(serious) and Av1611, I have some real issues here which I wish to bring to your attention. One is your citing of "Meta Research Bulletin." It definitely does not lend any credibility to your positions. It is true bulletin was founded by a genuine Ph.D., Dr. Van Flandern, who was an astronomer of some note. However, as time passed, he began to deviate more and more from mainstream science. He started introducing views way off from mainstream science and then claimed all the guys in the mainstream really know he is right, but are afraid to speak up, for fear of being fired, etc. He argued that planets can up and suddenly explode. He claimed that Mars definitely showed features that prove there was an extraterrestrial civilization on Mars. Echoes of Percival Lowell, who, in the late 1800's, argued Mars definitely had canals, a view eventually dismissed by science. He argue that Mars was once a moon of a Planet X that exploded. He argued that human life began n Mars and then came to earth, via the Martians. Hence, he is an icon of alternative science. Interesting, I'll admit. But can he really be trusted? If you are going to cite him as a solid resource, you should carefully consider whether or not he was a crackpot.
Next, all sorts of criticisms are being presented here, with the presenter failing to demonstrate he really knows what he is talking about. Case in point: The second law of thermodynamics was offered as a solid criticism of evolution by (serious) , who next said he really didn't understand this criticism. That's dangerous to do. You are flying blind, have no idea what you are talking about or what rebuttal can come flying to you. So let me explain briefly what the second law says. stated simply, it is a claim that any isolated system will fall apart sooner or later, plunging into chaos. Example: If you put a red seven made out of sugar into water, it will quickly vanish into chaos. What does this have to do with evolution? Creation-science people try and claim this completely disproves evolution. Why? Evolution says that everything mores from the simple to the more complex. But that is impossible, as all complex systems naturally will fall into chaos.
This, however, can be shown to be a bogus criticism from a number of standpoints. I'll just highlight some of these. Entropy, the fact all things perish, is essential for the creative advance of the universe, as the old must perish to make way for the new. Also, the problem remains of how the creationists can justify God creating anything. If you knock out evolution on the grounds that all things fall apart, why not knock our God for the same reason, for the fact that all things do fall apart eventually? Also, the creationists generally fail to mention the first law of thermodynamics, in their emphasis upon God creating out of nothing. The law states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. In short creation ex nihilo is an absolute impossibility, even for God. Nice, how selective they are in their choice of what law to follow, eh?