Klauber, RD. Evolution and Earth’s Entropy. Am J Phys. 77(9):773 (PDF from arxiv)

Bunn, EF. 2009. Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. Am J Phys. 77(10):922 (PDF from arxiv)

Kaila, V. and Annila, A. 2008. Natural selection for least action. Proc R Soc A. 464(2099):3055-3070. doi: 10.1098/rspa.2008.0178 (PDF is open access)

Styer DF. 2008. Entropy and evolution. Am J Phys. 76(11):1031-1033. (PDF)

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

Here.

The biggest problem with this is that fundies can’t recognize the distinction between ‘order in a system’ and ‘total energy in a system’.

OK, while I’m at it:

Point 1: Not an evolutionary question.
Point 2: See above.
Point 3: The fossil record is notoriously incomplete. It’s hard to get things to fossilize. That said, there are transitional fossils. This one, for instance.
Point 4: A lie. Mutations are not invariably harmful. Here and here.

For example, it’s well documented in the geologic literature that the chalk beds of England and Ireland extend right across Europe, down into Israel and Egypt and across to Kazakhstan, and the same chalk beds with
the same fossils in them, and the same layers above and below them, are found throughout the U.S. mid-west from Texas to Nebraska, as well as in the Perth Basin of southern Western Australia.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1

http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v2/Chalk_Part_of_Flood.pdf

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/chalk-and-upper-cretaceous-deposits

Chalk and “Upper Cretaceous” Deposits are Part of the Noachian Flood
by John D. Matthews

http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Can-Flood-Geology-Explain-Thick-Chalk-Layers.pdf

Can Flood Geology Explain Thick Chalk Beds?
Andrew A. Snelling, PhD

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics:
A Global Flood Model of Earth History

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Carbon-14-Evidence-for-a-Recent-Global-Flood-and-a-Young-Earth.pdf

14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth
John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D.

*

http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/

*

Untangling Uniformitarianism, Level 1: A Quest for Clarity
http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v3/uniformitarianism_1_clarity.pdf

We are told that Noah’s Ark was 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits (Gen. 6:15), which means the mathematical absolute maximum volume the Ark could have had was 450,000 cubit^3 — and that, only if the Ark was a rectangular solid. If the Ark’s hull was curved, its volume would obviously have been less than 450K cubit^3. Now, it’s not clear how long a ‘cubit’ is, because there have been a number of length-units which go by that name; Answers in Genesis [ http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/original-cubit ] says that a ‘cubit’ could be anywhere from 17.5 inches up to 20.6 inches, depending on which ‘cubit’ you’re talking about. AiG also says that the cubit Noah used was “most likely one of the long cubits (about 19.8–20.6 in)”. Taking 20 inches for ease of calculation, (1 cubit^3) = (8,000 inch^3), and the mathematical absolute maximum value for the Ark’s volume works out to (450,000 * 8,000 =) 3,600,000 cubic inches.
We know that the maximum load a ship can carry is determined by the mass of water which is displaced by that ship. In this case, we’re talking about a ship that displaces, at the mathematical absolute maximum, 3,600,000 cubic inches of volume. Therefore, we can tell how much mass the Ark could carry by figuring out the mass of 3,600,000 cubic inches of seawater.
If Wikipedia’s page on seawater can be trusted, the density of seawater at the surface ranges from 1.020 to 1.029 grams per milliliter, and the maximum density of seawater, under the pressures at the bottom of the ocean, can be 1.050 g/ml. The density of fresh water is only 1.0 g/ml, which is less than the density of seawater; the reason seawater is denser than fresh water is because of all the stuff dissolved in seawater (salt and so forth). Since one source of Flood-water is supposed to have been rain (i.e., fresh water), it’s clear that the water at the surface of the Flood would have been less dense than the normal value for water at the surface of the ocean, but let’s be generous and say that the density of water at the surface of the Flood was 1.03 g/ml.
1 inch = 2.54 centimeters, so 1 inch^3 = (2.54^3) cm^3, or a touch under 16.39 cm^3. 3,600,000 cubic inches, therefore, equals 58,993,430,400 cm^3 — call it 1 Ark-unit for convenience. Since one cm^3 of volume equals one milliliter, 1 Ark-unit of a substance whose density is 1.03 g/ml weighs 60,763,233,312 grams. Divide by 1,000 to get kilograms; multiply by 2.204 to get pounds; divide by 2,000 to get tons, and the mathematical absolute maximum value for the Ark’s displacement turns out to be about 66,961,083 tons — call it 67 million tons, just for grins. Again: If the Ark’s hull is not a rectangular solid of the given dimensions, the mathematical absolute maximum value for the Ark’s total displacement will be less than this 67-million-ton figure.
According to John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, published by the Institute for Creation Research, the Ark carried a total of 5,500 tons of living animals who, collectively, consumed 1/30 of their body mass worth of food every day. Very well; by Woodmorappe’s scenario, the Ark’s passengers ate (1/30 of 5,500 tons) a bit over 183 tons of food per day. Multiply that figure by 365 days in a year, and you get a bit over 66,910 tons of food for the year-long duration of the Flood. Thus, by Woodmorappe’s own figures, the total mass of food carried on the Ark must necessarily have been damn near exactly as much as the mathematical absolute maximum figure for the Ark’s total displacement. This is, of course, before you add in the 5,500-ton mass of the Ark’s living cargo… not to mention before you add in the mass of the Ark itself. After all, we may not know what sort of material ‘gopher wood’ actually was, but we can be confident that the stuff did weigh some greater-than-zero amount, right?
The bottom line is this: Even if you go out of your way to give the Noah story every benefit of the doubt — choosing a very high value for the length of Noah’s cubit, and going with an implausibly high value for the density of the waters at the surface of the Flood, and accepting at face value Creationist Woodmorappe’s figures for both the mass of the Ark’s living cargo and the mass of the food that said living cargo would eat during the Ark’s journey — even with all those Flood-friendly presumptions going into the calculations, the Ark still ends up sufficiently overloaded to sink under its own weight. So… why, again, should anybody believe this Ark story to be true? And why should anybody not believe that YECs are habitual, unrepentant bearers of false witness?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/02/council-of-europe-adopts-dick-martys-albanian-organ-trafficking-report-investigation-to-be-pursued-marty-must-not-share.html

Debate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the Adoption of the Resolution based on Dick Marty’s Report on Illegal Organ Trafficking in Kosovo.

http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/europa/kosovo/kla9.html

Organ theft in Kosovo – wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Marty#Organ_theft_in_Kosovo

NATO knew their policeman turned president was involved in organ trafficing

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/kosovo/8280226/Leaked-Nato-cables-allege-Kosovo-PM-was-biggest-fish-in-organised-crime.html

And so on and on.

It seems to be acknowledged, indeed it seems to be the basis of your case that none of this could have happened, that this could not possibly have been censored unless the entire American lamestream media and indeed the entire DemoNazi party are wholly corrupt, genocidal, cannibalistic, censoring, racist, pro-Nazi war criminals who would have respectively censored mention of and participated in Auschwitz.

Clearly that is correct and the entire American lamestream media and indeed the entire DemoNazi party are indeed wholly corrupt, genocidal, cannibalistic, censoring, racist, pro-Nazi war criminals who would have respectively censored mention of and participated in Auschwitz.

Puccoon you undercut your contention that the Greek media are more biased than the American by acknowledging that they invited you to write for them. Or could you name an instance of some Greek as opposed to NATO crimes as most Greeks are, being allowed to write or speak on the US media? Obviously not.

I regret that “scienceblogs” which wiki describes as trustworthy and hosting American “scientists” and “professors” has, so many times, proven incapable of factual debate and depended on censorship, ad homs and obscenoty. It seems the ignorant barbarians are not merely within the gates of US culture but have occupied the Ivory Towers.

dogmeat wrote: “Let’s pretend that we accept the idea of a 450+ foot wooden ship
built with the technology of the 3rd millennium BC, but I have to question the waste
management and food service industry of the time. Where did they get food for all of
those animals? Where did they keep it, how did they prepare it, and how did they
keep one animal from deciding the other nearby animal looked delicious? Finally,
when all of those animals were done eating, where did they relieve themselves?”

http://creation.com/how-could-noah-care-for-the-animals

Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study
by John Woodmorappe
https://store.creation.com/common/productpdfs/10-3-078.pdf

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_3/j10_3_329-330.pdf

Reviewed by Michael J. Oard

There is no doubt that this book is the definitive work on the Ark and
itsfeasibility. John Woodmorappe analyses, numerically where possible, about every
conceivable question Christians and critics, alike, have ever asked about the
feasibility of the Ark. Woodmorappe really shines with those aspects of the Ark that
critics deem the most
contradictory to reason, such as the number of animals on the Ark, the gathering of
the animals, how could the eight people care for all the animals, and waste
management.

He also does not take the easy way out of difficulties. In the possible problem of
the care of the animals, for instance, he does not opt for hibernation (although a
possible solution, at least for some animals), but goes through the rigour of
working out the problem without this easy solution.

[snip]

http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark

Excretory requirements

It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly
they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall away from the
animals and be flushed away (plenty of water around!) or destroyed by
vermicomposting (composting by worms) which would also provide earthworms as a food
source. Very deep bedding can sometimes last for a year without needing a change.
Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss)
would reduce the moisture content and hence the odour.

Hibernation

The space, feeding and excretory requirements were adequate even if the animals had
normal day/night sleeping cycles. But hibernation is a possibility which would
reduce these requirements even more. It is true that the Bible does not mention
it,but it does not rule it out either. Some creationists suggest that God created
the hibernation instinct for the animals on the Ark, but we should not be dogmatic
either way.

Some skeptics argue that food taken on board rules out hibernation, but this is not
so. Hibernating animals do not sleep all winter, despite popular portrayals, so they
would still need food occasionally.

Take this man for example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpC3-2ATmIo

As much as I hate it this guy will probably get fired and hired on by a neighboring dept. I believe he should never work in law enforcement again.

Or if you want something new

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/06/mississippi.hate.crime/index.html?iref=obnetwork

Every single one of those teens should be charged with accessory to murder. When the punishment is not adequate nothing will deter people from doing bad things.

Too many people get a slap on the wrist, it does not matter if these are teenagers. They know right from wrong and should be held accountable for their actions. When I was a teenager I knew this was wrong these kids do also. There is NO excuse for beating a man senseless then running him over.

Are we on the verge of another paradigm shift?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

“In any community of scientists, Kuhn states, there are some individuals who are bolder than most. These scientists, judging that a crisis exists, embark on what Thomas Kuhn calls revolutionary science, exploring alternatives to long-held, obvious-seeming assumptions. Occasionally this generates a rival to the established framework of thought. The new candidate paradigm will appear to be accompanied by numerous anomalies, partly because it is still so new and incomplete. The majority of the scientific community will oppose any conceptual change, and, Kuhn emphasizes, so they should. To fulfill its potential, a scientific community needs to contain both individuals who are bold and individuals who are conservative. There are many examples in the history of science in which confidence in the established frame of thought was eventually vindicated. Whether the anomalies of a candidate for a new paradigm will be resolvable is almost impossible to predict. Those scientists who possess an exceptional ability to recognize a theory’s potential will be the first whose preference is likely to shift in favour of the challenging paradigm. There typically follows a period in which there are adherents of both paradigms. In time, if the challenging paradigm is solidified and unified, it will replace the old paradigm, and a paradigm shift will have occurred.”

[snip]

*

If evolution has predictability, how does Mary Schweitzer’s discovery of soft tissue in “80 million year old” dino bone demonstrate the accuracy of evolutionary predictions versus the predictions of creationary theory? Until this discovery, there was NO indication of any Darwinist EXPECTING to find this. My question is NOT ‘How do you fit this into evolution?’ but how evolution had an advantage over creation in predicting dino soft tissue.

If evolution has predictability, how does the recent discovery of the largest mass of water in the universe demonstrate the accuracy of evolutionary predictions versus the predictions of creationary theory? My question is NOT ‘How do you fit this into Big Bang cosmology?’ but how Big Bang cosmology had an advantage over Russ Humphrey’s white-hole cosmology model in predicting large amounts of water in the universe.

http://www.space.com/12400-universe-biggest-oldest-cloud-water.html

From:

http://crev.info/content/110723_water_water_everywhere_in_space

[snip]

Interesting the prominence Genesis gives to primordial water at the creation (Genesis 1). The Bible’s top-down account of creation solves many problems. By contrast, evolutionists, with their bottom-up philosophy, have to build water up with only hydrogen and helium (and traces of lithium) to start with – actually, less than that: nothing that banged. They have to speculate that the first stars they call “Population III” (never observed) formed out of condensed hydrogen gas once atoms formed, burned for millions of years, then blew up as supernovae to create oxygen and other heavy elements before any water was possible. Even then, they have to account for the current observation of a supermassive black hole surrounded by incredible amounts of water shortly after their big bang. That’s just one of many awkward speculations required by the bottom-up feeders.

I also cut and pasted from my own web article. What’s wrong with that?

Whether ID is Science isn’t Semantics
by Alvin Plantinga
http://www.discovery.org/a/3331

Methodological Naturalism? Part 1
by Alvin Plantinga
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm

Methodological Naturalism? Part 2
by Alvin Plantinga
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/methnat182.htm

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/history_creation_and_science_t048151.html

The Role of Creation in Science: The Real Story, a Breath of Fresh Air

Michael Flannery July 2, 2011 1:44 PM

[snip]

The assertion that only methodological naturalism counts as science has been ably challenged by Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and others.

How about scientific information that gives further support to particle physicist Russ Humphreys’ while hole cosmology model?

http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology

Water Near Edge of Universe Bolsters Creation Cosmology
by Brian Thomas, M.S. [August 3, 2011]
http://www.icr.org/article/6247/

*
Water, Water Everywhere in Space
http://crev.info/content/110723_water_water_everywhere_in_space

[snip]

The blogger writes:

Interesting the prominence Genesis gives to primordial water at the creation (Genesis 1). The Bible’s top-down account of creation solves many problems. By contrast, evolutionists, with their bottom-up philosophy, have to build water up with only hydrogen and helium (and traces of lithium) to start with – actually, less than that: nothing that banged. They have to speculate that the first stars they call “Population III” (never observed) formed out of condensed hydrogen gas once atoms formed, burned for millions of years, then blew up as supernovae to create oxygen and other heavy elements before any water was possible. Even then, they have to account for the current observation of a supermassive black hole surrounded by incredible amounts of water shortly after their big bang. That’s just one of many awkward speculations required by the bottom-up feeders.

[end of quote]

*

Danny Faulkner, professor of astronomy and physics at the University of South Carolina (Lancaster) is the author of “Universe By Design: An Explanation of Cosmology and Creation” (Master Books, 2004). In chapter 6, Faulkner mentions Humphreys’ model, outlined in his book “Starlight and Time” (1994).

Faulkner writes: “Indeed, general relativity demands that time pass at different rates at different locations in the universe. With certain initial conditions a literal day or two could have passed on the earth while permitting millions or even billions of years to have elapsed elsewhere. Such things are possible as a consequence of general relativity. Therefore the Humphreys cosmology could provide a resolution to the light-travel-time problem.. Whether or not the Humphreys cosmology survives, we should be encouraged by its proposal.”

On May 15, 2010 I interviewed Faulkner. He commented: “The Ptolemaic model (of the solar system) stood for 15 centuries, but ultimately was rejected in the 17th century because of the huge complexity it had. The real problem with that model was you couldn’t falsify it. No matter what new data, new observations came along, you could always patch it up with a fix of new epicycles or other effects.”

“Over the past three decades the Big Bang model has been changed tremendously. They changed the expansion rate, hence the age of the universe. They’ve thrown in dark matter, dark energy…inflation, …string theory… and it’s starting to look more and more like the Ptolemaic model…. So at what point does the Big Bang model become as unwieldy as the Ptolemaic model, that caused people to reject it?”