Evolution is false.

1.GlueThe molecule is Acrylate. We know by how glue wears out that it cannot be millions of years. Yeah glue itself, but that wasn't invented until recently. Acrylate is made of "two carbon atoms double-bonded to each other, directly attached to the carbonyl carbon" [1]. How is it a problem?The decay rates were probably constant. The rates were determined by man who sins and is fallible so they cannot be said to be millions of years old.You pulled the trigger right on your foot. If the rates were determined by man who sins, then so was glue. So it cannot be said to have been to decay in 20,000 years.2. Law of large numbers.You have given no source. All definitions I found have to do with probability and statistics."The law of large numbers states that: “If the probability of a given outcome to an event is P and the event is repeated N times, then the larger N becomes, so the likelihood increases that the closer, in proportion, will be the occurrence of the given outcome to N*P.”[2]"law of large numbers, in statistics, the theorem that, as the number of identically distributed, randomly generated variables increases, their sample mean (average) approaches their theoretical mean." [3]What is the "mean" of biological life and why? I don't even think life has an "average". If somone's arm gets cut off, it doesn't revert to the "average" and grow back.3. The FlagellumOh so how did the parts just come together magically.Fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. The sources show how they evolve.All origins assume the ion pump is fully evolved and functional.The evolution of Ion Pumps are a different story. There's published papers of how they evolve [4][5]Your coming up with possible explanations to impossible events which is science fiction. How is it impossible? As I've shown IC is based off false assumptions and the parts are self assembling. So it's quite possible.The flagella is still functioning. No loss of information it works. Let me give another example. The Venus fly trap evolved from a plant that had a sticky substance which traps the bug. Then would slowly close. When the plant could close faster, it lost the sticky substance because it didn't need it. It can't be used as a mouse trap. So the analogy fails. Were talkin about the mousetrap!The analogy was just to show that systems can change. As to form an IC system it doesn't have to do with only the addition of parts.It cannot. If it's helpful it will always be helpful. It would be against evolution for it to become required since it would be dependant.It wouldn't be against evolution. It can be beneficial to become required. Lungs are required to live, but this doesn't contradict evolution4. MatesYou clearly didn't read my reply.5. Thermodynamics John Ross is quote mined. "Allow me to suggest that you never accept quotes from creationist literature. The COMPLETE quote from Dr. John Ross now of Stanford is: "SIR: I am referring to the article entitled 'Physical Chemistry,' C&EN, June 2, page 20. Toward the end of the article is stated: 'Another area where physical chemistry likely has important biological applications is the study of the properties of steady states far from equilibrium. These are stable systems that do not follow the second law of thermodynamics; instead they require a continual supply of energy from outside the system to maintain themselves.' Please be advised that there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. I recognize that it is very difficult to write an article on as broad a subject as physical chemistry in two pages, and ordinarily I would not bother to point out minor errors. However, there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself." The bold represents the creationist quote mine. Note that Dr. Ross is simply stating that the systems described in the article DO FOLLOW THE 2nd LAW BY REQUIRING A CONTINUAL SUPPLY OF ENERGY FROM OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM. The same can be said of the earth's bioshere. The continual input of energy from the sun allows seeds to grow into plants, fetuses to grow into babies and babies to grow into adults without violating the second law. This continual input of energy also allows evolution to occur. Any decrease in entropy experienced in the bioshere is more than offset by the increase in entropy in the sun" [6] Microevolution is consistent with the second law. But macroevolution would need a decrease in entropy. Just about all the observed heritable variations show an increase in entropy. How? Macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolutions. "The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be stated in several ways: ...... Every isolated system becomes more disordered with time. This is NOT a statement of the Second Law, but a metaphor; see Prof. Lambert's site on the Second Law. The entropy of an isolated system remains constant or increases. This is a verbal statement of the most precise, mathematical form of the law. Unfortunately, entropy is something for which it is difficult to give a precise verbal description. See Prof. Lambert's more mathematically detailed site on the Second Law. Remember, "entropy always increases" only applies to isolated systems. The Earth, and the surface ecosystems of the Earth in particular, are not isolated systems! Individual parts of a system, even an isolated one, can decrease their own entropy at the expense of a larger increase somewhere else within the system. " [7] 6. ChromosomesIt does. They're linked to other creatures too [8]. It seems Pro is attacking my argument instead of defending his own. Since he claimed we don't see this at all. Now he's claiming it could've happened in the same species to fit the creationist view.[1] http://pslc.ws...[2] http://www.probabilitytheory.info...[3] http://www.britannica.com...[4] http://www.jstor.org...[5] http://www.eric.ed.gov...[6] http://skeptics.stackexchange.com...[7] http://www.bluffton.edu...[8] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...