| |
13. The first Law of
Thermodynamics |
|
|
| 145 |
It states: There can be
no creation or annihilation of mass/energy. |
Fair enough. |
True |
| 146 |
One form of energy can
be converted into another, one state of matter can be converted into
another,and there can even be matter/energy conversions. However the
total amount of matter and energy remains constant. |
Irrelevant - we're not dealing
with a closed system. |
irrelevant |
| 147 |
What does this mean? The
universe could not just spring into existence by accident. |
Unsupported assertion
completely irrelevant to the argument |
irrelevant |
| |
|
|
|
| |
14. The Second Law
of Thermodynamics |
|
|
| |
This is my all-time
favorite. |
Oh dear! |
|
| 148 |
To refute this law, you
either have to be a liar or ignorant of science totally. |
Possibly, but what has
this to do with evolution? |
irrelevant |
| 149 |
This law tells us that
anything which is organized , tends with time, to become disorganized.
Any physical system left to itself will decay, or , lose energy and
organization within the system. Instead of being highly organized like
our earth's system, everything tends to become gradually disorganized.
Chemical processes will reach equilibrium then become inert. |
It doesn't. It tells us
that the degree of entropy increases with time. It doesn't prevent local
decreases in entropy.
To quote "This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’)
of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was
the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An
obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules
into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns
ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and
Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious
example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical
chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic
case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another
classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low
pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the
development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the
universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse."
This is from a Creationist site! |
FALSE |
|
|
Link
- Arguments not to use |
|
| 150 |
In other words, this law
says the increase of information required for a life form to evolve
could not happen as this increase in information by itself violates the
law. |
False - see my answer above. |
FALSE |
| 151 |
Evolutionists would have
you believe in a constant increase in order strictly by chance millions
of times. |
False - they wouldn't. Selection
acts on mutation. This is not 'strictly by chance'. |
FALSE |
| 152 |
Not possible!! |
True, but the premise is
false. |
FALSE |
| 153 |
In fact, evolutionists
have cited ice cubes and bridges as an example of this law being
violated. |
So have physicists. |
FALSE |
| 154 |
Absurd! Both of these
things reach a peak of "order", but from then on are
degrading. Besides, these things are "created", so of course
they would tend to start off "ordered". Neither of these
things, or anything else, can assemble itself from raw materials. |
Nobody is arguing that this
is the case. |
irrelevant |
| 155 |
ASIDE: Evolutionists
commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated
systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets
lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems,
whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. |
False - open systems can
go either way |
FALSE |
| 156 |
For example, living
organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. |
So what? |
irrelevant |
| 157 |
Also, the universe in
total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has
transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion
connections is a clear violation of the Second Law. |
Physicists and cosmologists
don’t think so. I suggest you address you questions to them. |
irrelevant |
|
|
The preceding two sections show
that the author is completely out of touch with science. |
|
| |
|
Link
- Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism |
|
| |
15. Biogenetic law
|
|
|
| 158 |
This law has 2 provable
concepts to it: (a) Life can only come from life. (b) Like kinds always
give rise to like kinds. In all the years of observing nature,
scientists have never seen this law broken or violated. |
To quote: "Biogenetic law:
in biology, a law stating that the earlier stages of embryos of species
advanced in the evolutionary process, such as humans, resemble the embryos
of ancestral species, such as fish. The law refers only to embryonic development
and not to adult stages; as development proceeds, the embryos of different
species become more and more dissimilar. An early form of the law was devised
by the 19th-century Estonian zoologist K. E. von Baer, who observed that
embryos resemble the embryos, but not the adults, of other species. A later,
but incorrect, theory of the 19th-century German zoologist Ernst Heinrich
Haeckel states that the embryonic development (ontogeny) of an animal recapitulates
the evolutionary development of the animal's ancestors (phylogeny)."
Not what you said at all. |
FALSE |
| |
|
Link
- Biogenetic Law |
|
| |
16. Angular momentum |
|
|
| 159 |
The sun should have 700
times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead the
planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the sun. What this
means is that this planetary system was not made in an evolutionary
pattern by particles gravitating together. |
I'm very puzzled as to why this
is included. I'm not an astronomer, but my understanding is that the problem
of conservation of momentum applies to Laplace's nebular theory of planetary
formation - a theory over 200 years old. I would suggest a bit of basic
research should clear this up. In any case, I don't understand how this
is relevant to arguments on evolution. |
irrelevant |
