It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Besides, the lack of response to this one sort of proves its point.
Even in the present, many organisms and parts of organisms do not appear to have evolved from lesser things. This is because they are 'irreducibly compex' lifeforms. Irreducible complexity is a concept that biochemistry professor Michael Behe developed in his book, Darwin's Black Box. If something is made of interacting parts that all work together, then it is referred to as irreducibly complex. Behe uses a mousetrap as his example. A mousetrap cannot be assembled through gradual improvement. You cannot start with a wooden base, catching a few mice, then add a hammer, and catch more, then add a spring, improving it further. To even begin catching mice one must assemble all the components completely with design and intent. Furthermore, if one of these parts changes or evolves independently, the entire thing will stop working. The mousetrap, for instance, will become useless if even one part malfunctions
One of the largest discrepancies concerns aging or other features of organisms that act to restrict life span. Darwin's theory is largely based on "survival of the fittest". If an individual organism has a trait that allows it to survive longer and therefore breed more, its traits are more likely to be represented in descendents. If an individual has traits that limit its survival relative to other individuals, those traits tend to "select out" and be removed from the gene pool. It is therefore impossible, according to orthodox Darwinism, for an organism to evolve a trait that restricts or regulates survival without any compensating individually beneficial effect such as an increase in reproductive capacity. Nevertheless, most organisms display either aging or other less subtle mechanisms that act to regulate life span in a species specific and individually non-beneficial manner. This issue was raised by Darwin's contemporaries shortly after initial publication of The Origin of Species and remains an area of legitimate scientific disagreement 145 years later.
As an example, if the theory of evolution were true, then the fossil records would ALWAYS show a smooth transition from one life form to another, such that it would be difficult to tell where invertebrates ended, and vertebrates began. Though this is NOT always the case. Instead, fully formed life forms have been discovered to suddenly jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere, with illogical gaps before them where their ancestors should be. Many evolutionists do not dispute this fact, while others look the other way.
Originally posted by Astyanax
The Way to Prove God Did It
- The theory of evolution and speciation by natural selection, though widely accepted, has never been able satisfactorily to explain the following phenomenon...
according to the second law of thermodynamics ''the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.'' wiki
This is because... (scientifically valid argument here)
Instead, we contend that the phenomenon can best be explained as the result of Divine Fiat, because... (another scientifically valid argument here).
This can be tested by means of the following experiment... (Exhaustive description of experiment, including an explanation of how it addresses the problem. Note that the experiment will have to be ingeniously designed to eliminate all other explanations for the phenomenon apart from GDI).
If our hypothesis is true -- and only if it is true -- the following results may be expected from the experiment.
okay, i admit i haven't tried this experiment, i think someone else might have, but not me,however, if any of you disagree with my expected results, i will. i'm so confident i will even allow anyone here to specify any period of time for me to leave the clock in its jar, i will even allow anyone here to pick the clockmaker that i present the other clock to. i certainly encourage anyone who wishes to try this for themselves.
We ran the experiment. Here are the results. They tally well with our expectations (see #5 above).
Therefore we conclude that GDI.
We invite others to assess our arguments, repeat our experiment, and verify the results for themselves.
I think that is really the crux of the whole issue. The Atheistic scientists are whining about ID not meeting the requirements of formal "science". The scientific method is just a method, it seems likely that it is inadequate for the determination of origins. Are we searching for science or truth?
Originally posted by pieman
the mass of ''stuff'' is insignificant in comparison to the mass of the earth. the ''stuff'' almost always burns off and vaporises in the atmosphere. the ''stuff'' is insignificant.
besides which, if life was seeded here it still had to come from somewhere, so the ''stuff'' is also irrelevant. thermodynamics still says that life goes against the nature of the universe.
The second law of thermodynamics has been proven mathematically for thermodynamic systems, where entropy is defined in terms of heat divided by the absolute temperature. The second law is often applied to other situations, such as the complexity of life, or orderliness. In sciences such as biology and biochemistry the application of thermodynamics is well-established, e.g. biological thermodynamics. The general viewpoint on this subject is summarized well by biological thermodynamicist Donald Haynie; as he states: "Any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics." This is very different, however, from the claim made by many creationists that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. In fact, evidence indicates that biological systems and obviously the evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net increase in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution.
It is occasionally claimed that the second law is incompatible with autonomous self-organisation, or even the coming into existence of complex systems. This is a common creationist argument against evolution. The entry self-organisation explains how this claim is a misconception. In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the second law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. for structure to spontaneously appear as the temperature drops below a critical threshold. Complex structures, such as Bénard cells, also spontaneously appear where there is a steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink.
Originally posted by Evil Genius
Funny, I always thought science was the search for the truth.
but thats where our current knowledge and imagination stops.