There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation unless you believe that complete, interdependent subsystems complete with feedback modulation systems form in a single mutation.
What requires a single mutation to do this?
Evolution contradicts the established law of thermodynamics.
If you think differently, please explain.
A statement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would be
"In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe."
The "system" would be the body of a diploid organism. The organism produces seed cells from the materials it ingests. The seed cells could be randomly affected to have mutations in its DNA. Those mutations could affect the physiology of the offspring organism. If that change in the offspring's physiology adversely affects it's ability to remain alive, it dies. If not, it lives, ingests materials, produces seed cells, and sends that mutation to some of its own offspring through its seed cells. Thus a change in the physiology of some of the organisms occurs within the population of that organism. Voila! Evolution.
Which part of that violates the 2nd law?
Again, the point is that thermodynamics demands that processes stop with balance and simplicity.
No it doesn't. High entropy systems are actually more complex than low entropy systems.
Let me give you an example.
An internal combustion engine works...
Learn the Otto cycle before you attempt to impart an analogy that requires its use.
That fact that the machine works is not evidence that it created itself.
This is -- in essence -- what you're saying.
No, it's not. I am saying that because the machine works imperfectly, resultant machines are different than the original.
Yes, complex molecules exists, but ask yourself: What happens to them when they are placed outside of their "created" environment.
The molecules involved in evolution are
never outside their created environment.
If you want to talk about unlikely abiogenesis is, then you will have to also show that the complex molecules were ever outside their created environment.
What you are witnessing when you witness trained professionals express a belief in evolution is the power of money and social pressure.
Both are blinding to the intellect, and all are subject to their seduction.
"Just because I believe there is a vast conspiracy doesn't mean there isn't one."
Does the Sun violate the 2nd law by making more complex matter out of simple Hydrogen?
(1) Does the sun produce complex organic molecules? No.
So Helium with its 2 protons and 2 neutrons is not more complex than Hydrogen with its single proton? Perhaps you should acquaint me with your definition of "more complex".
The Sun is also producing Iron, Cobalt, Iodine, Selenium, Oxygen, Uranium, Plutonium and Fermium along with numerous others. This has been observed by astronomers and the process is well known.
(2) What is the ultimate end of the sun? Simple matter.
Everything is simple matter or energy. dimethyl-carbonate is "simple matter". Your DNA is simple matter....what was your point.
Just because a process joints a few atoms together does not means thermodynamics is being broken.
You said that making complex matter violates the 2nd law, not me.
The process is simply following known and well established chemical laws -- laws that follow the 2nd law.
Are we really going to go here?
Maybe this time you can tell me what part of evolution or even abiogenesis violates "established chemical laws". I say that you will not. Instead you will appeal to "common sense" or "complexity". Please don't turn me into a "prophet". Just this once actually reply substantively to the question.
Do you believe the sun violates the 2nd law?
No. However, your blanket statement about the formation of complex molecules without intelligence indicates that you think the Sun violates that law.
Sorry...I didn't follow that very well, I guess. What part of that actually answered my question?
Simply put: No transitional forms exist. The question is nonsensical.
That is -- again -- the point.
I realize that you had a lot to read in the 2 posts where I requested the
same thing. So, maybe you misread it both times. Here it is again:
Please take a fossil that has been identified by paleontologists as "transitional" and show what aspects of it prove it to not be "transitional".However, I would get somewhere with a high probability that I would not wind up in the same place. You conveniently forgot that the theory of evolution does not claim to have a "direction". So the small changes would result in evolution occurring.
Incorrect.
The high probability is that you would end up very near to where you started.
It would be simple to simulate this with a computer program.
Ok. Let's make it simple. There are 8 directions that I can step...North, Northeast, East, Southeast, South, Southwest, West, and Northwest. What is the probability that I will be at my starting point after one step? What is the probability that I will be at my starting point after 2 steps? 10? 100? 1000? 1,000,000? I await the result of your calculations. Just for grins, what is the probability that I will be within a straight line of 100 steps of my starting point after 1,000,000 steps? Admittedly, this is more complex.
This is another nonsensical statement.
"Priests" that torture people are not following the commandment of Christ. They are, in fact, not priests at all.
Depends on how you are defining "priests". Their church called them priests. In the Salam witch burnings, the presiding "judges" were the religious leaders of that Protestant denomination in the town. Whether they were acting according to Christ's wishes (I believe they were not) is immaterial. The point was:
They were using Christ's Great Commission to justify their horrid actions but that should not make Christ's teaching evil or wrong. However, you seem to believe that it does since you believe that the misuse of the theory of evolution makes it evil and wrong.
It would be like saying, a kid bullied and killed another kid because his mother told him to go buy some milk.
It's your logic not mine.
Don't blame Christ or the Bible for the things that impostors do.
I didn't. In fact I have stated that Christ is not to blame for the inappropriate actions of those using his statements as an excuse to hurt others. It is your logic that blames Christ for those actions.
Did you know that an evolutionist killed a little girl?
So that makes all evolutionists evil? Does it make the theory of evolution evil? Talk about smear tactics. Are you really willing to stoop that low? Is it because you have no real evidence to support your side of the debate?
Did you know that Christian leaders burned several teenage girls at the stake? Did you know that a preacher and his elders caused a little girl to die by withholding her insulin shots? Did you know that the BTK killer was a deacon in his church? What does any of this have to do with the truth or falseness of Christianity? Nothing...that's what!
Your reasoning is plainly nonsensical.
Pot, Kettle, black.
The inquisition is not a Christian event. It is an anti-Christian event.
Doesn't matter. They used a command of Christ to justify it just like eugenicists used portions of the theory of evolution to justify their actions. Bad people doing bad things.
In short, you are promoting the inquisition. You are on the wrong side fella.
Do you intend to always misrepresent what I said? Which "evolutionists" were involved in the Inquisition? Oh...right....you didn't mean the actual Inquisition...it was just another use of emotionalism to smear your opponent. Refuge of the unprepared.
What an incredible irony.
Study.
This from the guy who doesn't know the "laws of chemistry", how the Sun forms complex elements and molecules, the working of an internal combustion engine, or how to glean the point of a simple sentence or paragraph. Irony, indeed!
On the contrary, if God created all things, then it is good just the way it is. In short, don't mess with it.
How far should we take this? God created the germs that cause tooth decay...should we brush our teeth or not? God created that little girl without the ability to produce her own insulin so maybe we shouldn't give her any. Obviously, you believe we should mess with God's creations in the above two cases.
Why do you arbitrarily draw the line at gene splicing?
This is one of the fundamental purposes of evolution: Genetic manipulation ultimately for power and profit.
Right. That's exactly what Darwin was thinking as he put the theory down on paper.
Thanks evolution. Maybe you should have listened to the Christians.
That's right. Jesus said: "
Thou shalt not splice genes for therein lies disaster."
Your stubbornness and rebellion are evil, and when you spread your false beliefs, people get hurt. Sometimes they die.
If you would simply humble yourself and listen to Dr. Tenpenny present evidence from refereed medical journals rather than parroting what you were told in grade school, you would not be such a danger to society.
Now I'm evil because I don't accept the crap that you are selling. Dr. Tenpenny seems to think that a vaccine that is effective on 33% of the population with minor effects on less than 2% of the population should not be used. I guess if we could prevent 33% of traffic deaths with a 2% chance that some people would get hurt by the method of prevention, that we shouldn't institute that method of prevention. Sure, sounds logical to me
And you say
I'm a danger to society?
What law was changed? Is the US no longer a republic? What does evolution have to do with this?
Biblical law was changed.
I thought the Bible was unchanging. Who knew?!!
The Bible is the basis for a Christian republic.
The U.S. was a Christian republic? That would have surprised John Addams.
Wow, you are really evil.
And I believe that you're a delusional, paranoid, unlearned conspiracy theorist with no idea how to tell feces from florsheim. Is there some real purpose to be served by our lowering ourselves to insults?
Yes, some of the founders of the U.S. were ushering in masonic religious symbols and such. Yet, the U.S. became a republic based on Biblical law.
Which of the original laws were based on the Bible? The first amendment to the Constitution perhaps? Which laws that we have now are unBiblical?
Unfortunately, the U.S. population has been drugged into apathy by the evolution-believing banking elite; An idealism you are promoting, by the way.
Biblical law brings liberty and personal responsibility.
Evolution-based socialism brings tyranny.
Which part of the theory of evolution is about political systems of government? A simple quote from a textbook will do.
Are you saying that the religious groups responsible for the New International Version of the Bible also run the mass media in the US?
Absolutely. They are allied with each other.[/quote]The International Bible Society was founded in 1809. Which mass media companies do they own? You of course have real evidence of this....you know...some reference, records of transactions, contracts...etc?
So, the International Bible Society members are evil God haters.
Other evil God Haters are:
Assemblies of God denomination
Church of God denominations
The Christian Reformed Church
National Association of Evangelicals
among others.
