> >> >And, I'm still waiting for an emperical example of an
> >> >indefinite increase of complexity in a closed system (evolution).
> It's quite obvious that you do not understand the first thing about
> thermodynamics. There are three thermodynamic systems. An
> isolated system
> is one in which neither matter nor energy is exchanged between the system
> itself and its surroundings. A closed system is one in which only energy
> can be exchanged between the system itself and its surroundings. An open
> system is one in which both energy and matter can be exchanged between the
> system itself and its surroundings.
If I do not understand thermodynamic systems then it must be your assertion
God or space aliens are guiding evolution. If that's the case, neither I nor
Evolutionist community has any interest in your faith. Evolutionists
you really need such a basic education?) that essentially the only outside
on Evolution is the sun's energy. Does that not make the Earth a closed
that not what Evolutionists preach? No wonder you Evolutionists spend so
hiding behind fascist laws to propagate evolution -- reason doesn't come to
> Evolution does not work in either isolated or closed systems; it
> only works
> in open systems. As such, your definition is fatally flawed.
So, where's ET? Why couldn't you make the least bit of intellectual effort
anticipate that we would like an explanation of why the Earth isn't a closed
> So you are saying that the only acceptable definition of evolution is a
> controversial one?
I'm going to spell this out for you (unavoidable given the forum) -- the
acceptable definition is the one that applies to the context.
> I should also point out that this is not "my" definition, but it is the
> official scientific definition of evolution. As such, your definition is
> also flat wrong.
WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT "RELEVANT"? Changing allele frequencies is
not the issue. Further, it wasn't even the issue when the word Evolution
attached to Darwin's dogma.
> I have often challenged creationists on this list and elsewhere to provide
> empirical evidence that supports their claims, but none have ever met my
> challenge either.
As I creationist, my claim is that Evolution doesn't account for the
modern life. As for the origins of species, God, but I freely admit that's
You're more than welcome to offer a scientific explanation, but you
don't know the difference between science and naturalistic hogwash.
> >If you
> >Evolutionists can't even show that evolution is possible....
> Ah, but it is possible; read Futuyma for the evidence you need to convince
> yourself of that.
If you were a defense lawyer, would you tell the jury that the evidence of
client's claim is out there all they have to do is look for it? If so, you
have the worst trial record possible.