Evolution is false

1. Glue Acrylate. We know by how glue wears out that it cannot be millions of years. 2. Law of large numbers. This contradicts evolution because evolution says over time animals will become more and more diverse and look different from its ancestor. Contradicting evolution. The law is not just with trails or tests. 3. The Flagellum Weak response. Creating a possible explanation for an impossible event is good science fiction not science. The big flaw here is with the ion pump. You just assume it works without showing its origin and assume it's fully functional. Also the explanation is vague and lacks anything that can test their hypothesis. 4. Sexual Reproduction Con uses hand waving and jumping jacks to run from this one. Con claims there's intermediate stages to a male and female. We know however to reproduce there must be a male and female. The first dog just evolved, if a female didn't evolve with it, then they dog will be the only and last dog. Moreover there would need to be whole populations having the same exact random mutations to prevent inbreeding. 5. Thermodynamics " First, what is the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The concept of entropy is defined as heat (in calories or Btu"s) absorbed by a system, divided by the absolute temperature of the system the time the heat is absorbed. Absolute temperature is the number of degrees above "absolute zero", the coldest temperature that can exist. Consequently, heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that the total entropy in a closed system will not decrease." Creationwiki writes "This is a nearly accurate statement of the 2nd law, although entropy is actually a measure of unusable energy, not useful energy. However when entropy is examined statistically it can be considered a measure of randomness. Now the more random a system is the more disordered it is. The formula for statistical entropy is: http://creationwiki.org... S is entropy. k is the Boltzmann Constant = 1.380 6504(24) X 10-23 J K-1 is the number of equivalent equally probable configurations. This is a direct measurement of disorder. Random or disordered systems have such a significantly higher number of equivalent equally probable configurations, that they can basically be considered inevitable. Now it is true that entropy is not equivalent to disorder, but entropy is logarithmically related to disorder. Entropy can be considered a measurement of disorder in the way that the Richter Scale is a measurement of earthquakes or decibels are a measurement of sound. The result is that it is accurate to call entropy a measure of disorder." " Evolution is simply the process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" True, however 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. "Firstly, the earth is not a closed system. Sunlight has low entropy and shines on the Earth and heat has higher entropy radiates off. This can, and will power local decreases in entropy on earth" Well some do say the earth IS a closed system[1]. You claim that the second law only applies to closed systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University (now Sanford) states: " 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. " There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics 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. [2] 6. Chromosomes That video has been debunked http://youtube.com... It's simple. For there to be a fusion in us and the apes, there has to be a fusion in everyother related creatures. It's special pleading to claim it can only happen in apes and humans. 1. http://www.uvm.edu... 2. John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40; cited in Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics Institute for Creation Research, 1993.