The Theories of EvolutionIt was not until the late 1800’s that the first theory of evolution was presented in any serious way. Charles Darwin, while ignoring contrary evidence, introduced a theory of origins consistent with his atheism.
If evolution is true, man is just an accidental mixture of chemicals. And as such our perceived decision-making is just a complex series of biochemical reactions based on whatever environmental stimuli we encounter. Although we appear to be making what we describe as decisions, in reality the “decisions” would just be the result of random chemical interactions. If origin was impersonal matter no matter how much time passed, random acts occurred or mysterious unobservable natural processes took place, humans would just be a concentration of impersonal chemicals plus complexity.
Keep in mind that a belief in evolution precludes the belief that man was created in a better state than he is now and that some destructive intervening cause (rebellion) changed mankind into the destructive force it is today. The belief also eliminates the hope that man, as he is now, is abnormal and not the way he was created to be. Lastly, a belief in evolution eliminates the hope that the Creator, if He loves His creation, has the means and inclination to allow men to return to the state in which they were first created. This would discourage man from seeking his Creator.
From the pamphlet: "The earth's atmosphere is made up of gas molecules...such a drastic departure from reason" Here the author thinks he has knowledge of physics. He is wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe claim: Gravity and the kinetic energy of the atmosphere must be in perfect balance to sustain a life-supporting atmosphere.
The actuality: Sufficiently high kinetic energy in the atmosphere would lead to the eventual ejection of lighter gas particles. In fact, from the standpoint of statistical physics, ANY temperature (as long as the particles remained gaseous) will eventually lead to the ejection of ALL gas particles from an atmosphere. Heavier molecules take longer to eject (as gravity impacts them more), so probability is higher that particles like H2 (diatomic hydrogen) and He (atomic helium) would be the first to go, whereas, the life-sustaining parts of the atmosphere (water, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide) are 8x, 14x, 16x, and 44x (respectively) heavier than H2.
A higher gravitational pull wouldn't really do much. Example, Jupiter is a gaseous planet, and according to NASA, the gravity at the surface of the planet is about 2.4x earth's gravity, and the kinetic energy of the gases there are much lower (Temperature is generally lower farther from the sun). So long as the force of gravity is not strong enough to liquefy the atmosphere, a stronger field would not "collapse" the atmosphere until the temperature of the atmosphere dropped significantly (and this would happen under our current gravity, as well).
Also, the thoughts on the earth's magnetic field fluctuating over time... so what? Even assuming the behavior you assumed (which is false, i might add- the magnetic field does NOT follow a neat little exponential decay curve, and no "evolutionist" (as most religious writers like to use in a futile attempt to align evolution with creationism) who has receiving ANY sort of training would make the claim that the earth's processes have all been uniform- Mass extinction events?), it would take a VERY strong magnetic field to convince me that life could not have existed (much more than 250x today's). Now, let's do some fun math! The last magnetic reversal was supposed to have taken place 780,000 years ago (if I can convince you the earth is that old!). This would be about 557 half lives. For reference, the earth's field is at around 3.1x10^-5 Tesla, and a magnetar (a very powerful neutron star) has a field at around 10^8 - 10^11 T. Using this calculation, shortly after the time of the last flip, our field was at about 1.5x10^163 Tesla (It wasn't...). In fact, to get to the lower magnetar range, it would only require us going back 58000 years. (Humans are believed to be about 200,000 years old). One would think some scientists out there would be very embarrassed to learn that our planet had been shooting out massive gamma radiation, not too long ago.
Long story short, lawyers should stay with what they do best, making abstract arguments with little relevance to reality (i.e. the rest of the pamphlet).
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to express your opinions.
You state that, "sufficiently high kinetic energy in the atmosphere would lead to the eventual ejection of lighter gas molecule, etc" That would, of course, not be a "perfect balance." Since the gas molecules are still in the atmosphere and there is still a life sustaining balance, your imperfect scenario has not occurred. You have actually helped verify our premise. Thank you.
I appreciate your mention of "Mass extinction events". Sounds like Noah's flood.
You have taken the time to display your math talent, but have given no evidence for your position. This is typical of those who attempt to defend evolution ~ many assumptions and "just so stories", but no evidence or facts.
As our country slips further into the abyss of believing there are no absolutes, the justice system becomes more of a place for manipulation, rather than a forum to seek the truth. The legal system began in this country as a forum to determine the truth. Evidence was presented, witnesses evaluated and the judge or jury was to do his or its best to determine the truth. It once was the duty of a lawyer to seek the truth and present it. This is what has been done in the American Philosophy Pamphlet.
I too, believed that evolution was true when I graduated from college. This was the only view presented. Once I went to law school and learned how to research and evaluate evidence, I had the opportunity to re-examine the claims of evolution. From an evidentiary standpoint the theories of evolution woefully lack any basis in fact ~ many assumptions ~ but no facts that substantiate any evolutionary claim. This is the challenge that we give to each believer in evolution ~ show us the facts upon which you base your beliefs. Otherwise all you have is an unsubstantiated faith. A pretty flimsy foundation upon which to build your life's philosophy.
Again, thank you. We appreciate the opportunity to respond.
Good afternoon. I would like more information regarding your ministry. Where can I find additional information?
ReplyDelete