Replies

THe theory of evolution has more holes in it than swiss cheese. For one example, in my college years I was fed the "ontongeny recapitulates phylogeny" line as a great proof of evolution. only one problem - it doesn't.

Cosmology is important to evolution. If you want to have evolution be a workable theory, you need to have the conditions conducive to it. A young universe works against evolution as adequate time is necessary for the development and evolution of biologic particles into life. (and many scientists feel the current estimates of the timeline to the big bang does not leave enough time for evolution. Stephen Hawking lamented that a lot of scientists were running off to join the first church of the big bang)

In order to have evolution, you need adequate energy sources, as evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. This is explained away by evolutionists as being due to the injection of outside energy into the system - the energy comes from cosmic rays, the sun, other sources that have everything to do with cosmology. It also feeds in to the mutation rates, etc. Geology also plays an important part here, as well as chemistry. Was there a reducing atmosphere on the young earth as evolution requires?, etc

No scientific field exists by itself, they are all interconnected in one way or another.

In order to have evolution, you need adequate energy sources, as evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics.

You claimed a scientific background, this old saw is about as bad as it gets.

Thank you for outing yourself, I was pretty sure you would in short order.

For one example, in my college years I was fed the "ontongeny recapitulates phylogeny" line as a great proof of evolution. only one problem - it doesn't.

Could you provide evidence to support this assertion? It does not correspond to references that I have seen. I will attempt to locate these references, but I have found some information here.

and many scientists feel the current estimates of the timeline to the big bang does not leave enough time for evolution.

Please provide a reference to support this claim.

In order to have evolution, you need adequate energy sources, as evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. This is explained away by evolutionists as being due to the injection of outside energy into the system - the energy comes from cosmic rays, the sun, other sources that have everything to do with cosmology.

Are you saying that the external energy input from the sun is insufficient for evolution to occur? If so, then please explain this claim by showing the energy required for evolution to occur and demonstrating that energy input from the sun is inadequate. If not, then please explain exactly how evolution "flies in the face" of the second law of thermodynamics.

Was there a reducing atmosphere on the young earth as evolution requires?, etc

Explain how evolution requires this. Also, are you suggesting that, if evolution requires such an event, that evidence suggests that this did not occur?

In order to have evolution, you need adequate energy sources, as evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics.

The 2nd law very specifically applies to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. There is this thing called the Sun. It is the energy source that makes the 2nd law inapplicable in biology.