For my biology evolution project, I have to choose 2 animals from the following phyla: mollusca, annelida, arthropoda, and echinodermata. I have to find 4 adaptations for each animal. I was able to ...
If you hope to support a threadbare hypothesis like evolution, you will have to violate every proven law of chemistry, physics, and mathematics.
Mathematically, evolution is absurd: it is clearly against the laws of probability and statistics. In mathematics, we look for the simplest comprehensive solution. The concept of evolution falls apart there, completely, but there are more nails to put in the coffin of evolution before we bury the corpse.
There is no case in chemistry that will support evolution: all chemical reactions go to the lowest energetic state and remain there until acted on by an outside intelligence able to plan a chemical reaction and understand the process. Cornell did a very poorly conducted experiment in the early 1950's that they claimed had created life. All that they created were two amino acid precursors, not four complete amino acids nor any cell wall -- that life of any variety including viruses require. More importantly, forming these two precursors does not mean that they were stable precursors: they both broke down to hydrogen peroxide and hydrogen cyanide within minutes, which notably is lethal on virtually ebvery form of life -- any form, anywhere. Hence, the entire evolution hypothesis was placed in irreparable discredit. It is going to remain there permanently. There are more nails to drive in the coffin of evolution, one of them is physics.
There is no case in physics that will support evolution: the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that increasing entropy forbids any chemical reaction becoming more complex. As disorder increases, chemical bonds weaken, causing these bonds to break. To increase the complexity of a chemical reaction, one must understand it and have planned it to completion -- rendering evolution scientifically absurd from any angle.
There is absolutely no way to salvage the discredited evolution hypothesis. The case never existed, it never can exist, and anyone with any knowledge of science will tell you these same facts -- unless he is an atheist, in which case we see such a severe disciplinary problem that there is no use trying to educate these people at all.
That was a moronic answer.
By the way, what are the other three laws of thermodynamics?
You are wrong about the second law and you know it.
All atheists are absolutely rabid fanatics. That is why atheists like Physicalist demand donations for their political schemes that they claim will force all Christians and Jews into gas chambers just like Hitler before them.
All atheists are exactly the same therefore they play games but so can any common street whore like Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Talk about disease ridden and just plain ugly!
Typical, typical, typical. Is that why all atheists are ignorant fools who buy every hoax in the book?
My, how amusing it is to see Physicalist jumping up and down.
Atheist dogma has always been their most humiliating disgrace. No rational person has ever bought into the atheist hoax, evolution hoax, or any of these other fraternuity pranks, but some people are slower to catch on than others, I say sadly.
It is reasonable to expect better of all sober persons than to buy atheist bigotry. Perhaps that is why none of these persons has even the slightest hint of proof for their ridiculous and wholly unscientific presumptions.
Oh, well, we can only expect so much of these rash, hasty, bitter, and irrational persons.
Not a one of you can answer a simple question. What are the other three laws of thermodynamics?
If you can stop your ceaseless ranting perhaps you could Google the answer.
Oh dr kelly and bob suffolk are too stupid for that!! he's a deranged lunatic that should have been locked up years ago!! Arguing with that idiot is like arguing with a wall! And you'd probably get a more intelligent response from a wall!!!
Once again we see that atheist defaults discredit their cult and hoaxes very reliably. Nice try Physicalist-McAnn but you and your cult have blown it again, by your sheer irrational dogma.
Of course, that is why "The Irrational Atheist" is still on the New York Times best seller list, just below the Holy Bible.
My, how easily we disprove the didactic lies of atheism.
Define didactic, " Dr " Kelly.
( of course you won't, because your posts are generated by some kind of program that admits of no originality )
For the benefit of our illiterate Physicalist-McAnn, the word "didactic" means, "Invalid and silly." For someone who claims an MS degree in Theology from my Alma Mater Dartmouth, you always seem to prove quite conveniently ignorant.
Is that why atheists are the least educated mob on the planet bar none?