User talk:Superman151

How about this. Looking beyond just fossil records and biological evolution as pertaining to the "theory" (in quotes because a theory can be tested, evolution in the broad sence cannot) of evolution there are many flaws and logical inconsistancies. The hardest part of this edit will be to decide which flaw to talk about. Maybe just a brief overview of some of them will be useful. The first law of motion (btw, a law is a law, tested and proven, it's stronger than a theory) states that an object at rest will tend to stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force and an object in motion will tend to stay in motion until acted upon by an outside force. So, the point of singularity which exploded in the big bang did so all on its own? Don't think so. That's a clear flaw to this theory. Ok, now assuming you want to say that the bang did happen, here's another problem for you- the second LAW of thermodynamics. This law states that the energy and matter in a closed system (like our universe) tends toward an irreversibly degenerate state, that is to say that everything is falling from order, a loss of potential energy. What that means for the evolution of the atoms we see today would have to break that law in order to go from being a slew of subatomic particals (complete disorder) to forming atoms (a state of order) that are the basic building block of matter; the process of becoming more orderly is in direct contrast to the second law of thermodynamics. Here's another law- charle's law. Charles’ law says that in any system of gasses where the amount of gasses remains constant that pressure, volume, and temperature interact with one another as represented by the following equation: P1V1/T1=P2V2/T2. In this formula, where P1 is the initial pressure, V1 is the initial volume of the gas, T1 is the initial temperature of the system, P2 is the resulting pressure, V2 is the resulting volume of the gas, and T2 is the resulting temperature of the system, there would have to be a sufficient pressure to compress the gasses as the compression of these gasses would result in an increase in the temperature of the system. The truth of the matter is that the gravitational force within the system between the gas molecules would not be enough to bring about the needed pressure to keep the gasses compressed as the temperature increases. A fusion reaction requires a significant amount of heat and pressure; a scenario that can not be created on its own without some phenomena. Heres something to consider for the bilogy types: Can organisms rise from inorganic material? Science has traditionally said no. Scientists have been working, trying to get a compound of inorganic material to come to life. My first instinct is to say that that will never happen; further adding to the reasoning that there is no way that life could have arisen from inorganic substances. But if the scientist do someday put a compound together that brings forth life, then the only thing that will prove is that intelligence is required for life to have been formed, and will do nothing but work to discredit the notion of the accidental formation of life here on earth or elsewhere in the universe if it exists. Another major fundamental flaw with the theory of evolution is with the concept of macroevolution of living organisms. That simply goes against the logic and reasoning of any human being who takes time to think it through. When did the first single celled organism, which had no other DNA with which to change itself, become a completely different creature when it became a multi-celled organism? Or how is it possible that an asexual organism produce an offspring that was sexual and what are the odds that another sexual organism was within the proximity of that organism in order to procreate? There are many more questions for which this theory that has no explanation.

The bottom line: The “theory” of evolution is no more a part of science than the creation, but rather it’s a religion, a godless theology. The vast majority of the theology of evolution is speculation and should not be even considered as a science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, to understand the how of nature, to understand things near to us and far from us by way of calculated predictions, experimentation of those calculations, and a revision of predictions based on the result of the findings. The theology of evolution and its teachings in our schools does nothing more than brainwash our population into accepting the beliefs of a select few atheists. With everything we teach our children, we should teach them to think, to question the plainly stated, and to test the ideas for themselves. Evolution is not testable, is not logical, and should not be considered as anything more than a religion. tmfilkins 13:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)tmfilkins[reply]

Note that the article talk pages are not for debates. From what I see in your contribution above, you do not understand evolution at all, and not much about science. These are warmed over arguments cut and pasted from creationist websites that we have seen tens of thousands of times before, and they have long been dismissed. Sorry.--Filll 14:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can disprove all of what I've used to disprove the theology of evolution, well, I just might listen to what you have to say. But to come off and just say "nope, you're wrong, 'we've' seen it all and 'dissmissed' what you're saying before," is, simply, not science, it's what an osterage does when it's scared- you're putting your head in the sand. If you're going to say I'm wrong, explain to me, you who understand all and know all about science, how is it that the laws that have been cited above can really show a lack of understanding of science on my behalf. Ya see, if there's a problem with an aspect of a theory or a hypothisis, you re-work the theory and re-test- that's what science is all about. Yet there are paramount flaws with evolution on a grand scale and the "science" community is refusing to re-work their "theory" so that their predictions of the past line up with the laws of physics. That, it seems, is using faith to believe that for which they hope to be truth. tmfilkins 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)tmfilkins[reply]

Science is not about "proof" or "truth". There are no proofs in science, only in mathematics or logic. The very fact that you used the word "disprove" tells me you do not know what science is. Science is not a religion or a theology, so that also is a demonstration of your ignorance. By the definition of most creationists I have talked to, their definition of "religion" includes things like cleaning a toilet or baking a cake. If you want to define religion that broadly, be my guest, but that is not the standard definition of religion. Sorry. And YEC are wrong on almost everything they claim, which is why over 99.9% of all professional biologists do not subscribe to their claims. And none of the US courts do either, so it is a matter of judicial finding, at the state and federal level including the supreme court, repeatedly, that creationism is not science, there is no support for it scientifically and it is religion, not science, and that evolution IS science. You want me to go through point by point with references to show how the material you found on a creationist web site is complete nonsense? No thanks. Read talkorigins and educate yourself a bit. But what you are saying is just plain wrong and makes you look incredibly ignorant. Sorry.--Filll 21:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read what you've written? Because very little is acurate. First, You misquoted me from something that was written less than 50 lines above where you wrote. Second, the US Supreme court has never ruled that YEC could not be taught in school, simply that the teachers could not be forced to teach it so you're plum out of luck there. I'm defining religion in this context that evolutionists take their theory and treat it as I treat the gospel, and even more so in that they will never turn away from it regardless of what evidence is presented. In spite of the fact that I can point out 3 very basic laws of physics that greatly diminish the arguments of evolution, and used simple logic on maybe 2 or 3 other points that I briefly discussed, you have yet to discredit just one thing that I've pointed out concerning evolution. As stated before, none of this is from some creation website like you seem to think; I'm simply taking what is known in the laws of physics to demonstrate why the theory of evolution is flawed. Name one thing that has been disproved in the YECT. Also, FYI the origionional edit was not arguing for anything, just that evolution was not possible. It seems you're holding on really tight to that theology of yours; are you afraid of something? tmfilkins 22:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)tmfilkins[reply]

tmfilkins, you raise a number of interesting challenges to the Big Bang theory of creation and to the theory of evolution. First, I think it's important to note that these are two different theories, which stand or fall on their own independently of one another. The commonality that I believe you are picking up on is their shared premise that the universe is vastly older than the human species. Note that this premise, too, while required for both of those theories to be true, can be true even if the Big Bang and evolutionary theories are incorrect. Based on this interest of yours, you may find the Age of the universe and Age of the Earth articles worth reading. Second, you might find it interesting to note that upon the proposal of theories like Evolution by Natural Selection, and Geological Gradualism, many of the objections you raise were also raised by some of the finest scientific minds of the nineteenth century! After an (often heated) debate (which lasted decades), the scientific community was eventually swayed by the force of evidence. However, the problems with some of the objections are subtle, and require a fair amount of explanation to understand. As a result, scientists have spent the last century and a half (or so) hearing the same objections raised repeatedly. TalkOrigins has compiled an index of common objections to so-called "old earth" theories on the page An Index to Creationist Claims. You may be surprised to discover that most of the objections you raised are addressed there! I would suggest perusing that website; it's really a very interesting read. You might also find it interesting to read some of the Wikipedia articles on the topics of evolution, geology, and cosmology. There are also a number of excellent books on the subject. I can recommend Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" as an excellent introduction to what modern science has discovered about the universe and how it is that scientists came to believe what they do about the past; it's informative, entertaining, and they should probably have it at your local library. I encourage you to read more about the state of modern science on these issues. The more we all know, the better a Wikipedia we can build! Geoff 23:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this. Looking beyond just fossil records and biological evolution as pertaining to the "theory" (in quotes because a theory can be tested, evolution in the broad sence cannot) of evolution there are many flaws and logical inconsistancies.

Evolution has been repeatedly tested for over 100 years and has been adjusted to fit the facts that have been revealed, however, the central premise (common descent) still holds. Natural selection also still seems to be a major mechanism. There are hundreds of thousands of publications and millions of pieces of evidence supporting evolution. It has been seen in laboratory experiments and field experiments and in the fossil record. Molecular biology supports it.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The hardest part of this edit will be to decide which flaw to talk about. Maybe just a brief overview of some of them will be useful. The first law of motion (btw, a law is a law, tested and proven, it's stronger than a theory) states that an object at rest will tend to stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force and an object in motion will tend to stay in motion until acted upon by an outside force.

This is Newton's law of momentum, which is now known to be false. That is part of classical mechanics which of course has been overturned in several different ways. Sorry.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the point of singularity which exploded in the big bang did so all on its own?

This has nothing to do with evolution. Sorry. And it did not "do so on its own". We believe currently that it is due to a form of antigravity, but gravity is a far more mysterious theory than evolution and there is a lot we do not know.--Filll

Don't think so. That's a clear flaw to this theory. Ok, now assuming you want to say that the bang did happen,

The Big bang was a theory worked out by a belgian Catholic priest. Pope Pius XII used it as a proof that God exists. So what is your problem with it?--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here's another problem for you- the second LAW of thermodynamics. This law states that the energy and matter in a closed system (like our universe) tends toward an irreversibly degenerate state, that is to say that everything is falling from order,

The universe is in fact an open system.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a loss of potential energy.

Wrong.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What that means for the evolution of the atoms we see today would have to break that law in order to go from being a slew of subatomic particals (complete disorder) to forming atoms (a state of order) that are the basic building block of matter; the process of becoming more orderly is in direct contrast to the second law of thermodynamics.

If what you say is correct, trees would not exist. Give me a break. Look at Nobel Prize winner Prigogine for his work on thermodynamics. And no one claimed the 2nd law was always true anyway. On what basis are you even claiming it is true?--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another law- charle's law. Charles’ law says that in any system of gasses where the amount of gasses remains constant that pressure, volume, and temperature interact with one another as represented by the following equation: P1V1/T1=P2V2/T2.

Wrong equation. Sorry.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this formula, where P1 is the initial pressure, V1 is the initial volume of the gas, T1 is the initial temperature of the system, P2 is the resulting pressure, V2 is the resulting volume of the gas, and T2 is the resulting temperature of the system, there would have to be a sufficient pressure to compress the gasses as the compression of these gasses would result in an increase in the temperature of the system. The truth of the matter is that the gravitational force within the system between the gas molecules would not be enough to bring about the needed pressure to keep the gasses compressed as the temperature increases. A fusion reaction requires a significant amount of heat and pressure; a scenario that can not be created on its own without some phenomena.

You have forgotten the strong force, and the weak force, and the fact that the ideal gas law only holds for gases, and then is only approximate over a very restricted range of temperatures and pressures Sorry.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heres something to consider for the bilogy types: Can organisms rise from inorganic material?

Not part of evolution.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science has traditionally said no.

There are theories that have not yet yielded fruit. So what?--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists have been working, trying to get a compound of inorganic material to come to life.

Yes. So what?--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first instinct is to say that that will never happen

I am glad we have your incredible scientific expertise to rely on, but it really does not count for anything.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

; further adding to the reasoning that there is no way that life could have arisen from inorganic substances.

You have no evidence so this is irrelevant.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if the scientist do someday put a compound together that brings forth life, then the only thing that will prove is that intelligence is required for life to have been formed, and will do nothing but work to discredit the notion of the accidental formation of life here on earth or elsewhere in the universe if it exists.

No, obviously false.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another major fundamental flaw with the theory of evolution is with the concept of macroevolution of living organisms. That simply goes against the logic and reasoning of any human being who takes time to think it through.

So the several million professional scientists who disagree with you are not using logic and reasoning ? How many Nobel Prizes do you have to your credit? PhDs? You are a faculty member at an Ivy League school with tenure ? A member of the National Academy of Sciences?--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did the first single celled organism, which had no other DNA with which to change itself, become a completely different creature when it became a multi-celled organism?

This is called speciation. You might want to read about it.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or how is it possible that an asexual organism produce an offspring that was sexual and what are the odds that another sexual organism was within the proximity of that organism in order to procreate?

You have never heard of mutations?--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more questions for which this theory that has no explanation.

No science answers everything immediately. However, a magic wand answers all. You are free to use your magic wand. Just do not force it on others.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line: The “theory” of evolution is no more a part of science than the creation, but rather it’s a religion, a godless theology.

Several million scientists say you are wrong, plus US state and federal courts plus the US supreme court. So what is wrong with them and why are you right and they are wrong?--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the theology of evolution is speculation

No because it is based on evidence. Sorry.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and should not be even considered as a science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, to understand the how of nature, to understand things near to us and far from us by way of calculated predictions, experimentation of those calculations, and a revision of predictions based on the result of the findings.

By your definition, evolution is indeed a scientific theory and very well established too and very well supported by facts.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The theology of evolution and its teachings in our schools does nothing more than brainwash our population into accepting the beliefs of a select few atheists.

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. This is just nonsense. Sorry.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With everything we teach our children, we should teach them to think, to question the plainly stated, and to test the ideas for themselves.

Which is what they do, and these reasoning children then become scientists and reach the conclusion that creationism is crap. --Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is not testable, is not logical, and should not be considered as anything more than a religion. tmfilkins 13:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)tmfilkins

Evolution is testable and has been tested repeatedly and passed and is accepted. It does not matter if it is logical, it only needs to fit the data in a parsimonious fashion. Quantum mechanics is not logical. Gravity is not logical. But they are science. Evolution is not a religion in any way shape or form. It has no supernatural involved. It changes to meet the data. It is falsifiable. And so on.--Filll 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read what you've written? Because very little is acurate. First, You misquoted me from something that was written less than 50 lines above where you wrote.

Where?--Filll 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the US Supreme court has never ruled that YEC could not be taught in school, simply that the teachers could not be forced to teach it so you're plum out of luck there.

I believe this is correct.--Filll 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm defining religion in this context that evolutionists take their theory and treat it as I treat the gospel, and even more so in that they will never turn away from it regardless of what evidence is presented.

This is patently untrue, since evolution has changed drastically to fit the facts since it was introduced.--Filll 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of the fact that I can point out 3 very basic laws of physics that greatly diminish the arguments of evolution, and used simple logic on maybe 2 or 3 other points that I briefly discussed, you have yet to discredit just one thing that I've pointed out concerning evolution.

Because it is too tedious because you understand too little.--Filll 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, none of this is from some creation website like you seem to think;

Since these are the same arguments I have encountered over and over from creationists who pulled them from creationist tracts or websites or creationist lectures, I think that my objection stands at least in spirit.--Filll 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply taking what is known in the laws of physics to demonstrate why the theory of evolution is flawed.

Laws are not inviolate you know. But you misused and misstated them anyway.--Filll 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name one thing that has been disproved in the YECT.

I have no idea what that means.--Filll 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FYI the origionional edit was not arguing for anything, just that evolution was not possible. It seems you're holding on really tight to that theology of yours; are you afraid of something? tmfilkins 22:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)tmfilkins

I get tired of reading nonsense and aggressive nonsense is even worse.--Filll 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]