Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

# http://www.darwinismrefuted.com

Posted by on Jul. 8, 2012 at 9:31 PM
• 2 Replies
• 225 Total Views

This is a pro-creationism site.   It would be interesting to build up a list of discussion on its points.

by on Jul. 8, 2012 at 9:31 PM
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-2):
by Member on Jul. 8, 2012 at 9:46 PM

For example, the page:

quotes a scientists saying:

Quote:

there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself

It is important to understand the distinction in physics between a particular formulation of a law (which may be applicable only to some circumstances) and the underlying law itself.

" The entropy of a system tends to increase rather than decrease. " is a formulation of the second law of thermodynamics that only applies to closed systems.

There are other formulations, such as  "No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature. " but, again, there are all just approximations to the underlying mathmatics:

$\oint \frac{\delta Q}{T} \leq 0,$ for a cyclic process

So the apparent syllogism the page plays upon:

(A) The second law applies to all systems, not just closed ones
(B) The second law says "entropy increases"

therefore

(C) Entropy ought to increase in all systems, even open ones, and if it doesn't that indicates God is involved

misses the point that while the second law always applies, it is only one formulation of the second law that says "entropy increases" and that formulation doesn't always apply.

by Member on Jul. 9, 2012 at 10:28 AM
1 mom liked this
The Myth of the Evolution of Fish with Lungs

General / 2011-06-01 Türkçe

Evolutionists resort to evolutionist tales regarding fish with lungs and maintain that these fish were the first vertebrates to move from water to dry land. However, the idea of the passage from water to dry land and the role assumed to have been played in this scenario by fish with lungs stem solely from blind devotion to the theory of evolution. Evolutionists are unable to produce any concrete evidence to support their claims. This can clearly be seen from Darwinist writings. One sees tales about how fish supposedly developed lungs in order to be able to make use of the oxygen in the air and how their fins turned into feet to enable them to walk on land. But these people are unable to produce any fossil evidence for their claims. The reason for this is clear: such a passage is entirely imaginary and there is no scientific evidence to support it.

On the contrary, the scientific evidence refutes these Darwinist tales. The weakness of the evolutionary myths about fish with lungs is a fact explicitly and frequently brought up even in evolutionist literature.

Fish with lungs are able to breathe air and to survive in dry periods thanks to an astonishing metabolic arrangement and system. These fish, which have to rise to the surface approximately every 20 minutes, bury themselves inside a cocoon made of mud in dry seasons when the waters retract and enter into a kind of summer sleep, known as aestivation. This time, when their metabolisms slow down enormously, will last for months, or sometimes even for years, until the rains begin again.

Some evolutionists claim that these creatures are left over from this so called period, living transitional forms. According to this entirely imaginary evolutionist fantasy, the fish in question were imprisoned in very small bodies of water caused by a drought in the Devonian Period, some 300 million years ago, and learned how to walk from one pool to another. Some evolutionists regard these fish as the supposed ancestors of amphibians (and quadrupeds).

There are enormous difference, in terms of skeletons and organs, between amphibians and the fish with lungs alleged to be their ancestors. In a paper published in the Journal of Molecular Evolution the researchers C. Marshall and H. P. Schultz wrote that, "Morphological analysis of the "living fossils," the coelacanth and lungfish, has only lead to confusion regarding possible evolution of tetrapods.” (Marshall C. and Schultze HP. Journal of Molecular Evolution 35 (2): 93-101, 1992.)

A paper in the Proceedings of the Linnean Society admitted the dilemma facing the supposed evolutionary origins of fish with lungs – portrayed as resting on very sure foundations:

"… the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing." (Quoted in W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)

In his book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” the molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote that evolutionists described fish with lungs as a transitional form between fish and amphibians, but said that the individual characteristics of fish with lungs "in no way represent a realistic passage between the two." ("Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Michael Denton, Adler and Adler: Bethesda, Maryland, 3rd ed. 1986, p. 109)

The fossil record also deals a heavy blow to evolutionist scenarios regarding fish with lungs. These have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years and fossils belonging to these creatures are identical to specimens living today. Not a single fossil exists to justify the claim that the lungs in this fish developed gradually. This shows that fish with lungs are rather evidence against evolution, not for it. It is clear in the light of the above facts that the idea that fish with lungs represent an evolutionary phase is simply a fantasy.

What evolutionists are doing is to try to spread a scenario about fish with lungs as if they were the scientific truth and to ignore the objections to that scenario that can easily be found in the scientific literature. This is a blind endeavor to spread Darwinist propaganda with unscientific myths.

Like all living things, fish with lungs exhibited sublime complexities far beyond the reach of even the most advanced technologies. And like all living things they are proof of a flawless Creation. The idea that fish one day moved from the water to dry land and developed lungs and feet with the help of blind chance is a myth. The truth is that Almighty Allah has perfectly created these animals.

Ok, this is the third time I've tried to post this fucker. Starting to get upset with my wifi connection.
Ok, since we all know my true and undying devotion to the swim bladder and its wonderful journey from being the lung of the lungfish, I decided this would be the best "essay" to focus on and refute it point for point. Unfortunately, I couldn't really find points to refute and I couldn't see any evidence that was supposed to be scientific. The writer grabbed blurbs from anti evolution Web sites and books and called it proof that the entire civilized and educated world was positive that evolution was a silly idea with no proof from the beginning to this day, and praise be for that.
I'm truong to post this and my phone is awful when it comes to moving around the text of a long piece and making it easily read. I'm probably going to go ahead and post this so I will be able to look and responds editor having to scroll up and down within the same body of text.
It is kinda difficult to refute a theory that basically states "It isn't true, everyone knows this isn't true, and I have no need to list the ways specifically that evolution is wrong, so there, and praise Allah while you're at it." It us also strange to me that the use Darwin's quotes about a dearth of transitional fossils a hundred and fifty years ago and uses that comment as proof for no fossils bring present to this day. The writer also effectively throws all transitional fossils away saying that because they could live and reproduce in his words "prefect and whole", these fossils couldn't be a transition between two species. I didn't understand that point really. Maybe the author was expecting a fossil with a half working trait of each and every point of contention in a single specimen and then be able to point to a new fossil where all of those traits are now whole and fully functioning, so the previous fossil could be called a transitional fossil. It would be easy to claim that no proof exists when the only evidence one would accept is something that would be physically impossible, I guess.

Part of me is very tired of the race baiting, class warfare, and hating on the gay agenda along with the evil single mother that is all I've been seeing in the current events threads lately, so I'm just ask Clair to put this on that page for a change of pace. I think it may be fun but I'm also afraid/curious to see if the usual backers of pro creation nonsense will find palatable to support the "evidence"on this site after they learn that they might have to agree with the Mooslims with some of the points on this anti Darwin website.
Of course, they might get a warm fuzzy falling inside when they see that out could be seen as proof of their own tolerance and open mindedness to be seen agreeing with conservative Islamic thought when it intersects conservative Christian thought. Maybe we can build bridges between the pro "god as unquestionableinstrument of social and intellectual status quo maintenance", anti science elements present in all religions. We could be seen as building a coalition. It'll be beautiful (sniff) and irredeemably stupid, but beautiful nonetheless.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Debate Evolution vs Creationism
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)