I thought, in the hopes someone would listen I would pull out a few sections of the posted argument and address them.
"Chance evolutionary theory does not have the honour of mathematical support despite the fact that evolution is the sole base for the materialist philosophy.
Professors Sir Fred Hoyle & N.C. Wickramasinghe.
Two competent mathematicians, Professors Sir Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe, published (1981) a book called 'Evolution from Space' in which they ridicule the theory of chance evolution as something mathematically impossible. They say:
. . .there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is... an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.' They also say of evolution theory, 'If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or scientific training into the conviction . . . this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.'"
First it's important to point out that Evolution is not chance. Although I like the loaded language of calling evolution "chance evolution" to keep pounding the false idea into peoples head. Unfortunately people often go for loaded language when they have no real argument.
Second, this is referring too abiogenesis not the theory of evolution. The two are often combined by people who don't know any better (and sometimes on purpose) in an attempt to create a straw-man. A straw-man is where you take a false or weaker section, attack it, and then claim victory. Abiogenesis is not as well established as evolution, so by falsely linking the two and then beating up abiogenesis, they can claim victory over evolution. This is a big error, and combining the two theories into one only suggests that the writer doesn't understand the basics of evolution.
Third, Hoyle was wrong. He was wrong 25 years ago, and is still wrong today.
Abiogenesis is not chance it is based on chemistry.
Information about probability and abiogenesis,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
"The 'Second Law of Thermodynamics' is also violated. The second law states that the universe is running down, that simplification of structure is the natural state. We have this reflected in the fact that the genetic pools of nature also destruct. This confirms the mathematical law that complex structure cannot form by chance."
Quite frankly, anyone who uses the 2LoT to try and disprove evolution is showing that they do not have even the most basic grasp of science, the 2LoT or Evolution.
First of all, the 2LoT in physics is not about order into disorder, its about energy transfer (what most of the Laws of thermodynamics are about). The 2LoT states that heat is a special kind of energy, a lower quality energy, that although other types of energy can be changed back and forth, not all of the heat in a system can be converted into another type of energy. What this means is that in a system (more specifically a closed system) the amount of energy available to do work will always decrease over time. This is much different from saying that complex structures can't form.
Second, physics can arrange things into more complex structures. Take 2 parts hydrogen, 1 part oxygen and add fire and you get water, a more complex structure than the first two. Subtract heat from the water and you get ice crystals, a more complex structure than the first three. Etc. This version of the 2LoT would suggest that snow flakes could not form as they would be considered an increase in complexity.
So, this argument loses.
"Evolution theory provides the elitists with a base for socialist theory and paganism. Chance evolution theory is what makes all the kaleidoscope of deviant self-destructive anti-social behaviour appear beautifully logical. The failure of the theory of chance evolution has been carefully kept from the public because it is a deliberate confidence trick. This myth supplies the foundation for the humanist/pagan religion which in turn is the cheese in the liberal/socialist trap."
Wow, talk about loaded speech. What a great conspiracy theory, it's amazing how scientists are able to keep these conspiracy going for so long without many breaks, to even fake using evolution in medical fields. So many logical fallacies in here, so little time, for example, whether evolution provides "elitists" with a base for "Socialist theory and paganism" has no bearing on whether the scientific theory of evolution is valid or not.
We link this conspiracy thinking with the 2LoT argument above and we get some strange results. The 2LoT is Public high school science. If there is a huge conspiracy, the article is saying that not only is high school physics able to destroy evolution, but the evolutionists push to get this evolution destroying information taught in public high schools. Hardly intelligent behavior from people who are supposably able to create and maintain a 150 year old conspiracy, so convincing that many christians and christian scientists support it.
I think a bit more thinking through is in order.
There are plenty more errors in the article, I thought I would highlight a few. Now Subordinationist, if you have read this and what others have posted you should at least start questioning whether the information you are being given is correct. Too not do so would go against the idea of equal and fair time you keep pushing.
Unfortunately I get the feeling this will be ignored as it appears my other posts have been too, but remember, ignoring evidence wont make it go away. Hopefully I am wrong and you have been listening.
