Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution

OK, that was even funnier. Can you really not tell the difference between 50 scientists and 50% of scientists? If the ID crowd have been muzzled, as you claim, why do they never shut up? No, you guys are allowed to talk trash all you like. And the rest of us are free to laugh at what idiots you are. This is not censorship. Here are some of the Nobel Prize winners who have, according to you, "squandered their scientific lives", though obviously not to the point of not winning Nobel Prizes: If only you'd "squandered" your life in such a manner, perhaps you wouldn't be a nobody posting scientifically illiterate rubbish on the Internet.Your ignorance of everything is depressing. Go and learn something. Anything, it's all good.

Again you have groups of scientists that spend entire careers convincing others that they are not promulgating a religion of secularity. Evolutionism is a secular religion.There have been a good amount of scientists in the past that have subscribed to biblical creation as fact:Francis Bacon (1561—1626) Scientific method. However
Galileo Galilei (1564—1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
Johann Kepler (1571—1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601—1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614—1672)
Walter Charleton (1619—1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623—1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 —1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627—1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627—1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630—1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631—1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635—1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639—1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641—1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
Isaac Newton (1642—1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the TrinitySee Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57—80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646—1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646—1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657—1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662—1727) Physician
John Harris (1666—1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665—1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667—1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674—1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703—1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707—1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727—1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733—1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738—1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755—1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766—1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775—1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Timothy Dwight (1752—1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759—1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761—1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766—1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766—1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769—1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770—1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774—1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775—1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778—1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779—1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779—1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780—1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781—1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784—1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785—1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785—1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791—1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791—1872) Telegraph
John Herschel (1792—1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793—1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794—1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797—1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Richard Owen (1804—1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806—1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807—1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808—1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809—1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810—1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810—1895) Archeologist
James Simpson (1811—1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813—1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817—1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818—1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819—1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819—1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819—1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820—1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821—1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822—1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822—1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823—1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824—1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824—1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826—1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827—1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828—1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831—1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831—1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834—1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842—1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843—1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844—1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845—1933) Archeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849—1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864—1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890—1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875—1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858—1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878—1940) Geology
Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851—1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851—1939) Archeologist
William Ramsay (1852—1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882—1954) Organic Chemist
Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885—1955) Surgeon
Dr. Larry Butler, BiochemistI have seen the pictures of the warm gas clouds of the crab nebula - what I do not see is a new star.Fusion is not an accident. If you can show me some fusion accident occurring somewhere - now that is science. If you say it occurs unseen - then it is religion. New stars do not form - we have never seen one form. We only see them die.Just because someone gives you a prize does not mean you did something productive. The Smithsonian has been handing out grants and props to scientists who push the ball forward in the field of evolutionism. Nobel is no better.What I am saying, and what you all will tear apart, is that no new discoveries are attributed to evolutionism. They are always just trying to prove it correct. In science you cannot prove anything - IT IS NOT MATH. Only math has proofs.Evolutionism can never be proved.
Creation can never be proved.For these reasons both are religions. One just has science at its back trying to push it into science fully. Just because you call it not a religion does not make it so.Religion, as defined by webster:> a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faithThe big bang requires faith - neither you nor I were there. Since no one was there. It must be accepted on faith and faith alone.When you insert that faith into 'science' or call it science or pass it off as science you are misleading people. You are also causing evolutionism to be a religion because you must have faith that big bang happened.In creation we to must also have faith. We will tell you up front that it is a religion. We have science and we have scientists (at least 50 of them that published - lols ) There is entire field of creation science.The two peoples are not alike at all. One can look at the Grand Canyon and see what happened in a couple months when Grand and Hopi lake drained through here. The other will study it for a hundred years trying to figure out were all the sediment went - 1800 cubic miles of it. (it shot out into the Gulf of california pushed by a massive flood) (if it would have happened slowly the deposition would have occured at the delta)Google the hydroplate theory while you fume too. It does well how to explain why plate tectonics makes no sense at all.I mean really if you push a continent at 1cm a year - but it erodes at the far beach at about a yard a year - then how far did you push it?A: -90.44cm headway (you push to slow tectonics)Sure the Haiwan islands build themselves, but what about Florida? No feature exists to pull sand back ashore. It has been eroding away for how long - millions of years ? thats millions of yards of erosion.In fact I could call erosion the number one enemy of a millions of year old earth proponents. there simply is not enough of it anywhere.

What about us Christians who have realized through independent study that the Theory of Evolution is our best explanation for how species evolve and that it can explain the diversity of life on Earth?My religion is Christianity, not Evolutionism. Or do you think that I have 2 religions? Or are you just going to claim that I'm not a True Christian^TM? Yeah, but how many Steves so they have?

Christian - loosely means someone who follows the teachings of Christ. To another degree it would mean one who believes Christ was more than just a man - the Son of God. Now as the Son of God what he says is gospel, at least for we Christians. That being said.Mark 10:6
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."Christ is recorded making statements about creation - The creation. Either Christ is mistaken which would negate his deity. Or he is correct.As a Christian I would hope you would side with Christ. You can side with the teachings of man if you wish. Free will is yours.What I cannot fathom is how you can say you are a Christian, but do not believe the words of Christ. You are trusting the suppositions and a belief they hold over acts they never saw (evolution)- over Christ?I know of the theistic evolution and the two could not be more at odds. In one time is the miracle worker, in the other God is the miracle worker.I'll end this post before I wander off too far - but being a Christian and being also a believer in evolutionism is at odds with one another at every level. At worst you are not a Christian (since you do not believe that He is God) see John 8:24), at best you are a confused Christian.It is rough being a biblical fundamentalist.Matthew 24:37
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.This would lend credence to Genesis as well.

The abundance of species was provided at creation. We have been losing them ever since. Natural selection is definite - it selects the stronger and defeats the weaker. However this is not a method for creating new species - it is a method of sending species the way of the dodo - extinct.Men have bred diversity into dogs. But they are all of the same kind. They are all still dogs - we cannot make them cats. Nor on a planet of solely of dogs would a cat ever be born on accident.If you would like to counter with random mutation providing new species I would point to the fruit fly - which had been bred 3000 generations by Darwin or one of his prodigy. None developed anything new - some had no wings. They all remained flies, and showed no marked improvements.