Darwinian Sects, Lies and Evolutionists

Originally posted by Cyclo Rider

People just practice the rotten fruit resulting from the belief system. The Nazis practiced its fruits. So did the Communists. So do the folks at the "Natural Law"-based World Church of the Creator.

That's funny. Last time I looked the Nazis based their racism in that the Aryans were the chosen people of God, Communists actually rejected darwinism because it was too capitalistic, and WCOTC beliefs reflect in no way actual biology and evolution. The comparison of evolutionist and evolutionary biology to racists and totalitarians is old, tiresome, and completly worthless.

Evolition is scientific, as such its accuracy cannot be determined by emotion, philosophy, politics, and religion.

I think you need to go back and check your facts.

Consider the belief that reptiles change into mammals, fish with fins into amphibians with legs, land mammals with legs into whales with flippers, and you have a bizarre faith system.

bacteria -> fish -> amphibian -> reptile -> rodent -> primate -> human

That is probably the bizarrest faith system in the planet since it involves absolutely no faith. The evidence for vertebrate evolution is enormous, as you can find out by reading Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.

That's a faith. Not part of biology. Biology should deal with science, not faith.

You can assert that till the cows come home, but its not going to make it any more accurate.


The World Church of the Creator is off to a start. There's a whole pandora's box of evil that is opened with Darwinist interpretations of "Natural Law."

Maybe, but last time I looked, evolutionary biology didn't deal with "Natural Law," whatever that refers to.

Would you mind addressing the actuall science of evolution, instead of poorly inaccurate cartoons of it?
 
Upvote 0
chickenman, you're an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

You don't think people practice the fruits of their belief systems and in so doing, have ignored documented evidence harmful to your belief in evolution fundamentalism.

Originally posted by chickenman
again the non-scientist makes his pronouncements about what he thinks science is and isn't. Why should I take your word for it, and not the word of richard dawkins, he at least, has studied biology at university level, and participated in scientific research. [/B]
Irrelevant.

There are scientists who believe in creation and know Darwinism is a myth.
 
Upvote 0

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
41
Visit site
✟9,874.00
thank you cyclo, for assuming how I came to my belief in evolution. I'll tell you how, it came from enrolling in a Bachelor of Science degree at university. I went in with out a clue about biology and evolution. I'm now in my final year, and all that I have learned points to the validity of the theory of evolution, and I think it elegantly explains the evidence I have seen. I haven't ignored any evidence.

its now your turn to be so arrogant and presumptuous as to tell me that i'm wrong, simply because you say so.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Cyclo Rider
chickenman, you're an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

You don't think people practice the fruits of their belief systems and in so doing, have ignored documented evidence harmful to your belief in evolution fundamentalism.

What evidence? I haven't seen anything other than inaccurate claims that racism is based upon evolution.

There are scientists who believe in creation and know Darwinism is a myth.

Yeah too bad they're mostly engineers and mathematicians. Can you name a single present or former population or evolutionary biologist from modern biology that believes that special creation is an accurate explaination for the diversity of life? In other words, can you find a single scientist profesionally familiar with the data from the natural world, who thinks that Darwinism is a myth and special creation is the ansmwer. Failure to do so indicates that you are making a misplaced appeal to authority.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by chickenman
again cyclo rider, you aren't a biologist, yet you feel you have the right to tell them what to think. Its really just your word against a scientific majority
Neither are you. Nor is the "majority" always right. How telling it is that with all the indoctrination that has occured, incredible numbers of people still recognize Darwinian evolution as the myth that it is. Nor is it just "my word."

We have a right to believe science based on observable science and logic, not faith, which is how you believe in science.
 
Upvote 0

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
41
Visit site
✟9,874.00
We have a right to believe science based on observable science and logic, not faith, which is how you believe in science.

you're obviously in a very good position to judge whether the majority is right, I have to admire the intelligence of a man who has the ability to see what thousands of far better educated men can't
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Cyclo Rider

Neither are you. Nor is the "majority" always right. How telling it is that with all the indoctrination that has occured, incredible numbers of people still recognize Darwinian evolution as the myth that it is. Nor is it just "my word."

Ahh, but do you know of any scientist professionally familar with the modern evidence from biology that would agree that Darwinian evolution is a myth. If so, can you cite his or her reasons why Darwinian evolution is a myth? You are using a lot of rhetoric, but I would like to see some data.

We have a right to believe science based on observable science and logic, not faith, which is how you believe in science.

Which is a great reason that creationism is a worthless scientific position, because faith is about all it has. Now if you want do discuss biology, please do more than simply assert that evolution is faith-based.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
That's funny. Last time I looked the Nazis based their racism in that the Aryans were the chosen people of God, Communists actually rejected darwinism because it was too capitalistic, and WCOTC beliefs reflect in no way actual biology and evolution.
No, Nazism as was based on the belief that Ayrans were the superior race in Darwinian terms. The Nazis murdered the elderly, handicapped, mentally retarded and others they deemed worthless in their quest for a master race. Communists admittedly used Darwinism as a foundational doctrine in that the human race to them was a bunch of evolved animals subject to extermination for the "greater good" of the state. The WCOTC believes white people evolved superior compared to other races. A pure Darwinian-arrived concept. "Natural Law" is part of their core doctrine.

Evolution is scientific, as such its accuracy cannot be determined by emotion, philosophy, politics, and religion.
No, Darwinian evolution is not supported by anything but assumptions.

That is probably the bizarrest faith system in the planet since it involves absolutely no faith. The evidence for vertebrate evolution is enormous, as you can find out by reading...
It's not enormous. It's non-existent. Indeed myself and others have read the spurious "source" in question and it amounts to all words and no substance. They have almost no evidence that wasn't invented by them. Almost no photographs either. Just a lot of assumptions tailored to fit their crack-pot beliefs. Thank God, many people are smarter than to fall for such fabricated "evidence." The evolutionist fundamentalist truly has no idea how many thousands upon thousands of transitional forms there would have to be to arrive at each of the various known animal species. There would have to be more "transitional" forms than completed species themselves!

Maybe, but last time I looked, evolutionary biology didn't deal with "Natural Law," whatever that refers to.
Belief in "Natural Law" and acting upon those beliefs is just one of the rotten fruits of evolutionary thinking.

Would you mind addressing the actuall science of evolution, instead of poorly inaccurate cartoons of it?
There is no science to the macro-evolution myth and the aforementioned cartoon was quite a good analogy of how evolution fundamentalists arrive at their hilarious conclusions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by chickenman
you're obviously in a very good position to judge whether the majority is right, I have to admire the intelligence of a man who has the ability to see what thousands of far better educated men can't
Thousands of "far better" educated men disagree with you too!

Yet only evolutionists believe that life was accidently created by non-life and that non-intelligence can create intelligence.

Why would a mindless process give you eyes in the front of your head for sight and ears on the sides of your head for hearing and teeth to chew your food with?

Not to mention other bodily attributes which are clearly the work of an intelligent designer.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Cyclo Rider
No, Nazism as was based on the belief that Ayrans were the superior race in Darwinian terms. The Nazis murdered the elderly, handicapped, mentally retarded and others they deemed worthless in their quest for a master race.

You don't happen to have any evidence for that do you? From Hitler's own Mein Kampf: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." That doesn't quite mess with your assertion that Nazi racism was based on Darwinism.

You can read more of Hitler's religious views here.

Communists admittedly used Darwinism as a foundational doctrine in that the human race to them was a bunch of evolved animals subject to extermination for the "greater good" of the state.

Again, you wouldn't happen to have any evidence for this? In fact, history records that the communist party rejected Darwinism because it was too capitalistic and western and instead insured that Russian science follow Lysenkoism. You can read more about this failure of russian science here. I am curious how you can claim that communists based their philosophy on something they rejected.

The WCOTC believes white people evolved superior compared to other races. A pure Darwinian-arrived concept. "Natural Law" is part of their core doctrine.

Evidence please. You wouldn't happen to be able to explain what "Natural Law" is? I know of no scientific concept that goes by that name.


No, Darwinian evolution is not supported by anything but assumptions.

That's a nice assertion. You wouldn't happen to have any evidence to support it?

It's not enormous. It's non-existent. Indeed myself and others have read the spurious "source" in question and it amounts to all words and no substance. They have almost no evidence that wasn't invented by them.b]

That's a pretty big claim to make. You wouldn't in fact be able to show that the data was invented? Unless you can, you are bearing false witness, and we all know how bad of a thing that is.

Thank God, many people are smarter than to fall for such fabricated "evidence."

Again, you wouldn't happen to have any evidence that the evidence is fabricated? You're starting to sound a lot like Jonny Cochran.

The evolutionist fundamentalist truly has no idea how many thousands upon thousands of transitional forms there would have to be to arrive at each of the various known animal species.

Please enlighten us then. Exactly how many would be needed. Don't forget about the plants, insects, bacteria, viruses, and all the other forms of life.

There would have to be more "transitional" forms than completed species themselves!

So? What does that have to do with whether the fossils so far uncovered show evolution and the relationships between taxa?

Belief in "Natural Law" and acting upon those beliefs is just one of the rotten fruits of evolutionary thinking.

Until you explain what "Natural Law" is and how it relates to evolution, you cannot support this claim. You do realize that the accuracy of science cannot be determined by whatever emotional, philsophical, political, or religious conclusions that one might draw from it.


There is no science to the macro-evolution myth

Well scientists like me say otherwise, with evidence to support it. Until you can do more than simply assert this, your comments hold no weight.

the aforementioned cartoon was quite a good analogy of how evolution fundamentalists arrive at their hilarious conclusions.

Okay. You wouldn't be able to actually provide some examples of "evolution fundamentalists" that use such arguments; would you? I suspect that they share something in common with the tooth fairy: they don't exist.
 
Upvote 0

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
41
Visit site
✟9,874.00
sorry, I should have said better educated in the topic of interest. namely biology
I doubt there are even 100 biologists alive today who practise evolution denial.

we keep going in circles. You make assertions, you don't back them up. So i'm expected to accept your arguments on authority. Your authority on the subject of science and biology is virtually non-existent
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Cyclo Rider

Thousands of "far better" educated men disagree with you too!

Yeah. So what? Do any of them happen to be professionaly familar with the evidence from modern biology? Are any off them current or former population biologists?

Yet only evolutionists believe that life was accidently created by non-life and that non-intelligence can create intelligence.

Sorry, but this accusation is misplaced. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolutionary biology studies the diversity of life. Therefore, "evolutionist" is not the same as "natural-origin-of-life-ist." Are you sure you know enough about science to accurately denounce it?

Why would a mindless process give you eyes in the front of your head for sight and ears on the sides of your head for hearing and teeth to chew your food with?

Are you asking what is the advantage to having senses? Well senses allow an organism to better aquire resources than those that don't have senses. Thus, those that evolved the ability to sense light or vibration are more likely to pass on their genes, eventually the ability to sense wins out over the inability to sense. Similarly, teeth evolved because they provide an better way to process resources and latter defend oneself. There is no mystery to why such things exist. It is pretty apparent.

Not to mention other bodily attributes which are clearly the work of an intelligent designer.

So far you are 0 for 3, want to go some more?
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Ahh, but do you know of any scientist professionally familar with the modern evidence from biology that would agree that Darwinian evolution is a myth. If so, can you cite his or her reasons why Darwinian evolution is a myth? You are using a lot of rhetoric, but I would like to see some data.
ICR has a list of 38 scientists from the biological sciences who are familiar with the evidence and reject the absurd notion of Darwinian evolution. You want to be spoon-fed information that you refuse to look up yourself. Read "Icons of Evolution" by biologist Jonathan Wells (Ph.D.) if you want your fraud exposed further.


Which is a great reason that creationism is a worthless scientific position, because faith is about all it has.
Wrong. The creation position has logic and rationality on its side. The evolution position is one of absolute faith with a doctrine that is altogether worthless, illogical and irrational.

Creation position: Only intelligence can create intelligence.
Evolution position: Non-intelligent matter can create intelligence.

Creation position: Only life can create life.
Evolution position: Non-life can create life.

Which two of the four positions are supported by science and which two are not?

One belief system is rational and logical (Creation). The other is irrational and illogical (Evolution) and in complete violation of the laws of science.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by Cyclo Rider

ICR has a list of 38 scientists from the biological sciences who are familiar with the evidence and reject the absurd notion of Darwinian evolution.

I've looked at that list before, but not a single one is or was a population or evolutionary biologist. That is the field most familiar with the science of evolution, yet ICR's list is sorely lacking of individuals who should be at the best position to denounce evolution if the evidence truely wasn't there. Heck, most of them are not even practicing scientists. In fact, ICR requires members to pledge away their objectivity by stating that no matter what the evidence is, it will always support YEC. That's not a good sign that their denial of evolution was due to scientific study. You're really not helping your case here.

You want to be spoon-fed information that you refuse to look up yourself.

No, we just what you to put some effort into backing up your claims. You have yet to give us any basis that we should just accept your assertions.

Read "Icons of Evolution" by biologist Jonathan Wells (Ph.D.) if you want your fraud exposed further.

LOL. Icons of Evolution does nothing but expose the fraud of Wells own position. Here is a lengthy review of Wells's "scholarship:" Icon of Obfuscation.


Wrong. The creation position has logic and rationality on its side.

Where? Since when? It might be what you might call logical and rational, but it is still a faith-based position that is maintained in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

The evolution position is one of absolute faith with a doctrine that is altogether worthless, illogical and irrational.

Creation position: Only intelligence can create intelligence.
Evolution position: Non-intelligent matter can create intelligence.

Creation position: Only life can create life.
Evolution position: Non-life can create life.

Can you provide any sources from biology that makes either of those claims in regards to evolution? Unless you can, you are arguing against an inaccurate descritption. Thus, even if you do defeat the "evolution postions" as you have stated them, the actual positions of evolutionary biology remain unscathed. Evolution has gone through about 150 years of heated religious and political assualt yet it is still at the forefront of scientific study. If evolution isn't truely scientific, maybe you should be proactive and contact the Christians in Washington, DC and get them to revoke my NSF fellowship to study evolution and all the other government grants out there. I'm sure they will listen to you.

Furthermore, what proof do you have of the creationist position that only intelligence can create intelligence and that only life can create life.

One belief system is rational and logical (Creation). The other is irrational and illogical (Evolution) and in complete violation of the laws of science.

Well then, what "laws of science" does evolution violate? If you can clue me in, I'll anounce them to the class when I TA undergraduate Evolutionary Biology because it appears that the textbook and lecture notes has failed to note that.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Yeah. So what? Do any of them happen to be professionaly familar with the evidence from modern biology?
Of course, but it's with an understanding that to the evolution fundamentalist, personal assumptions and fabrications = "evidence."


Are you asking what is the advantage to having senses? Well senses allow an organism to better aquire resources than those that don't have senses. Thus, those that evolved the ability to sense light or vibration are more likely to pass on their genes, eventually the ability to sense wins out over the inability to sense. Similarly, teeth evolved because they provide an better way to process resources and latter defend oneself. There is no mystery to why such things exist. It is pretty apparent.
You just stated a process that could only result from an intelligent designer. Eyes to see "evolved" because... Ears to hear "evolved" because.... Teeth to chew "evolved" because... You are convinced that each originally "formed" by accident! Yet you imply a form of intelligence behind their creation. That's quite a contradiction. Minus an original and intelligent designer, and no combination of mindless chemicals would ever be able to provide ANY of the above in such strategic locations on the body. The formation of senses and the strategic placement thereof can only be the work of an original intelligent designer.


So far you are 0 for 3, want to go some more?
You're not only wrong, you appear to be delusional.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Cyclo Rider

Of course, but it's with an understanding that to the evolution fundamentalist, personal assumptions and fabrications = "evidence."

So by your own account these scientists who believe in creation do not understand what actual biology says about evolution. (Hint: Evolution is not pased on personal assumptions or fabrications. I challenge you to show evidence otherwise.)


You just stated a process that could only result from an
intelligent designer. Eyes to see "evolved" because... Ears to hear "evolved" because.... Teeth to chew "evolved" because... You are convinced that each originally "formed" by accident! Yet you imply a form of intelligence behind their creation. That's quite a contradiction.

Where in my expaination do I invoke an intelegent designer? Natural selection isn't intellegent; it goes with what works. What works is determined by physical properties interacting with the environment. In otherwords, no intellegece is required in nature to determine which individuals are more likely to survive. While you're at it, why don't you just claim that an intellegence is needed to determine how gravity holds us to the ground.

Minus an original and intelligent designer, and no combination of mindless chemicals would ever be able to provide ANY of the above in such strategic locations on the body.

Why? Please provide evidence to support this claim. Until you do so, your argument is nothing but rhetoric.

The formation of senses and the strategic placement thereof can only be the work of an original intelligent designer.

That's a pretty big claim. Do you happen to have any proof that it is impossible for natural explainations to accout for this? You still haven't provided any sort of scientific alternative to evolution. If evolution is so faulty, what should scientists advocate in its place?

You're not only wrong, you appear to be delusional.

LOL. If you were truely making any headway with your argument, you would have to resort to calling me delusional.
roflmao.gif
You are clutching at some major straws.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I've looked at that list before, but not a single one is or was a population or evolutionary biologist. That is the field most familiar with the science of evolution, yet ICR's list is sorely lacking of individuals who should be at the best position to denounce evolution if the evidence truely wasn't there. Heck, most of them are not even practicing scientists. In fact, ICR requires members to pledge away their objectivity by stating that no matter what the evidence is, it will always support YEC. That's not a good sign that their denial of evolution was due to scientific study.
They agreed to the terms, because they share the same views. These are life-long scientists in the biological sciences, like it or not.

Moreover, they are in a position to know "evolutionary biology" and they have rejected Darwinism outright. Trying to reduce "evolutionary biology" to a cultic few evolutionists of your choosing doesn't hold water, because numerous biology scientists have flat-out rejected Darwinism as science.

No, we just what you to put some... effort into backing up your claims. You have yet to give us any basis that we should just accept your assertions.
This is about YOUR assertions.

LOL. Icons of Evolution does nothing but expose the fraud of Wells own position. Here is a lengthy review of Wells's "scholarship:"
Actually, Icons of Evolution does quite an effective job at exposing the fraud of the evolution fundamentalist position. You can deny it, you can ignore facts, you can resort to smear tactics, but the author Jonathan Wells is a respected biologist with Ph.D.'s from Yale and U.C. Berkeley.

Where? Since when? but it is still a faith-based position that is maintained in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
That's the evolution fundamentalist position.

Life from non-life and non-intelligent matter creating intelligence! I'm sorry, but neither belief has any scientific basis whatsoever.

Moreover, the lack of "transitional" forms proves evolution fundamentalism to be nothing more than a demented fairy tale. If it were even remotely valid, there would be more transitional forms than completed forms, because for every one completed stage, we'd see several "transitional" stages. There are not. Instead, a few assumptions that don't hold weight.

Furthermore, what proof do you have of the creationist position that only intelligence can create intelligence and that only life can create life.
Observable science.

Well then, what "laws of science" does evolution violate? If you can clue me in, I'll anounce them to the class when I TA undergraduate Evolutionary Biology because it appears that the textbook and lecture notes has failed to note that.
Darwinian evolution is in complete violation of the following:
1. The Law of Causality
2. The Law of Biogenesis
3. The Law of Genetics
4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by Cyclo Rider
They agreed to the terms, because they share the same views. These are life-long scientists in the biological sciences, like it or not.

Nope, most of them are not life-long scientists. Furthermore, their opinions on evolution are not based on science but religious faith. There can be no other conclusion when they sign a statement of faith upon joining ICR affirming that evolution is not true. Real objective scientists do not do such a thing.

Moreover, they are in a position to know "evolutionary biology" and they have rejected Darwinism outright.

They might have degrees that indicate that they might know about evolutionary biology, but that is no indication that they actually do.

Trying to reduce "evolutionary biology" to a cultic few evolutionists of your choosing doesn't hold water, because numerous biology scientists have flat-out rejected Darwinism as science.

Read my posts again. At no point have I put any requirements on the field of evolutionary biology to reduce its numbers, nor have I stated that I get to choose who qualifies and who does not. That is up to the type of research they do and have done. If you need to learn about the field, try this resource.

Now do you know of a single modern population/evolutionary biologist who considers special creation an adequate explanation for the diversity of life? To answer this you will need to provide more than a name. You will also need to provide some evidence that the person is/was a population biologist. Simply showing that he or she is a biologist or has a biological degree isn't enough. Furthermore, you will also need to show that he or she thinks special creation explains the diversity of life..

This is about YOUR assertions.

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof off your shoulders, but it ain't going to work. Anyone doing a cursory reading of this thread can tell that you are make numerous unsubstantiated assertions with little interest to back them up. You are attempting to discuss science; as such rhetoric will get you nowhere. You need to start providing some data to back yourself up.

Actually, Icons of Evolution does quite an effective job at exposing the fraud of the evolution fundamentalist position. You can deny it, you can ignore facts, you can resort to smear tactics, but the author Jonathan Wells is a respected biologist with Ph.D.'s from Yale and U.C. Berkeley.

LOL. Jonathan Wells is not a respected biologist. In fact he isn't even a biologist. He does have a PhD in Molecular Biology, but other than that he has done no scientific work or ever been a part of the scientific community. He only has a few scientific papers to his name, with no prospects of ever writing anymore. Furthermore, he freely admits that he only got his second PhD, at the request of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, to pad his resume so that when he writes his book to "destroy Darwinism" people like you can mistakenly claim that he is a biologist.

Please, enlighten me as to what facts am I ignoring.

That's the evolution fundamentalist position.

Life from non-life and non-intelligent matter creating intelligence! I'm sorry, but neither belief has any scientific basis whatsoever.

Please provide evidence from actual "evolution fundamentalist" works that indicates that that truly is their position. Until you can do so, you are arguing against a straw-man. I hope you have something more than your personal opinion to demonstrate what "evolution fundamentalists" believe, that they really exist, and that the science of evolution is irreconcilably linked to these “evolution fundamentalists.” Until you do so your comments don’t come close to addressing the actual scientific knowledge about the evolution of life.

Moreover, the lack of "transitional" forms proves evolution fundamentalism to be nothing more than a demented fairy tale. If it were even remotely valid, there would be more transitional forms than completed forms, because for every one completed stage, we'd see several "transitional" stages. There are not. Instead, a few assumptions that don't hold weight.

By what criteria are you able to make this determination about the number of transitional fossils that we should have? You can claim all you want that we should have “gillions” of transitional fossils, but until you explain why, showing with detail how you came up with this conclusion and showing exactly how many are known to paleontology, your comments are nothing more that unsubstantial rhetoric. Scientists consider the fossil record to be excellent conformation of evolutionary biology; Cyclo Rider does not. If you can’t offer anything more than your opinion, I am obliged to go with the consensus of the scientific community on this one.

Observable science.

That’s not an adequate answer. You need to provide us with some of that data from observable science, if you what to support that the creationist positions are reflected in nature. You also need to provide some sort of proof that a supernatural explanation is the only possible one.

Darwinian evolution is in complete violation of the following:
1. The Law of Causality
2. The Law of Biogenesis
3. The Law of Genetics
4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Please give details about these laws and how evolution violates them. In the meantime I’m going to comment on them.

  1. Law of Causality is not a law of nature. (It’s from philosophy.) Therefore, there is no way that, even if evolution violates it, the scientific reality of evolution is affected.
  2. Since evolution is only concerned about the evolution of life and not it’s origins, the law of biogenesis is not relevant to it.
  3. There is no such thing as “The Law of Genetics;” therefore evolution cannot be in violation of it.
  4. Evolution in no manner violates 2LoT, since 2LoT simply states that process can only happen, which increase the total entropy (amount of energy unavailable for work) of the universe. Since biological processes, including evolution, do happen they can in no manner be in volition of 2LoT. What allows biological processes to happen, you might ask? For the most part the energy output of the sun powers the biochemical reactions that keep things alive, reproducing, and evolving.

Up to this point you argument has been so lacking of substance, that most creationists have stopped using it.
 
Upvote 0