1. Win a Personalized Grasscity Stoner Kit! Subscribe to our Youtube for a chance to WIN!
    Dismiss Notice

Why Evolution Is Wrong

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by IGotTheCottons, Apr 20, 2004.

  1. Yup, It's me again. Just when ya think you got rid of me, I come back and start another debate :)

    Anywayz, I don't have a lot of time so this is going to be short. I'm just going to give a couple quick arguments against evolution, backed with scientific facts. I might not get a chance to respond to this for a while (depends if I can get back to the library sometime in the next 3 weeks). If I can't get back to the library, you'll just have to wait for me to get home and back on my computer. I don't have time to get too specific, but if you want me to go into this more, I'll be more than happy to when I get home.

    Anywayz, Here goes.

    Reason #1:

    Evolution goes against the second LAW of thermodynamics. Evolution also goes against the second LAW of thermodynamics by saying the universe is moving towards a more complex state. How can this be when everything that's left to itself in a closed system (which, by definition, the universe is) moves towards higher degrees of entropy and disorder?

    Reason #2:

    The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at a steady rate. This has been carefully studied and documented for about 150 years, and the halflife of the magnetic field has been determined to be 1,400 years. So 10,000 years ago, the magnetic field would have been 32 times stronger than it is today. Big deal right? Well if the Earth's magnetic field were to be 32 times stronger than it is today, it would be as strong as a magnetic star. This is impossible because stars have thermonuclear power generating their massive magnetic fields. The Earth has never had, nor will it ever have these types of reactions going on in its core.

    Reason #3:

    The fossils found in the earth's geologic strata can only be acceptably explained by a massive, world-wide flood. Fossilization requires rapid, permeant burrial in order to preserve the animals in the rocks. If the process were to occur over long periods of time, the animal would decompose before it had a chance to fossilize. Secondly, if these rocks took millions of years to form, why are there petrified trees found going through multiple layers of these rocks? Any organic material would have long rotted away before the surrounding rocks would have a chance at forming... that is... if they took millions of years to form like evolution teaches.

    I don't have too much time left so I'm going to get going. I'll be back later with more. And I'm sorry guys... You can't argue against things that are proven fact (like the second law of thermodynamics and the magnetic field and such).
  2. I thought we were talking about Darwin here, but anyway...

    I didn't get the first one, please elaborate...

    #2 Earth's a planet. So the magnetic field is probably not generated by thermonuclear power, as in stars. So all we know now is that earth is not a magnetic star. We still don't know what caused the magnetic field...

    #3 Massive floods are not in contradiction to geological founds. That doesn't mean they were caused by god. The ice age I think was caused by a meteor collision that sent up enough dust to shadow the sun. Thus preventing solar energy from warming the earth's surface. And since Earth doesn't have thermonuclear power, it cooled off. Those meteors could just as well have set off some floods...?

    I'm not quite sure where you want to go with this but your criticism sounds quite destructive, rather than constructive.
  3. Nothing in science is ever 100% sound, so the laws evolutions braking mean nothing, as you've just proven, showing that in years to come that teory will be overuled by a new one. as with most sciencey things, best example being the flat earth, that was a scientific fact of its time.

    the earths magnetic feild is decaying NOW yes, but that dosnt proove it was that strong once, a new cars paintwork stays nice for years beofre it begins to decay, good earthly example.

    And wood would be covered quick to fossilise as leaves would be constanly falling on it. we just dont let it happen.

    and also on that point, most fossiles are the hard part on an animal bones and stuff witch last ages, shells for expample(the ones we find fosiled) take YEARS and YEARS to decay. they could easily be covered befre losing enuf shape and material to be fossiled
  4. actually, new car's paint begins decaying immediately. It only becomes apparent after spending more time in the sun and having more dust particles hit it and nick the paint. As soon as that car has been in natural light or driven at normal speeds, the its paint has started decaying.

    About the magnetic fields, it's just and idea coming from a memory in the back of my head, but isn't the magnetic field formed by the molten metal in the core of the eart swirling around? The faster it goes, the stronger the field would be. So, if the core was cooling and slowing down, the magnetic field would weaken as well.

    I'll go ahead and say I don't believe in evolution, but natural selection exists. I believe we were created. I just have to probe all arguments for weaknesses.

  5. What if that's the very reason we're here? Life is the only thing in existence that's potentially in perpetual motion (that we know of). I always thought that if we were created by someone/something then it was for a reason. Perhaps we are simply the counterbalance to entropy.

    But is it decaying or just changing? We simply haven't been alive long enough to fully observe the true pattern of earth's magnetism. I once read that the male chromosome is in a state of degradation in comparison to the female, that scientists had observed this degradation over a few decades. But what makes them think it's degrading? It could simply be that the y chrom. is responsible for the random mutations that drive evolution and does degrade from it's old form but never too much because the female remains mostly static. A similar scenario could apply to earth's magnetism.

    You forget that people have different beliefs concerning evolution just like they have slight differences religiously. Also evidence of a worldwide flood is all over human history. People that lived halfway around the world from the first jews and christians had fables about people surviving a giant flood in various interesting ways. Perhaps there really was a worldwide flood and the only human survivors were the extremely lucky or extremely adaptive. Which might also explain why all human genetic trails lead back to africa--likely the only place with enough space and resources for people to survive.
  6. in a closed system, it will eventually reach equilibrium. life can be defined as a state of un-equilibrium. If your body was in equilibrium, all of the reactions keeping you alive would be stopped. equilibrium=more simple, less complex, but all of us are heading towards death where our bodies eventually reach equilibrium. and dont worry, when the sun dies, things will get a lot more simple.

    i dont think your arguments are very valid
  7. Assuming we can survive long enough we'll probably harness and control the energy of the sun long before we need to. Of course some day we're going to suddenly realize that if we don't find a way to get to other stars we're going to fizzle out and die. A lesser example of such an event is the impending worldwide oil crisis due to shrinking resources. It isn't replenishable and most of the energy necesarry for civilization is dependent on it. Hopefully this will force the necesarry adaptation that will lead to solar and hydrogen energy sources that can last us longer than we need. If things go well for us as a race we'll figure out how to stretch out our energy to the point of a nearly perfect system.
  8. you guys are really really deep.......

    hatebreeder, can i use what you said about xianity (the big story) in my aim profile? i have never been a christian and that gave me a idea to show people how horrid chirstianity really is.
    if anyone asks ill say that you wrote it.

    i wish i knew that much about everything but unfortunitly ive smoked myself retarded.
  9. please....... i'm not christian. but don't go ostracising every christian because of what has happened before.

    you are, in my opinion, being a bigot, just as the Inquisitors where in the middle ages.

    christianity wasn't the cause of the inquisition. it could have easily been performed by Hindus, Muslims, Jews or any other religious group

    it's just like the all too common misonception that every muslim is a terrorist.

    Religion doesn't cause War, or Death or In-tolerance. it's people who do that.

    very fitting name, hatebreeder
  10. x2. Not to mention that this thread was hijacked by your long, drawn out posts full of half-truths.
  11. You've got to think of everyting as well

    time makes change, its times mark on everything, so you couldnt live forever in an "afterlife" without changing. really. and what would be thep oint as well, would you really WANT to live forever with god or in hell?

    evolution, imo, did happen and did create us, cos all we are as humans is an animal wiht the power of complete thought. we can rationailise.

    point against an afterlife:first one ^.
    why would we live this life? just to go into another, mkaing this one pointless and the next one a waste of time if we lived a life.
    why would need a "body" as such to cater for our spirit, couldnt we life as sprits to be judged?

    the world is what you make of it, so therefore, flowers can be candy canes if you want, this imo is relgion and mircles, they take somethang that can be exlained say its amazing and give there proof then hide it away in some curch so it cant be properly analiized, but then again science can be the same thing. its right untill you know differnt.

    so really, i'd prefere to live on earth and die and no know i exsisted. having made my mark on space and time.

    end of my arguments.

  12. I don't think you fully understand what you're saying here. Yes the universe IS always increasing in entropy.

    Think of it this way... if you break a glass on the floor you are increasing the universes entropy. The pieces that make up that glass can never combine themselves and reform the glass.

    You probably know this much, however, think of evolution differently. Concider evolution as the glass breaking. Evolution is really just billions and billions of random breaking glasses. Because a certain mutation(breaking glasses) benefits a creature, it has a greater chance of succesfully breeding, thus passing that mutation on....

    I think evolotion and the second law of thermodynamics go hand in hand.
  13. Im guessing your found most if not all of this info on some crazy christian site that trys to prove the existince of there god by backin it up with, what to the uneducated person might seem solid facts, but really is just scientific facts that theyve twisted around.
  14. sorry if i repeat anything anyone else said or tkae the discussion back to the begining, i only had time to read cotton's first post.

    so you take this to mean evolution is wrong, as opposed to your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics and its application. ... or even our understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.

    ok... this is a hard one to argue with someone who believes god just magically made the earth.
    i'm not sure where you got your figures from, but asuming they are true, who is to say that the study and documentation over the last 150 years is enough to let us estimate with any accuracy what happened to the earths magnetic feild over 10,000 years ago. alot happens in the core. 150 years isnt even enough to take us back to the last ice age, the last pole shift or even the last mass extinction.

    ah the flood. :D
    because floods are mentioned in the bible that means the bible is correct, sience is wrong. ;)

    i get what you're on about with the fossils. thats something i always wondered too... perhaps you'd be better asking a palaeontologist before making your assumptions though.

    I can and I did (though mainly because of your over eagerness to decide upon a conclusion). Any mind that accepts things as "proven fact" is clearly not all that clued up on the history of science. Any open minded scientific mind well always be aware that at anymoment, data could come along that would completely destroy all previous held ideas of our understanding of fact. remember... the world was once flat.
  15. 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 <big>ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH</big> 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.
  16. 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.

  17. 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.).

  18. 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.

  19. 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.
  20. 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...

Grasscity Deals Near You


Share This Page