There are trillions of fossils, and NONE transitional fossils. That alone buries the hypothesis.
Printable View
There are trillions of fossils, and NONE transitional fossils. That alone buries the hypothesis.
Anyways there is 20 page debate on prohibition thread if you disagree just read my posts there not gonna do this all over again.
So that's your answer? Know the laws of thermodynamics and you'll understand! Seriously? If it was that obvious, do you really think the Big Bang theory would be so widely accepted among physicists, all of whom were educated in rigorous statistical mechanics in college or graduate school.
The First Law of Thermodynamics restates the law of conservation of energy and applies it to thermal energy. This doesn't violate the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory doesn't state energy and matter came from nothing. It explains a state of high density( as we perceive it with our current laws.) The total energy of this system ( our universe) does not change from the short period after the Big Bang that we can explain, until now. The only thing that has changed is the spatial extent of our universe.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains entropy. The progression of our universe from an ordered, usable state, as explained by the symmetries in the fundamental forces, to a disordered state where energy becomes unusable. This law only applies to a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, and therefore organized matter does not violate The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Genetics supports the theory of evolution by explaining the mechanics for which proteins are structured and produced in RNA and DNA synthesizing organisms. It further explains the variation among organisms by mutations.
Universe is closed system according to Big Bang hypothesis since it states NOTHING exploded that means nothing is outside universe. Anyways I'm not gonna debate, did that before just read my posts on other thread.
Of course I believe God is outside universe, and that he created everything in six literal days. Wouldn't make sense for God to let everything evolve from dust if he could make us from dust, huh?
You're obviously misinformed on the matter; I won't bother. I just don't want other people to fall within the cycle of misinformation.
Portions of our knowledge of the early universe are not fully understood; particularly any knowledge of the state of the universe preceding inflation. Everything since inflation falls within the constraints of physics. I'm sorry, but I take the credibility of thousands of physicists, who spend their entire lives studying this, utilizing mathematical models and the scientific method as far more substantial than some person on the internet who read something.
What is your logical reasoning for this statement? Actually, I don't want to go there; I get a feeling it would lead to a philosophical debate.
We know of the effects. We don't know much of what composes dark matter or dark energy, but we do observe the effects of these phenomena. This is how much of physics works. Kepler and Newton didn't know what gravity was, but they were able to describe how it worked. Later, our understanding of gravity was refined with Einstein. Currently, physicists are trying to reconcile quantum gravity. The same applies here. Just because we don't know what something is composed of, nor do we observe it directly, does not mean there is reason to question its empirical existence. Theories are never finished, they are always applied to scrutiny and refinement. That is the nature of science. Just because there is a problem, one mustn't assume it is because the basis of what we do know is wrong. If that were the case, then there would be no use in any form of science, which seems odd considering the massive amount of practical applications we've gained from modern science.
I think it is too much of a generalization to be very applicable.Quote:
It was not logical statement. It was observation.