Originally Posted by: PonyOneso suddenly you're an expert on fossils??? so unless we find something that's half fish and half cow you refuse to believe evolution is valid? You say there are none, I provide a list, and you backtrack to explain why they aren't transitional fossils? :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]

Oh Im so sorry. Scientists said it, must be true!! What was I thinking by contradicting what scientists say? My deepest apologies. :rolleyes: What is the median between 2 creatures? Something with half an organ or bone structure. Am I correct?

Originally Posted by: PonyOne
and again, what about fossils found in the strata before Cambria? Guess that would make some problems with the notion of all life starting at one point... that and the lack of human remains within it. [/QUOTE]

Well, there was tiny bit of water swishing around according to my theory if you didnt remember. Who cares if they didnt find a human fossil? Theyve got all 7 phylas with complicated internal structures in the Cambrian layer with nothing but the occasional algae fossil in the lower preCambrian layer. What happened?

Originally Posted by: PonyOne
The laws of thermodynamics do not apply to a closed environment (i.e. a planet, an ecosystem, an organism). They apply to the universe as a whole; life is an example of reverse entropy... it doesn't in any way negate the 2nd law because the 2nd law was not in any way an explaination of life. It's just utterly irrelevant; it's an explaination of the universe in which life lives. [/QUOTE]

Did you come up with this one yourself? Youre confusing growth with evolution. 2 entirely different things.
[QUOTE=PonyOne]
The 1st law is relevant if we're talking about burning a piece of paper and creating ash, rather than removing the paper from existence. Matter doesn't disappear, though it can take on different chemical forms.... what does this have to do with anything??? And only life can produce life... well... we aren't really 100% sure about that yet; it's the right arrangement of quarks, atoms, and molecules. What is that arrangement? You got me. But that's what it is; the answer is in there somewhere, and there is no denying that... and we're (by this i mean humans) pushing ahead trying to figure out what that arrangement is.

By all means, argue the laws of physics all you want, but I can assure you they do have application in contradicting the Evolutionary theory.
[QUOTE=PonyOne]
actually Borel's single law of chance says that it's mathematically unlikely but still possible. There was plenty of time (eons) in which molecules could align into just the right formation to create life; indeed, life very well could have formed numerous times but failed ultimately and we are just the progeny of one strain of life.

And another part of the theory that is based on RIDICULOUS and I mean FRIGGIN RIDICULOUS coincidal events. And not just one either. The equation for the chance of these things happened once was 10 to the 50 power. And thats for one time!
[QUOTE=PonyOne]
So, the three laws I base my "faith" on actually do support my stance.