Evolution

[Uptown]

Evolution versus a basic law of nature
Scores of distinguished scientists have carefully examined the most basic laws of nature to see if Evolution is physically possible - given enough time and opportunity. The conclusion of many is that Evolution is simply not feasible. One major problem is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

• law of science: basic, unchanging principle of nature; a scientifically observed phenomenon which has been subjected to very extensive measurements and experimentation and has repeatedly proved to be invariable throughout the known universe (e.g., the law of gravity, the laws of motion).
  thermodynamics: the study of heat power; a branch of physics which studies the efficiency of energy transfer and exchange.1

Decaying buildings. Massive structures may appear to be capable of lasting almost forever, but they will not. The need for ongoing repairs stems, in part, from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (Scene from the ORIGINS video series.)
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.2 Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.
Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law (maintenance, painting, medical bills, etc.). Ultimately, everything in nature is obedient to its unchanging laws.

• 2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.3

Cells and blood vessels - scene from the ORIGINS video series.
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.4


Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder. (Illustration from the ORIGINS series)
Thus, in the long term, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe. Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order. To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.5
Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.6 Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.7
However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.
Has the 2nd Law Been Circumvented? No, says expert Frank A. Greco:

"An answer can readily be given to the question, 'Has the second law of thermodynamics been circumvented?' NOT YET." 8

No experimental evidence disproves it, say physicists G.N. Hatspoulous and E.P. Gyftopoulos:

• "There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries..." 9

Creationist Duane Gish comments:

• "Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd... The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley) 10

Emmett Williams, Ph.D:

• "It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. While the utterances in some fields (such as astronomy) seem to change almost daily, the science of thermodynamics has been noteworthy for its stability. In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted." 11

If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful, ultimate tendency toward "disarrangedness" brought by the 2nd Law. If such an important force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite obvious to all scientists. Yet, the fact is, no such force of nature has been found.
A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Creationism.

• open systems/closed systems: open thermodynamic systems exchange heat, light, or matter with their surroundings, closed systems do not. No outside energy flows into a closed system. Earth is an open system; it receives outside energy from the Sun.

Is Energy the Key?
To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12
Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?
A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.
If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?
What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

The Ultimate Ingredient: Designed and Coded Information


Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith in the ORIGINS video series.
The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

• "What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13
  teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is "directionlessness," having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:

• "The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."15

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

[Uptown]

Creationism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Science and Anticreationist Misconstruals



Perhaps the most widely misunderstood creationist argument is the second law of thermodynamics (henceforth referred to as the second law for sake of abbreviation). I have very rarely—if ever—seen anyone attack the actual creationist position on this matter. To be fair, creationists have often been vague on their position, and at least part of the blame lies on them for not making their arguments more clearly. I do not think this argument against evolution is a particularly good one, but I do think critics of creationism should at least do their homework in getting the creationist argument right to begin with before attacking it. There is little profit in attacking positions opponents do not hold.
For this article, I will cite What Is Creation Science? from the section written by Morris (who, for those who are unaware, is the major creationist who is the originator of this argument). I will also be citing Del Ratzsch’s excellent book The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. One of the Battle of Beginnings focus points is about clearing up misunderstandings and mistakes made by both sides of the debate. This sort of thing is not limited to anticreationists or the second law of thermodynamics. Whereas anticreationists have been attacking misunderstood versions of the creationist arguments (not just the second law), creationists have also been attacking misunderstood versions of modern evolution. I strongly encourage anyone interested in the creation-evolution controversy to read the book, as it is one of the best books I have ever read on the subject.
The first law of thermodynamics (which will later be referred to simply as the first law) is simply the conservation of mass-energy. Sometimes it’s stated as, “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” Incidentally, E = mc2, meaning that every kilogram of mass is equal to about ninety thousand terajoules of energy (the same amount of energy is released from the detonation of a 21-megaton nuclear weapon). Mass can be converted into energy and vice versa. But the total quantity of energy (when mass is taken into account) remains the same.
The Second Law: a brief scientific introduction Although the second law of thermodynamics can be stated in many ways, in the context of energy it has to do with the “quality” of the energy. In an isolated system (one which exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings) the available energy will decrease (or at best remain the same) with every real process that occurs. The energy is still there, but it is no longer available to do useful work. The measure of the lost available energy is called entropy, or “disorder.” Interestingly, the quality of thermal energy (its ability to do useful work) is dependent upon its temperature. Thus, entropy is not measured in “joules” (a measure of energy) but in “joules per Kelvin.” (Kelvin is a measure of temperature, with 0 Kelvin being absolute zero.) An implication of the second law is the “entropy principle” in which there is a general tendency for entropy to increase. Imagine an isolated system in which the thermal energy remains at a constant level of 100 joules. High-quality, high-temperature energy (e.g. a temperature of 700 Kelvin) tends towards low-quality, low-temperature energy (e.g. 100 Kelvin; thus more joules per Kelvin). Another example of the second law in action is when thermal energy spontaneously transfers itself from a hot object to a cooler one. To see how this idea works, let me take an example from my old college physics textbook:

Example physics problem on the second law: Problem: An enormous object with a temperature of 573 K (K = Kelvin) is touching another enormous object with a temperature of 273 K, and 20.0 kJ (kJ = kilojoules) of heat irreversibly flows from the hotter object to the colder one. This process increases the entropy of the universe. If the temperature change of both objects is negligible (because they’re so big), how much of an entropy increase is there?
Abbreviation note:

• J = joules
• K = Kelvin
• J/K = joules per Kelvin

Solution: In physics, thermal energy going into the object is measured as “positive,” while thermal energy leaving the object is measured as “negative.” The colder object gains 20 thousand joules of heat, whereas the hotter object loses 20 thousand joules of heat. Remembering this and doing the math:

+20.0 x 103 J –20.0 x 103 JChange of entropy = + 273 K 573 K = 73.26 J/K + (–34.90 J/K) = 73.26 J/K – 34.90 J/K = +38.4 J/K
So we have an increase of entropy in the amount of 38.4 joules per Kelvin. Neat huh?
Energy can be transformed into various forms (e.g. kinetic energy into electrical energy via a generator, or chemical energy into thermal energy via some chemical reactions) and all forms of energy can be measured with the same unit: the joule. Since its original formulation, the laws of thermodynamics have been expanded to include not only thermal energy but all forms of energy. So although entropy is still measured in joules per Kelvin, it goes beyond the original purview of thermal energy to energy in general. Thus, the second law of thermodynamics says that as time goes on in an isolated system, the energy in it becomes increasingly unavailable for further work—regardless of what types of energy the system contains.

In science, another name for entropy is “disorder,” due to some similarities involved. Energy can be considered “disordered” when it is unavailable to do useful work. The second law also applies to chemistry. Note the following:

• Solids are more regularly structured than liquids. (Heat is the energy of random molecular motion.) Thus, solids are more ordered than liquids, and liquids are more disordered than solids. The melting of an ice cube is an example of an entropy increase. In contrast, when water freezes its entropy decreases (at the expense of an entropy increase somewhere else).
• The molecules of a gas are in a constant state of rapid random motion even more so than liquids. All else held constant, gases are more disordered than liquids. The transformation of water to steam is another example of an entropy increase.
• Molecules more closely packed together (as solids) are considered more ordered than when they are more dispersed (as in liquids or gases). As an analogy, think of a bomb exploding. It goes from something nice and compact to widely dispersed fragments; from order to disorder.
• Recall that heat is the energy of random molecular motion. The hotter an object becomes, the greater this molecular motional energy is, and the more entropy it has.

To use another example from my physics textbook:
Second example physics problem on the second law: Problem: By how much does the entropy change when a 10 kilogram block of ice at 0 ˚C is completely melted into water at 0 ˚C?
Solution: Temperature T remains constant at 0 ˚C (273 ˚K). The amount of energy to melt water at its melting point (an amount called the latent heat of fusion) is 334 kJ per kilogram. So the energy needed to melt this 10 kilogram block of ice is 3,340 kJ, or 3.34 MJ (MJ = 1 million joules). Knowing this:
3.34 x 106 JChange of entropy = 273 K
Which equals an entropy increase of 12 kJ/K.
The implications of the second law are far reaching. Energy is used in the construction and operation of organized systems (living organisms, automobiles, and so forth), in spite of the disordering of energy that results. The known physical universe as a whole is an isolated system: energy is neither gained nor lost. As the universe gets older, its entropy increases. As a result, the universe is headed towards a state of maximum disorder. You yourself might have noticed a general tendency for things to move from order to disorder. Cars break down, matches burn up, organisms grow old and die. Will the reverse spontaneously happen? Will the burned out match spontaneously transform itself unburned and intact? Will the deleterious effects of aging spontaneously reverse themselves? Unlikely.
The Creationists Attack Originally, the second law is applied to the overall “evolution model” sense. This model (whether or not anyone adheres to it) says that there is an overall tendency for things to become more ordered and more complex, both in the universe as a whole (what I’ll call cosmological evolution) and on the biological level. Creationists point out that there exists a physical law that contradicts this expectation: the second law of thermodynamics. In modern physics, the universe as a whole is taken to be a thermodynamically isolated system. The second law says that the entropy of an isolated system inevitably increases, and thus creationists argue that the cosmological evolution theory involving the universe as a whole becoming more ordered is therefore false.[1] Very few if any scientists hold to the view that the universe as a whole increases in order, however. To believe otherwise misunderstands the nature of currently accepted theories regarding the cosmological development of the universe, such as the Big Bang theory. The universe goes from something compact and hot (lower entropy) to a widely dispersed and colder arrangement (higher entropy)—all in accord with the second law and an overall increase in entropy despite some localized decreases. It should be remembered that the second law permits local decreases in entropy if there is a resulting greater entropy increase somewhere else.
Another creationist argument involves what happens if we take the first and second laws to be valid throughout the entire existence of the universe, claiming that this implies a finite age for the universe. To give an example of such an argument, I’ll use one that Henry Morris makes in What is Creation Science? Keeping in mind that the first law says that the quantity of energy is constant, if we extrapolate into the past there would be a point where the total energy equals the amount of available energy [2]. Time can go back no further than this and so the universe must have a beginning. Another point that Morris makes [3] is that since the available energy is constantly decreasing, there will be a point in time where all the energy becomes unavailable to do further work, and hence the universe will be “dead.” Since the universe is not dead, it cannot be infinitely old [4]. The first law, recall, says that mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed. Consequently, the universe could not have created itself.[5] Thus, some agency outside the natural universe created it. Because anything outside the natural universe is by definition supernatural, creationists claim that it must have been a supernatural agency that created the universe.
This creationist claim seems to have some merit, given the cosmological implications of thermodynamics. If the laws are to apply throughout the universe’s existence and if the universe were infinitely old, entropy would have claimed the universe and there would indeed be no energy able to perform useful work. The universe thus cannot be infinitely old if the first and second laws have not been violated in the physical universe. Incidentally, there is other evidence suggesting that the known physical universe has a finite age, and most scientists believe it to be 10-20 billion years old. While the theory of a supernatural being creating the universe may not be a genuinely scientific theory, it is the case that most scientists believe the known physical universe to be of a finite age.
Anticreationists have very commonly mistaken the cosmological argument (universe as a whole cannot increase in order) for the biological one.[6] The anticreationists claim that “the earth is an open system, and the second law applies only to isolated systems.” Yet, since creationists have applied the law to an isolated system (the natural universe as a whole), this argument is simply irrelevant.
Now creationists do apply the second law to biological evolution. Although many creationists claim that the second law poses a nasty problem for biological evolution, how the law allegedly poses a problem is often misunderstood, in part because they apply the second law differently from cosmological evolution. First off, creationists (correctly) claim that a corollary of the second law is that systems have a general tendency to go from order to disorder. Creationists claim that certain conditions are needed for order (at least the sort of order that evolution requires) to increase in spite of this general tendency, and that evolution does not meet those conditions.[7]

However, some anticreationists seem to mistakenly confuse “tendency” to mean “invariability.”[8] To “refute” this mistaken position, some point out that babies develop from embryos etc., but of course, this does not attack the actual creationists position. I have never seen a creationist claim that disorder invariably increases in all systems. Rather, I have seen creationists claim a tendency. And creationists openly admit that this tendency can be overcome.[9] The question becomes then, what criteria are needed for any finite system to evolve into higher levels of order with the universe as a whole decreasing in order?[10] Morris claims that the criteria are [11]:

1. An open system;
2. Available energy;
3. A pre-planned program (to “direct” the growth in complexity);
4. A mechanism to convert and store incoming energy.

One criticism against this is that these criteria are not at all part of the second law, which is correct. The problem with this criticism (like the previous one) is that it does not attack Morris’s actual position. Morris does not actually claim that these criteria are from the second law itself, but rather that we have good empirical basis for accepting them.[12] Another criticism is that there are examples of self-organization in the real world that involve increasing order without the all four criteria, such as the formation of snowflakes (no “program” in that case). Again, this does not attack the actual position. The kind of order being referred to is not geometric regularity (like that of a snowflake) but organized complexity, or functional information.[13] (Examples of things containing organized complexity include automobiles, photocopiers, and single-celled organisms.) A better counterexample to refute the real creationist position would be to point out a case where an increase in organized complexity occurs but without the four criteria. As of yet, I have not seen any anticreationist even attempt this. This is not to say that this creationist claim is correct, only that if one is to criticize it one should attack the position creationists actually hold. So all you anticreationists out there, hear me! Do the homework of getting the creationist views right to begin with before you criticize them. And of course, the same sort of advice goes for those who would criticize evolution.

[BFizzy]

Here are some other myths created by religion to explain phenomena which were not at the time understood:

The sun traveling through the sky is the sun God Helios making a journey through the sky each day.

The world is flat.

The Earth is the center of the universe.

The world was created in 7 days.

--
Science does not explain, it observes and hypothesizes. Religion on the other hand does not take the time to consider evidence. It simply teaches that we take what is told to us at face value and without consideration.

When science tells us that our religion's explanation is lacking, in my mind, that trumps religion. Science attempts to explain truth through observable phenomena, religion just assumes truth based on what someone says or has written.

Midtowner, This has nothing to do with evolution either. That is why my reply to this also did not.

[travis]

"Evolution teaches that monkeys evolved into a more complex, more ordered species, the human race. 2nd law of thermodynamics teaches that things go from order to disorder, not the other way around."

I don't have time to read through all of this right now, but why do evolved species have to be more complex? Humans aren't really any more complex than monkeys, rats, or even cockroaches. Evolution doesn't state that organisms must become more complex, just that in order for them to be succesful they must survive and reproduce. The "simple" bacteria will be around long after the "complex" humans have left the earth.

I agree that we are all supposed to eventually degrade in to subatomic particles in the absence of energy, but there is energy being put in to the system constantly. So we should be getting more complex and ordered. You are assuming that the whole process is a closed energy system, which it is not.

[Midtowner]

Midtowner, This has nothing to do with evolution either. That is why my reply to this also did not.

Actually, it has to do with the frame of the debate. You were attempting to bring events preceding the existance of man into the debate -- in other words, attempting to link and assume that creation of Earth and creation of man were a single act. I responded by posting other similar mythology.

[MadMonk]

With all the different religions of the world, each with their own version of the way the Earth and man came to exist, I don't see how anyone can say definitively that their version of things is correct - especially with the overwhelming conviction that some display.

[BFizzy]

Actually, it has to do with the frame of the debate. You were attempting to bring events preceding the existance of man into the debate -- in other words, attempting to link and assume that creation of Earth and creation of man were a single act. I responded by posting other similar mythology.

Creationism doesn't even claim that the creation of earth and the creation of man were a single act, so it is very presumptuous of you to say that I was doing that. I most certainly was not.

Midtowner you were actually the poster who brought creation into the debate in post #6.

Since the debate has evolved (pardon the pun)into evolution vs. creationism, I don't see why you think talking about creationism is extraneous.

[Midtowner]

Incorrect Fizz -- an 'act' is to refer to the 6 days creation myth at least in the context I was using. In the six days, God supposedly created the heavens and the earth, the sea, plants, animals, etc. I'm limiting the scope of the debate to your sixth day when man was "created" as well as all prior instances where life was created and designed by some unseen all powerful force. As to the existance of the universe, the big bang and so on, we can include it if you want to, but for purposes of a narrowower scope, I'd prefer not to.

At any rate, you still commit the same error that most Creationists do. You bring up potential (and easily disproved or discredited) weaknesses to the evolution theory without providing any support for your own. The pattern of logic goes something like this:

Because of X, A is unreliable, therefore B is the only alternative.

(citing no evidence whatsoever supporting B).

You want to prove creationism? Show me some physical evidence. Show me anything even remotely close to what we have supporting the theory of evolution. Misstated laws of thermodynamics simply will not do.

[BFizzy]

Sorry Tow -- I didn't realize that you were given the almighty power to limit the scope of the threads on this board.

I never said "B" was the only alternative. You criticize everyone's logic, but you misconstrue what people post so you can easily disprove their arguments with your "Debating for Dummies" handbook.

I never once attempted to prove creationism or say that I believed in it. I was merely trying to defend Uptown because you berated his post. My intent was to support his claim that both theories are all that we really have to try to explain the origin of man and the universe.

You will only accept arguments that fit into your "scope" which is the scientific method. You fail to be open-minded enough to realize that anything is possible and that there may be more to this universe than just science. Just because you don't see X with your own eyes and cannot explain it with science does not disprove that X exists.

It's ironic that you are as close-minded as the blind faith "kool-aid drinkers" that you criticize.

[Midtowner]

Fizster:

I was merely asking for an agreement on what we were discussing. You have moved in and out of the seven days vs. the sixth day with impunity. One cannot have a debate if the two sides don't even agree on the subject matter being debated.

But if you want to go there, science has found more evidence supporting the big bang than they have for the universe being "spoken" into existance.

Of course, one can even go prior to the big bang as many great church philosophers have done in proving the logical necessity of God -- most notably, St. Thomas Aquinas. That, however is a discussion about the creation of the universe, not the creation of man. The point is that the two events did not occur simultaneously even in biblical terms. So pick one. Either one. I don't care which.

And back to the model I posed:


Because of X, A is unreliable, therefore B is the only alternative.

I pose this as your model argument. Don't think it works? Provide a better model and we can go from there. Do you suggest that A is an alternative or a better alternative? I have shown you that your argument for A being unreliable in "X" is inherently flawed. It relies on misconstruction and mischaracterization.

Quit whining and argue your point.

[Midtowner]

An excellent illustration of evolution can be found here:

http://www.johnkyrk.com/evolution.swf

[Uptown]

Big Bang Theory Proven: God spoke, and Bang, it happened.

[Midtowner]

Big Bang Theory Proven: God spoke, and Bang, it happened.

Oh snap!

[Uptown]

As powerful as God is, don't you think if He created the earth, it probably seemed like a big bang?

[Midtowner]

Uptown, in a terracentric universe, perhaps. Computer modeling puts the "big bang" at about 13 billion years ago. The earth was actually formed as a result of the sun's subsequent 'big bang' only about 5 billion years ago finally coming together after around 1 billion years. Around another 1 billion years later, we have the first nucleic acids.

Most likely, the earth was formed over several "big bangs" being matter coming together to form a rather large rock having enough mass to have its own gravitational pull.

[MadMonk]

An excellent illustration of evolution can be found here:

http://www.johnkyrk.com/evolution.swf

Very cool page there. Gives you somewhat of an idea of the immense scale of the time periods involved and the miniscule fraction of time we have been here.

[osupa05]

I still want to know how animate objects came from inanimate rocks and dirt, etc... if there wasn't something that was previously animate.

[Midtowner]

osupa -- go read some of your old biology textbooks. They should provide excellent background when you rewatch the animation above.

[CaptainAmerica]

http://www.answersingenesis.org
as you can probably tell simply from the url of the website, i am a creationist. First of all midtowner, i disaggree with your representation of what science does. It observes, It hypothesizes, and then it attempts to disprove its hypothesis. One of the fundemental problems that i find with science is that it like religion is initially derived from faith. In my religion it is the faith in the bible, in science it is that conditions are predominently as they were. For example, the grand canyon, is hypothesized to have taken the colorado river millions of years to create the grand canyon, this viewpoint is based on observation of the current flow of the colorado river. However, what if an incredibly large amount of water was drained throught that area due to some titanic upheaveal, instead of 35 million years the time is drastically reduced.

[Midtowner]

As to the Grand Canyon question, I think that they could show by looking at the sediment layers, rock formations, etc. whether or not there was a great flood in the GC.

As to science being based on faith, I suppose the only leap of faith is that as we observe these things, we are actually observing them. That seems to be a basic assumption that we all share (unless we all live in the Matrix).

Your comparison between science and religion is insufficient. You neglect to say that religion takes on faith what is said simply because the listeners believe what is said without asking questions. Science on the other hand through hypothesis, observation, and experimentation actually verifies what it seeks to explain as reality. There's a vast gulf of difference between the two insofar as standards of proof. Science is even skeptical of itself as you admit. Religion is still accepting the same hypothesis 2000 years later without any question (unless you want to count all of the divisions within the Church as "question").

[CaptainAmerica]

I would absolutely say that the different splinters of the christian church would be different people creating their own hypothesis about what the bible really means, as to there being no proof of creationism, did you check out the website?

[Midtowner]

I would absolutely say that the different splinters of the christian church would be different people creating their own hypothesis about what the bible really means, as to there being no proof of creationism, did you check out the website?

I did read your website. It said nothing different from what anyone else has tried to say here -- that evolution has holes, ergo creationism. The flaw in this reasoning is best illustrated with lines representing the theories.

This line represents the theory of evolution -- note the "missing links":

|--- ----- ------------ ------------------ ------------|

Now for Creationism -- note the lack of any links at all:

| |

So what you're proposing is that we eliminate one theory because it has not been judged "perfect" on the weight of evidence that we still have not found, but on the other hand, we can't prove it wrong or find a better explanation. You seek to reject this theory and instead adopt one with no physical evidence whatsoever? Your website appears to be written for the benefit of fundy Christians -- it gives us "evidence" of creationism in the form of Biblical passages. You're going to have to do more than show me some Gilgamesh ripoff to convince me that the Earth and all life on it was created in 7 days, not the 3 billion or so years I've been led to believe.

[CaptainAmerica]

first of all, it cannot be proven either way, creationism vs. evolutionism. Well wait it can, its called a time machine. there is know way to tell whether or not something is the "missing link", because simply because it is similar in skeletal structure means absolutely nothing. Moreover, bandnerd, what you are talking about are adaptations, not mutations. evolution is when random mutations occur that makes the mutated animal more likely to survive. the aboriginal being different are not mutations they are adaptations. just like the africans dark skin, adaptations to their habitat. On a whole if a whole african tribe were to simply move to greenland or iceland, in two or three hundred years they would no longer be of dark skin.

Besides that, calling a african a different race simply upon the color of their skin is like calling me a different race after i get a tan.

[bandnerd]

Wow, someone's in a bad mood.

So I used a bad example. I'll admit it. But you're not even trying to open your eyes to the possibility that you might be wrong. And at your young age, that is a very bad idea, indeed.

[CaptainAmerica]

im not in a bad mood, it just the ap testS, ill be back to my normal state of weirdness in about six days, right after the AP Chem test.