe, whether it's static, electrical, heat, etc.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally posted by Mr Skinner
If you knew anything about physics, you'd know that energy doesn't decay. it merely changes form. There's ALWAYS the same amount of energy in the universe, whether it's static, electrical, heat, etc.

Well, here's the problem... I DIDN'T say it decayed. I said that it becomes unusable. Entropy is defined as the amount of energy unable to be converted into work (this energy is still there, but it's unusable). In the second law of thermodynamics, over time, entropy ALWAYS increases (ie, the amount of UNUSABLE energy increaces). Entropy doesn't sometimes increase, it always increases, and if the universe were truly as old as evolutionists claim it to be, there'd be so much entropy that the universe would simply be a chaotic mess without any organization to it at all. But wait a minute, how can that be when evolution teaches that over billions and billions of years the universe has evolved from DISORDER to order. Don't even try the "There's different forms or ideas of how we evolved" excuse. In every form of evolution you have to go from less organized to more organized (ex. rocks to people, meaningless matter floating around in space becoming stars, planets, etc.).

[Little Wing]

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons
Well well well, first off, I want to make a note to hatebreeder. this thread isn't a debate on Christianity. It's a debate on evolution. Secondly, all that stuff you mentioned was done by the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH so why don't you try getting your facts straight before assuming that Catholicism and Christianity are the same thing. If you would have done some actual research you would find out that the Catholic church did the SAME THINGS to CHRISTIANS. If you don't believe me, try reading Foxe's Book of Martyrs.

And to further elaborate on my initial arguments...

1. The second law of thermodynamics is a proven scientific fact. There has never, in ANY instance been an observed case where something has gone against this law. It's not just merely a theory as some of you would probably like to think. And someone please try to explain to me how life is the offset to entropy when we're all dying from the time we're born? The fact of the matter is that over time things break down and decay. If the universe were truly billions of years old, there wouldn't be any usable energy left and it would be just a chaotic mass of matter with no real organization.

2. The earth's magnetic field is decaying. A study by Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, Professor of Physics at the University of Texas in El Paso has pointed out that the strength of the magnetic field has been measured carefully for 135 years (sorry about the mix-up on the date), and also has shown, through analytical and statistical studies, that it has been decaying exponentially during that period with a most-probable half-life of 1,400 years. Dr. Barnes shows beyond reasonable question that the only possible source for the earth's magnet must be free circulating electric currents in the earth's iron core. Electric currents, however, must flow against resistance, and such resistance generates heat, which is then dissipated through the surrounding medium and lost. Such currents must gradually decay because of this heat loss and this, in turn, accounts for the decay of its induced magnetic field.

These are things that remain constant over time, and a large majority of scientists agree with the half-life of the magnetic field given by Dr. Barnes.

Now, if by cro-magnum man, you mean neanderthal man, it has been pretty conclusivly shown that these were people. Not half-ape/half-man creatures. From studies done on their bones it's been showed that they suffered from a disease similar to arthritis, or rickets. Dobzhansky has noted: "The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Homo sapiens was, on the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man. Cranial capacity and brain size are, however, not reliable criteria of 'intelligence' or intellectual abilities of any kind." According to science Digest, Vol. 69 "Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets. The diet of Neanderthal man was definately lacking in Vitamine D during the 35,000 years he spent on earth." and those are from SECULAR scientists.

If you're referring to the earlier fossils found from groups such as: Java man, Peking Man, Heidelberg Man, and Meganthropus, these fossils consisted mainly of jaw fragments and a few teeth. Tell me, how can you conclusively put together an entire fossil, call it a missing link, and claim that it's evidence for evolution from a piece of a jaw bone, and some teeth? And to top it off, these teeth are found in certain mountainous babboons which are alive today.

That's it for now. Don't worry, I have PLEANTY more where this came from.

Woah, you are so wrong about the magnetic field.
We know the strengths of Earth's magentic field for the last 5 million years. Lava containing any iron that cools into rock saves a reading of the earths magnetic field in the year it cooled. All the domains reform as it cools, and record the direction and strength of the magnetic field. Same with pottery....

Earth's magnetic field weakens every couple hundred thousand years, when it becomes weakest it reverses direction. The north pole switches to the south pole. This has happened many times in Earth's history. Earth is actually about 600,000 years overdo for a polarity swop.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally posted by Little Wing
Woah, you are so wrong about the magnetic field.
We know the strengths of Earth's magentic field for the last 5 million years. Lava containing any iron that cools into rock saves a reading of the earths magnetic field in the year it cooled. All the domains reform as it cools, and record the direction and strength of the magnetic field. Same with pottery....

Earth's magnetic field weakens every couple hundred thousand years, when it becomes weakest it reverses direction. The north pole switches to the south pole. This has happened many times in Earth's history. Earth is actually about 600,000 years overdo for a polarity swop.

Really, so people were around hundreds and thousands to millions of years ago measuring the earth's magnetic field?

And your wrong about the lava thing. Magnets are not formed by rocks containing iron... magnets are caused by electical currents. Now, I'm no expert on magnetics, but I'm pretty sure a man having a PhD in Physics might know a thing or two about 'em.

[Little Wing]

If you know anything about iron, you would know that as it solidifies the molecules form into domains. These domains arrange themselves according to the magnetic field they are in as being formed. So as lava cooled 5 million years ago iron domains formed, and recorded in a sence the strength and direction of Earth's magnetic field.

So it is obvious the magnetic field is reversed when the domains are charged toward the South pole....

The whole theory about the magnetic field switching directions was concocted and is now supported by MANY PhD's in Physics and Geology...

[IGotTheCottons]

just because some rocks with iron in them got turned upside down doesn't mean that there was a pole switch. and also, which way does the iron go? there's poles on both ends so wouldn't that spread the iron out throughout the rock? oh, and how can you tell which iron was charged positivly and which was charged negativly as the rocks were cooling? and couldn't it be a possibility that the charge of the iron in the rocks could have changed over time (which is possible).

and finally, how can you determine just how old the rocks are when it's proven fact that uranium-lead, potassium-argon, and carbon14-carbon12 dating are all vastly inaccurate? especially seeing as how they've dated living snails to be 27,000 years old. the reliability of these dating techniques is based on assumptions, one of which being that the decay rate of these elements is constant in the environment, which is proven that they are not (if you want I'll give the backing for this). so you see, the last pole switch could have been a thousand years ago for all you know.

EDIT: and also... what are your responses to my other points? does anyone here have enough proof for their religion (i'm talking about evolution by the way) to defend it?

there's a guy with a standing offer. if anyone can give him any legitimate scientific proof for macro evolution, he will give them $10,000 on the spot. he was a former science teacher, and has debated the top evolutionists on this planet. so far no one has been able to give him any real proof. all the "scientific evidence" for evolution is a bunch of crap, and has no backing. all it is is a bunch of circular reasoning (ie, fossils are dated by the rock layers they're in, and the rock layers are dated by the fossils they contain).

[Little Wing]

If you actually did some research on the topic of the earth's decaying magnetic field, you would find that the current scientific community has agreed on the reversing magnetic field.

[Little Wing]

http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin...reversals.html

Theres a couple links I found in about 2 seconds off of google. There were 32,000 search results on reversing magnetic field...

[IGotTheCottons]

I do have a good question. How does a pole switch keep the magnetic field from decaying? Just because it changes sides doesn't mean that it's not deteriorating. That first site (haven't gotten to the second one yet) actually does more to prove my point than yours.

Here are a few examples:

"According to generally accepted theory -- the dynamo theory -- interactions between the churning, twisting flow of molten material in the outer core and the magnetic field generate electrical current that, in turn, creates new magnetic energy that sustains the field. 'The typical lifetime of a magnetic field like Earth's,' says Glatzmaier, 'is several tens of thousands of years. The fact that it's existed for billions of years means something must be regenerating it all the time.'"

The part I want to point out is where it says "The typical lifetime of a magnetic field like Earth's is several tens of thousands of years. The fact that it's existed for billions of years means someting must be regenerating it all the time."

Here is where the problem lies. They assume the earth is billions of years old, and in doing this, must assume that there's something maintaining the magnetic field because otherwise we'd all be dead right now and the earth would be barren. They have to fit the facts to their theory instead of making their theory fit the facts. No where on that site was given hard scientific evidence that can explain why the earth's magnetic field has lasted for billions of years. Also, it's been observed that the earth's magnetic field IS decaying, not just simply reversing the polarity. Pole reverses don't make the field stronger.

Next:

"For that matter, why is it that instead of quietly fading away, as magnetic fields do when left to their own devices, Earth's magnetic field is still going strong after billions of years?"

Well, how is the earth different from any other planet? If evolution is true, and all the inner planets were formed by the same process, why is it that our planet has something special that none of the other planets has that causes our magnetic field to keep itself sustained over billions of years?

And by the way, when's anyone going to try to explain to me why evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics? And also, can someone please explain to me how we get full fossils out of a jawbone and some teeth, and call it evidence that people evolved from an ape-like ancestor?

I remember someone mentioning that evolution happened by mutations. Can someone please give me one example of a beneficial genetic mutation? I'd really like to see it, because good genetic mutations have never been observed to happen. The only genetic mutations that have been observed have all hurt the organism, either causing it to die, or to not beable to reproduce and pass that mutation on to its offspring.

Those of you who were quite articulate in the "Why the Bible is wrong" thread sure don't seem to have much to say in defense of your own religion... And yes, evolution is a religion. It takes faith to believe that everything we have here today evolved out of literally nothing. It actually takes more faith to believe that something came out of nothing, then over billions of years went against known scientific laws and evolved in to a more complex, more organized system, and then life came from non-life, and moved its way up to higher forms of complexity (which has NEVER been observed to happen, and is statistically impossible) into what we now call human beings, than to believe simply that God created it. Either way you have to believe in something that's eternal (matter, or God), so don't go with the "who created God?" excuse. Either your matter was eternal, or God was eternal. Either way... something had to have been eternal. Unless you go with the branch of evolution that says matter just appeared one day.

That's all for now. I'd be interested to see some of your responses explaining some of the problems with evolution I've discussed. And don't worry. I have PLEANTY more where all this came from.

[Little Wing]

Cottons, if you were actually interested in the earth's magnetic field and did some REAL not creationist-biased research on it you would learn what I have been trying to explain to you. Earths magnetic field fluctuates in power. The magnetic field weakens greatly before it flips polarity...

The magnetic field is NOT decaying, it is fluctuating.

As for the second law of thermodynamics, I posted a good explanation you must have missed...



Cottons, I find it very surprising you are trying to disprove evolution with other scientific theories... They dont mix. You are told by a book to have complete faith in everything it says and you do. Scientific process requires you to never believe what your told, but to question current thoeries, and conduct experiments to prove or disprove theories.... Now as you might imagen, it is very frustrating to argue against someone who believes in some god up there that can do whatever the fuck he wants. That makes it easy as hell for you to explain things.

People that try to explain things through scientific theory go to great lengths to explain each practicallity of the theory. So when great effort is spent trying to explain a theory and it is responded with a "god waves his hand and earth was created" answer, it feels like you have been trying to explain something to a rock wall...

Why dont you think for yourself? Religion is the largest brainwashed cult out there.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally posted by Little Wing
Cottons, if you were actually interested in the earth's magnetic field and did some REAL not creationist-biased research on it you would learn what I have been trying to explain to you. Earths magnetic field fluctuates in power. The magnetic field weakens greatly before it flips polarity...

The magnetic field is NOT decaying, it is fluctuating.

As for the second law of thermodynamics, I posted a good explanation you must have missed...



Cottons, I find it very surprising you are trying to disprove evolution with other scientific theories... They dont mix. You are told by a book to have complete faith in everything it says and you do. Scientific process requires you to never believe what your told, but to question current thoeries, and conduct experiments to prove or disprove theories.... Now as you might imagen, it is very frustrating to argue against someone who believes in some god up there that can do whatever the fuck he wants. That makes it easy as hell for you to explain things.

People that try to explain things through scientific theory go to great lengths to explain each practicallity of the theory. So when great effort is spent trying to explain a theory and it is responded with a "god waves his hand and earth was created" answer, it feels like you have been trying to explain something to a rock wall...

Why dont you think for yourself? Religion is the largest brainwashed cult out there.

That's funny. I feel the same way when I present facts of science (not the magnetic field thing, but the thermodynamics thing) and you still try to deny them. I believe you said that life might be the offset to entropy. If it wasn't you I apoligize, but that doesn't mean a thing. If all that was required to offset entropy was additional energy, then entropy would be reversed by the sun (which it isn't, I can go into more detail about this if you'd like). The simple FACT of the matter is that the second law of thermodynamics has NEVER once been observed to have been broken (which evolution would require). You also didn't answer my question about the ape-men, and why there's trees found transcending multiple layers of rocks that are supposedly millions of years old a piece. That would be physically impossible.

Now, getting back to the magnetic field... if even by the theory you accept regarding the earth's magnetic field, the field is caused by electric current which is caused by convection. It is well known fact that the earth is cooling down, and thus it's magnetic field is decaying. Any way you slice it the earth's magnetic field is decaying!

Even the site you gave me to look at said that the field would be gone in several tens of thousands of years, and that because they assume the earth is billions of years old, there must be something keeping it going that we can't find out what it is. So you tell me, based on the fact that even that theory says the magnetic field would decay after tens of thousands of years (not billions), and that they're absolutely NO evidence at all that supports an earth that's billions of years old, tell me, how is it that you still believe the earth is billions of years old?

So actually, if YOU would open YOUR eyes and look at the actual SCIENTIFIC facts, you'd realize that you're evolution-biased just as much as you think I'm creation-biased.

There's also a problem with this seeing as how I was a former evolutionist. I got the facts and based my beliefs on those facts. I didn't take the facts and distort them to fit my beliefs. I came into it being more evolution-sided than creation-sided, but kept an OPEN mind.

[Little Wing]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

This link is of a website where someone thoroughly debunks the theory that because of Earth's decaying magnetic field the world is only 10,000 years old... Please read it. I'll be happy to read some of your sources.

[IGotTheCottons]

I've been to that site before... I want to point out a couple things from that site that actually prove my point (that the field IS decaying).

"Nobody knows, yet, by exactly what mechanism specific fluid motions generate the Earth's specific magnetic field, but the presence of turbulent motions in the Earth's fluid outer core can hardly be denied, and physical models do show that the expected velocities will, in general, generate magnetic fields."

It says here that the magnetic field's are created by fluid motions on the inside of the earth, more probably the fluid outer core. Now, as the earth cools (which it has been doing from the start), this motion (convection) will slow down (which it is), and because this motion is slowing down, the magnetic field is gradually decaying.

I also see that the sole purpose of this site is to make note that the earth's magnetic field isn't caused by free flowing electric currents in the core, but rather through fluid motion. In each case, the earth's magnetic field is decaying.

http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html says it this way:

"Roughly speaking, Earth is like a chocolate-covered cherry -- layered, with liquid beneath the surface and a solid inner core. Beneath the planet's relatively thin crust is a thick, solid layer called the mantle. Between the mantle and the inner core is a fluid layer, the outer core. According to generally accepted theory -- the dynamo theory -- interactions between the churning, twisting flow of molten material in the outer core and the magnetic field generate electrical current that, in turn, creates new magnetic energy that sustains the field. "The typical lifetime of a magnetic field like Earth's," says Glatzmaier, "is several tens of thousands of years."

They say that the friction between the outer-core and the mantle generates the electricity, and that "the typical lifetime of a magnetic field like Earth's is several tens of thousands of years." That's LIFETIME not pole switch. So either way you look at it, the earth is not billions of years old.

[Little Wing]

The earth's magnetic field will not start to decay due to cooling for another billion years or so.

But how can you disprove the recordings of the earth's magnetic field in ancient pottery, and in ancient lava flows? The domains are magnetized in different directions depending on the year... They also tell us exactly the power of magnetic fields.

Plus if you are trying to say that the rate of decay of the magnetic field proves that earth is only 10,000 years old. What about the fact that we can tell due to the rate of decay of carbon 14 that objects people made are older then 10,000 years?

Also, when the hell do you think the dinasaurs lived on earth? 6,000 years ago?