Homonid

[Jim]

Your generalization assumes that Christians are lazy when it comes the "mysteries" of the universe. That is simply false. I suppose I could generalize about those who rely on the "science will eventually explain it" arguement. Scientists and explorers, who are Christian, continue to marvel, discover and analyse the universe, knowing full well that God did it. God did it is the starting point, not the ending point.

Point taken and duly corrected. However, I wasn't inferring Christians in general are lazy. I apologise if that was the percieved tone. I am used to more hostile responses on this subject, so my response was in haste.

A lot of arguments I recieve during these debates are usually "Why is such-and-such" with the response "maybe God wanted it that way" or a variation of the above.

This is mainly in response to WildBillKickoff's comment on what he found wrong with evolution, also, no sarcasm intended, but I find Creationism is fitting evidence to a conslusion rather than fitting the conclusion with the evidence. I also find that the vast majority of Creationist arguments focus almost exclusively on attacking evolution rather than proving Creationism.

Again, no accusations here, just an observation on my part.

 

[Jim]

Also to add to WildBillKickoff:

When you mentioned that you had a problem with the spontaneous generation of life (by this I take it you mean how life first 'sparked' into being) then it isn't an evolution problem, it's abiogenesis.

Evolution doesn't attempt to answer that question, it is involved only with aspects of evolution; that is, mutations and change within species over time as they adapt. In short, random mutation sifted with non-random selection. However, evolution makes no comments on a creator; evolution neither denies nor affirms a God who put in motion the first spark of life.

Nor are we simply left with 'science may eventually find a way.' There are already hypothesis and other possible explantions:

- Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.

- Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.

- Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.

- Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.

- The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003).

- Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.

- Something that no one has thought of yet.

 

[[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff]

This is mainly in response to WildBillKickoff's comment on what he found wrong with evolution, also, no sarcasm intended, but I find Creationism is fitting evidence to a conslusion rather than fitting the conclusion with the evidence.

You could substitute "evolution" for the word "Creationism" above and it would be an equally valid statement.

I'm not going to pretend to be nearly as versed in cutting edge biology as you are Jim. However, I do know some things that experts have said on the subject of the beginnings of evolution. Dr. Walter Bradley, former head of mechanical engineering and head of the Polymer Institute at Texas A&M, put the odds of one protein molecule generating by random chance at approximately 1:1x10^60, "if you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years." This was in 2000.

Michael Behe, professor of molecular biology at Lehigh and author of Darwin's Black Box, stated that "the probability of linking together just one hundred amino acids to create one protein molecule by chance would be the same as a blind man finding one marked grain of sand somewhere in the vastness of the Sahara Desert-- and not doing it just once, but doing it three times." I believe this was also in 2000, but I may be wrong about that one.

I guess the point is that it takes as much, if not more faith to believe in abiogenesis than to believe in a Creator. And Jim, I also appreciate the fact that we're not devolving into a "well, God made it that way" argument. God gave us the gift of reason, and it's a shame more people don't use theirs.

Also, I never take things personally in these discussions, because frankly, I respect the fact that you've taken the time to do your research, and I respect your right to draw your own conclusions.

 

[Jim]

You could substitute "evolution" for the word "Creationism" above and it would be an equally valid statement.

I'm not going to pretend to be nearly as versed in cutting edge biology as you are Jim. However, I do know some things that experts have said on the subject of the beginnings of evolution. Dr. Walter Bradley, former head of mechanical engineering and head of the Polymer Institute at Texas A&M, put the odds of one protein molecule generating by random chance at approximately 1:1x10^60, "if you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years." This was in 2000.

Michael Behe, professor of molecular biology at Lehigh and author of Darwin's Black Box, stated that "the probability of linking together just one hundred amino acids to create one protein molecule by chance would be the same as a blind man finding one marked grain of sand somewhere in the vastness of the Sahara Desert-- and not doing it just once, but doing it three times." I believe this was also in 2000, but I may be wrong about that one.

I guess the point is that it takes as much, if not more faith to believe in abiogenesis than to believe in a Creator. And Jim, I also appreciate the fact that we're not devolving into a "well, God made it that way" argument. God gave us the gift of reason, and it's a shame more people don't use theirs.

Also, I never take things personally in these discussions, because frankly, I respect the fact that you've taken the time to do your research, and I respect your right to draw your own conclusions.

Indeed, I also appreciate your efforts in debating. It makes a change from the hostile replies I often get on other boards.

You could substitute "evolution" for the word "Creationism" above and it would be an equally valid statement.

Evolution was conceived through putting together a theory through observed phenomenon. Note that Darwin was Christian and mentioned himself his own belief in God in his book 'Origin of Spieces'. This means it was a creation-believeing Christian who first conceived of evolution.

Second, it is worth noting that evolution has also been able to make testable predictions concerning biogenetics and biology in general. It is aslos fasifiable. These are key tenets of science. To cut it short, evolution takes an observed phenomenon and attempts to explain it using known laws and mechanics of biology and biogenetics. Creation basically uses the Bible as the starting point, then tries to find evidence to support it.

About probabilities, their are numerous reasons why they are unreliable;

1 The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts, I believe in 2001).

2 The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

3 The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

4 The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

Oops, edited to add;

I might also add that again, you are talking of abiogenesis here. Evolution has no say on abiogenesis and is equally viable wether we have a solid theory for how life began here or not. evolution does not say a Creator doesn't exist, just that a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong. Also, to pre-empt a possible argument, evolution and atheism aren't synonymous, just the clear that up.

Once again, I greatly appreciate your participation.

 

[Didasko]

1 The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts, I believe in 2001).

No matter how you paint it...the first protein molecules would have had to form by chance if we take out the creation part of the argument. I agree that biochemistry produces complex products...but that in no way invalidates the chance part of the equation. It actually makes the odds worse for the universe to form without creation.

The complexity of biochemistry in my opinion points to a creator. But, as you would no doubt point out, I have no proof of that.

The proof that you are looking for will not happen until Christ returns.

You are looking at this from a purely scientific point of view, while I look at the inadequacies of science to support my point of view. The very complexities of science that you speak of are what convince me that there is a designer. The lack of scientific proof that there is a designer is what is a stumbling block to many scientists.

The proof is in the complexity of life and the universe.

lol...my post has continued the veering away from the original topic

I believe in a literal interpretation of creation as told in the bible. I am sure you have already heard all the scientific arguments for a younger earth and the scientific arguments that suggest the dating methods used over the last several decades just plain don't work. Science is used on both sides of the argument. Whose science is right? We'll find out someday

 

[Jim]

No matter how you paint it...the first protein molecules would have had to form by chance if we take out the creation part of the argument. I agree that biochemistry produces complex products...but that in no way invalidates the chance part of the equation. It actually makes the odds worse for the universe to form without creation.

Not necessarily. As I stated before, the first cells would have been much, much more simple than the simplest lifeform we have today. Amino acids and complex proteins have even been known to form in space. Self replicating molecules need not be all that complex and protein-building systems can also be simple.

The complexity of biochemistry in my opinion points to a creator. But, as you would no doubt point out, I have no proof of that.

No sweat, I can't prove any of the alternatives I mentioned earlier. I don't believe anyone here denies that the origin of life is a difficult problem. But because we don't currently have an explanation doesn't mean we won't have one one day.

Meh, I'd like to continue this, but I'm running short on free time, my main exams are in three weeks or so, so I'll have to stop here. I have been putting studying off too long already

Better hit the books or I might end up like hermit who has nothing better to do than surf the web and play Snake Eater.

Wait a minnit...

 

[[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff]

Meh, I'd like to continue this, but I'm running short on free time, my main exams are in three weeks or so, so I'll have to stop here. I have been putting studying off too long already

So you're admitting defeat and becoming a Christian? WOOOOOO!!!!!

<struts around ring like Ric Flair, pre-WWE>

<Jim acts like he's begging for mercy, then pokes me in the eyes>

Seriously though, thanks for the debate, and good luck on the exams.

 

[Bowser]

I found an interesting write-up about the whole dating system. Check it out here .

 

[Dark Virtue]

You are looking at this from a purely scientific point of view, while I look at the inadequacies of science to support my point of view. The very complexities of science that you speak of are what convince me that there is a designer. The lack of scientific proof that there is a designer is what is a stumbling block to many scientists.

And that's been man's problem from the very beginning.

Where does lightning come from? Zeus of course, hurling bolts. We know that's not the case today.

The earth is flat! Um, no, Galileo risked his neck by studying otherwise.

The sun? Pulled by Apollo in his chariot. Nope, that's not it either.

Man has spent his entire existence conjuring up fanciful answers to questions he couldn't answer. How many times have we been wrong?

Science, however much it tries to answer EVERY question, realizes that it can't. Science isn't afraid to say I DON'T KNOW. Look at evolution, it is a THEORY. Call Creationism a theory and Christians get all bent out of shape. Sorry, but it's a theory too. The problem I find with Creationism or Intelligent Design is that it professes to be based on scientific theory but is ultimately suspended by a need of faith to connect the dots. Science doesn't rest on faith, it gets to a certain point and says I DON'T KNOW...but we're working on it. A good example of this is William Paley's watchmaker analogy which I'm sure everyone is aware of. It suggests that the universe must have a creator because EVERYTHING has an origin and creator. Logic suddenly takes a nosedive when you work your way up the creation ladder to God. Where is God's creator? If you use logic to deduce that everything has a creator, you can't suspend the very deductive process you used to get to your point when it doesn't suit you anymore.

 

[Jericho_falls]

Creationism Foundations

Im sorry to say that I am quite dissappointed at those who would claim creationism is more airy-fairy science than evolution. This is not the case, and in fact I would like to show that it is evolution that is based on "high pie in the sky" evidence.

First: All science is based on presumptions. No matter whether you are an evolutionist or creationist you must assume several different things.

Second: All science is falliable. Evidence can be severely misinterpreted, such as the peccary tooth that scientists determined to be a neanderthal, or the old theory of spontaneous generation where rats were thought to form from smelly socks and maggots from mud.

Noting these two points let us look at Evolutions two main pillars of support.

The Fossil Record is the first pillar of evolution. However the record assumes that layers form slowly, and thus that animals which are older will be underneath animals that are younger. This is not the case though. At the Mount Saint Hellens erruption, a canyon was form overnight that was 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon. During floods, layers of rock have been formed that look millions of years old, but are only hours. Petrified trees have been found standing up through millions of years of layers. Planes from WWII have been found underneath millions of years of permafrost in the north. The layers of rock do not form slowly, but rapidly.

Also the fossil record, as seen in most textbooks (arrangement of animals in their evolutionary stages), only exists in 6 areas of the world (and those are incomplete records). This alone smashes the record. Among thousands of dig sites only six have had animals in their "proper" order. But we can go on, because the way fossils on the record are dated are faulty as well. Fossils are dated by the rock strata they are found in. Rock strata are dated by the fossils found in them. It doesnt add up. Someone had to have made up a date somewhere, and they ran from there. Carbon 14 and potassium argon dating are not used on fossils, and their rate of error is extremely high anyway (25,000 year old live penguins and fresh lava at 6,000 years old).

Bone Homology Believe it or not, this is the second pillar of evolution. Darwin saw that porpoise fin bones looked remotely like human hands and bat wings. This is quite childish evidence, it only points to a common designer.

Now let us examine some evidence against evolution:

Molecular Biology is the study of DNA, genes, etc. This science clearly shows that DNA cannot change from its source. A dog will only have genes its parents gave it, thus it can never become a cat (because its parents dont have cat genes). Evolutionists try to get around this by saying mutations can add new information to genes. This is untrue. Mutations can only copy (repete a gene where its not supposed to be) or destroy genes. It is not creation, it is destruction. Also no good mutation has ever been found.

1st Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe cannot become more ordered, but only more chaotic. It says everthing is breaking down. Everytime something ordered is created, there is an equal amount of disorder created (to build a house you must chop down trees, mine metal to make nails, use up energy to power the drills, etc.) Evolution says everything is getting more ordered as we go along, and everything is bettering itself. This is obviously not the case when the universe is becoming more chaotic!

Finally we should note some evidence for Creation:

Age of the Earth. There are miriads of evidences for the age of the earth being 6,000 years. For example there are no stage three super-nova's (novas that are 120,000 years old, determined by how far the gasses have spread) visible from earth when there should be millions (please note... millions). There are however plenty of stage two novas, just enough for a universe that is about 7,000 years old.
Another example: Deserts. Deserts grow via prevailing winds. Wind blows sand into fertile areas and they become unfertile and eventually become part of the desert. The Sahara dessert is the oldest desert in the world, and if you calculate the rate at which it is growing and go backwards, you get a desert about 4000 years old (right after the flood).
Another example: the Population of human beings is currently 6 billion. If one were to calculate the growth of earths population and go backwards, you get a population about 4000 years old (8 people came out of the flood).
We could go on and on.

The Bible. One should very seriously consider the scientific accuracy of the Bible. Genesis is not a myth or an allegory. The Bible does not tell lies. The account in Genesis is totally opposite of evolutions. For example Genesis has light before the Sun, and the Sun and moon before stars. Evolution has the stars before the Sun, and the moon last of all. Genesis has birds before fish before reptiles, evolution is fish before reptiles before birds. Genesis has plants before the Sun, evolution has the sun before plants. Genesis has land before ocean, and evolution has oceans before land. The Bible has Man bringing death into the world, evolutoin has death bringing man.

The whole point of this is that God knows what he is doing better than scientists do, and his word is more reliable than scientist's word. Scientific evidence will always point to God's Truth when correctly analysed. Evolution is twisting facts and evidence to fit mans puny little view. Creationism is attempting to see evidence from God's perspective.

For lots more check out: www.drdino.com

 

[Bowser]

Science isn't afraid to say I DON'T KNOW.

Heh, I disagree. If science isn't afraid to say "I don't know", then why is the same faulty information being taught in our schools today?

 

[Jim]

First: All science is based on presumptions. No matter whether you are an evolutionist or creationist you must assume several different things.

So you must assume in philosophy. If not prove to me that you exist and have concious thought. All things have underlying assumptions even "free will", "God", "history", this lamp on my desk. All things can be doubted. The test lies in the repeatability of experience and accuracy in the measurements of variables.

Second: All science is falliable. Evidence can be severely misinterpreted, such as the peccary tooth that scientists determined to be a neanderthal, or the old theory of spontaneous generation where rats were thought to form from smelly socks and maggots from mud.

Second: All science is falliable.

Ah and the goalpost shifts. We go from a philosophical assumption of all things are presumed to all things are falliable. A wide sweeping generalization is made without any support. Not to mention that science is not based upon any doctrine that can be fallible or infalliable. In order to be fallible it must have a central dogma. It only relies on falsifiabiliy. The Bible is falliable. Prove it to be infalliable.

such as the peccary tooth that scientists determined to be a neanderthal

the peccary tooth you are reffering to is Nebraska man. The tooth was never held in high regard by scientists. Osborn, who described it, was unsure whether it came from a hominid or from another kind of ape, and others were skeptical that it even belonged to a primate. The illustration was done for a popular publication and was clearly labeled as highly imaginative.

Nebraska Man is an example of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of it to several other experts. Scientists were initially skeptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.

old theory of spontaneous generation where rats were thought to form from smelly socks and maggots from mud.

What a strawman. Who has made these claims?

Noting these two points let us look at Evolutions two main pillars of support.

Why not? Let's look at speciation and genetics.

The Fossil Record is the first pillar of evolution. However the record assumes that layers form slowly

Says who? Fossil record isn't a pillar, it is backup. There is more to evolution than just inference from fossils.

And no, the record does not assume that layers form slowly. Geologists are well aware of events which lead to fast deposition of material, such as floods and volcanos. Why don't you address sedimentation? That occurs slowly.

and thus that animals which are older will be underneath animals that are younger.

What does this have to do with the formation of strata?

At the Mount Saint Hellens erruption, a canyon was form overnight that was 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon.

Come again?

The Toutle River collapsing a mud and ash dam and then slucing away soft mud and (relatively) loose ash is nothing compared to the (relatively) puny (relatively) little Colorado River cutting the Grand Canyon through consolidated limestone and sandstone, not to mention the gneisses, greenstones and granite in the upper reaches of the canyon. The event at Mount St Helens was more like washing mud off of a pavement than it was comparable to the erosion that formed the Grand Canyon. Seriously, my geology teacher gave me odd looks when I asked her that question.

During floods, layers of rock have been formed that look millions of years old, but are only hours.

Which geologists only work on "look"?

Petrified trees have been found standing up through millions of years of layers.

You are refferring to polystrate trees which are said by creationists to have been created through the rapid settling of sediment through the Flood.

Sudden deposition is not a problem for evolution, however.. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades.

Planes from WWII have been found underneath millions of years of permafrost in the north.

The planes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing. Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less snow. In Antarctica, where ice cores dating back more than 100,000 years have been collected, the rate of snow accumulation is much less still.

The layers of rock do not form slowly, but rapidly.

Why talk about permafrost if were talking about rocks?

Also the fossil record, as seen in most textbooks (arrangement of animals in their evolutionary stages), only exists in 6 areas of the world (and those are incomplete records).

Yet it is fascinating they exist at all, hmm?

This alone smashes the record. Among thousands of dig sites only six have had animals in their "proper" order.

Why? Ever heard of erosion? Plate tectonics?

But we can go on, because the way fossils on the record are dated are faulty as well. Fossils are dated by the rock strata they are found in. Rock strata are dated by the fossils found in them.

An accusation of circular reasoning? Please name a single reputable scientist who operates this way.

Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.

Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.

You should also note that the geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.

It doesnt add up.

Someone should tell paleontologists of the world. Strange how the experts in the matter are the last to know.

Someone had to have made up a date somewhere, and they ran from there.

??

Carbon 14 and potassium argon dating are not used on fossils

Why should they?

and their rate of error is extremely high anyway (25,000 year old live penguins and fresh lava at 6,000 years old).

Have you considered misuse of the technique? Creationists frequently misuse RCD by attempting to date millions of years old samples such as Triassic "wood" or that have been treated with organic substances. In these cases, it is the creationists who are at fault.

Also, radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested and has been found to be accurate. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, giving consistent results. Radiocarbon dating also accords with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).

Bone Homology Believe it or not, this is the second pillar of evolution.

Indeed, I don't believe it. If there are indeed only two pillars (I believe it's rather more than 29...)it would be genetics.

Darwin saw that porpoise fin bones looked remotely like human hands and bat wings. This is quite childish evidence, it only points to a common designer.

Different forms are also claimed by creationists to be evidence of common designer, so similarities cannot be evidence of common designer. Evidence for a designer must begin by specifying (before the fact) what is expected from the designer. When do we expect similar forms, and when do we expect different forms? "Intelligent design" theory will not answer that. Evolution theory has made that prediction, and the pattern of similarities and differences that we observe accords with what evolution predicts.

Now let us examine some evidence against evolution:

And this proves creationism, how?

Molecular Biology is the study of DNA, genes, etc. This science clearly shows that DNA cannot change from its source.

?? The science clearly shows great changes can and do happen.

A dog will only have genes its parents gave it, thus it can never become a cat (because its parents dont have cat genes).

What?? Please define "Cat Genes" and "Dog Genes." Dogs and cats have so many things in common that they are (1) classified close together (look at any tree of life) and (2) those things are in most cases coded by almost identical genes.

Evolutionists try to get around this by saying mutations can add new information to genes. This is untrue. Mutations can only copy (repete a gene where its not supposed to be) or destroy genes. It is not creation, it is destruction. Also no good mutation has ever been found.

Rubbish. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of


increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

1st Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe cannot become more ordered, but only more chaotic. It says everthing is breaking down. Everytime something ordered is created, there is an equal amount of disorder created (to build a house you must chop down trees, mine metal to make nails, use up energy to power the drills, etc.) Evolution says everything is getting more ordered as we go along, and everything is bettering itself. This is obviously not the case when the universe is becoming more chaotic!

First of all, keeping with the traditional creationist claim, it is the Second law of thermodynamics not the first. And anyway its tripe.

from here

The second law of thermodynamics is a general principle which places constraints upon the direction of heat transfer and the attainable efficiencies of heat engines. In so doing, it goes beyond the limitations imposed by the first law of thermodynamics.

To begin with your assertion evolution says everything is getting more ordered and bettering itself as it goes along is rubbish. Evolution says no such thing. "Bettering" in respect to environment, but not an absolute sense.

Secondly, what you say about the [second] law is wrong as well. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.This does not prevent increasing order because

1)the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

2)entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).

3)even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

If you don't think order comes from disorder, please explain mineral crystals or snowflakes.

Finally we should note some evidence for Creation:

Age of the Earth. There are miriads of evidences for the age of the earth being 6,000 years. For example there are no stage three super-nova's (novas that are 120,000 years old, determined by how far the gasses have spread) visible from earth when there should be millions (please note... millions). There are however plenty of stage two novas, just enough for a universe that is about 7,000 years old.

Blatantly false. Many more super nova remnants (SNR) have been found, including many Stage 3 remnants older than 20,000 years. And the census is not over yet. If the universe is old, many SNRs should have reached the third, oldest stage, and that is what we see. The evidence contradicts a young universe, not an old one.

SNRs are relatively hard to see. They would not be visible for one million years, the figure used in creationist calculations. A million years is the theoretical lifetime of a remnant; it will be visible for a much shorter time because of background noise and obscuring dust and interstellar matter. Fewer than 1 percent of SNRs last more than 100,000 years. It may be that as few as 15-20 percent of supernova events are visible at all through the interstellar matter.


Supernovas are evidence for an old universe in other ways:

Supernovas are evidence that stars have reached the end of their lifetime, which for many stars is billions of years.

The formation of new stars indicates that many are second generation; the universe must be old enough for some stars to go through their entire lifetime and for the dust from their supernovas to collect into new stars.

It takes time for the light from the supernovas to reach us. All supernovas and SNRs are more than 7,000 light-years from us. SN 1987A was 167,000 +/- 4,000 light years away.

There are however plenty of stage two novas, just enough for a universe that is about 7,000 years old.

7000 years does not 6000 years make. I was under the impression it was 6000 years give or take a few centuries?

Another example: Deserts. Deserts grow via prevailing winds.

Nope, not even close. Many factors affect desert formation including global warming/cooling, changes in oceanic temperature and topography.

Wind blows sand into fertile areas and they become unfertile and eventually become part of the desert. The Sahara dessert is the oldest desert in the world, and if you calculate the rate at which it is growing and go backwards, you get a desert about 4000 years old (right after the flood).

The Sahara desert is only a few thousand years old. What does this have to do with the age of the Earth?

Typically, the Noahic Flood is dated to around 4500 years ago. 4500 years does not 4000 make. Your calcualtions are flawed.

Another example: the Population of human beings is currently 6 billion. If one were to calculate the growth of earths population and go backwards, you get a population about 4000 years old (8 people came out of the flood).

This would be true if population growth were constant throughout history. It wasn't and isn't. Wars and plagues would have caused populations to drop from time to time. In particular, population sizes before agriculture would have been severely limited and would have had an average population growth of zero for any number of years.

A creationist estimate of 0.5% population growth was cited to me once. let me take this apart;

There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1900 to 2000 has been closer to 0.132 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984; Martin 1999). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 15,500 years. And recent population growth has been historically high.

The population growth rate proposed by the claim would imply unreasonable populations early in history. Let's start, as you do, with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood). Then, assuming a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year, the population after N years is given by

P(N) = 8 × (1.005)N

The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E., even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. In 1446 B.C.E., when Moses was said to be leading 600,000 men (plus women and children) on the Exodus, this model of population growth gives 726 people in the world. In 481 B.C.E., Xerxes gathered an army of 2,641,000 (according to Herodotus) when the world population, according to the model, was 89,425. Even allowing for exaggerated numbers, the population model makes no sense.

We could go on and on.

Please do.

The Bible. One should very seriously consider the scientific accuracy of the Bible. Genesis is not a myth or an allegory. The Bible does not tell lies.

A string of assertions makes evidence - how?

The account in Genesis is totally opposite of evolutions.

Well, thats that straightened out.

For example Genesis has light before the Sun, and the Sun and moon before stars. Evolution has the stars before the Sun, and the moon last of all.

Which shows you have no idea what evolution actually is, otherwise you wouldn't have just made the common mistake of attributing other scientific disciplines to evolution. What you are attacking here is cosmology/astronomy. Not evolution

Genesis has birds before fish before reptiles, evolution is fish before reptiles before birds.

Right. As the evidence shows. Jolly bad show for Genesis.

Genesis has plants before the Sun, evolution has the sun before plants.

The latter sounds more logical (as well as being supported by evidence) don't you think?

Genesis has land before ocean, and evolution has oceans before land.

This would be geology, not evolution. And geology has lava before land and oceans.

The Bible has Man bringing death into the world, evolutoin has death bringing man.

This doesn't even make sense.

The whole point of this is that God knows what he is doing better than scientists do, and his word is more reliable than scientist's word.

Explain flat-earth, geocentricism and demon possessions. How do we know the bible is God's word? Because you told us? Because you think it is?

Scientific evidence will always point to God's Truth when correctly analysed. Evolution is twisting facts and evidence to fit mans puny little view. Creationism is attempting to see evidence from God's perspective.

"When correctly analysed" indeed. It is also ironic that you accuse evolution of twisting facts to fit mans view when you have already made it clear you yourself are twisting facts to suit the inerrant word of God.

For lots more check out: www.drdino.com

If this is a sample, no thank you.

 

[Jericho_falls]

Creationism VS. Theistic Evolution

First of all, I apologize for the typo about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Second of all, Drdino.com is a website by actual creationist scientists and thus has better arguments than a 17 teen year old wanna-be like me.

Third:

So the bible has no scientific marriage. So what?

Explain flat-earth, geocentricism and demon possessions.

"When correctly analysed" indeed. It is also ironic that you accuse evolution of twisting facts to fit mans view when you have already made it clear you yourself are twisting facts to suit the inerrant word of God.

I will defend the Bible above all else. The Bible does not teach a flat earth, but in fact teaches a spherical earth. Note:

Isa 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

The Bible also does not teach geocentrism, although a general geocentrism (milky way centrism) should not be rejected.

Demon possession are real. Can you prove them with science? No... how could you! Demons are of the spiritual realm, science is examining the physical. To use Demon possessions as evidence against the scientific credibility of the Bible is ludicrous. That would be like saying that pictures in a story book prove the author couldn't spell. Pictures are a totally subject than words. Anyway.

I could go on an on with scientific evidence as you have politely invited me to, but I will not because I would only discredit creationist's valid arguments with my inexperience. Instead I wish to offer this study on why evolution does not line up with the Bible, even though some claim it can:

Does anybody know what Theistic Evolution or Creationism is?

Creationism- The belief that the world was created as literally described in Genesis, in six 24-hour days, and that all living organisms were created individually without any macro-evolutionary processes.
Theistic Evolution- The Idea that God, over immense periods of time, used evolutionary processes to create all physical life-forms from a single organism.

What does Theistic Evolution involve?

The following evolutionary assumptions are generally applicable to theistic evolution:
 The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted.
 It is believed that evolution is a universal principle.
 As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and all life and their subsequent development (the principle of uniformity).
 Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organisation from the simple to the complex, from non-life to life, and from lower to higher forms of life.
 The driving forces of evolution are mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing. Chance and necessity, long time epochs, ecological changes, and death are additional indispensable factors.
 The time line is so prolonged that anyone can have as much time as he/she likes for the process of evolution.
 The present is the key to the past.
 There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.
 Evolution will persist into the distant future.

(In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to TE)

 God used evolution as a means of creating.
 The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.
 Evolutionist pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary world view.

In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:
Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God (to incorporate unexplainable areas).
In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy.

Is it possible for Theistic Evolution and the Bible to be in Harmony?

First of all, lets read the Genesis account and see what exactly it says. If in doubt, lets believe what the Bible says.

Genesis 1:1-31... The Facts

 God created the universe in six days, each of which had an evening and morning, sections of time from a 24-hour day.
 1st Day- Creation of heavens (possibly stars), the earth, light, and dark.
 2nd Day- Separation of the waters and creation of atmosphere.
 3rd Day- Separation of land and sea, creation of plants.
 4th Day- Creation of Sun and moon. (Note: Sun and Moon were created to rule of the day and night. This implies that days and nights were already set times. Also, imagine a world of plants lasting for a billion years with only starlight.)
 5th Day- Fish and Birds created.
 6th Day- God creates land animals, forms man out of dust and breathes life into him and gives.
 7th Day- God rests and hallows the day.

Now lets see how evolution says it happened. (This was taken from and evolutionist book).

An Evolutionary Timeline:

Big bang which created the galaxies.
Stars born.
Earth is formed out of asteroids, dust and ice.
Moon formed in big splash.
The earth’s crust thickens, land and oceans distinguished themselves.
Atmosphere forms.
Heat and explosions and junk form bacteria.
Bacteria evolves into algae.
Algae into fish.
Fish crawl onto land and become amphibians.
Amphibians become reptiles.
Reptiles begin to fly, insects evolve.
Reptiles evolve into mammals and birds.
Mammals evolve into man.


Now lets look at three basic doctrinal concepts in the Bible which Theistic evolution challenges:

Creation:

1. Sequence and nature of events changed.
The first thing that TE challenges in Gods word is the sequence of events. This is not a small issue because it would inherently be calling God a liar, or that He cannot correctly impart what happened.

"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" (Gen. 2:7).

"But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.'" (Mark 10:6)

In these verses we see clearly that God made man as a complete creation, not as an imperfect algae that slowly made its way to a higher evolved being called man. God said he made man out of dust and then he breathed life into him. He created them at the beginning of creation, not in recent history.

2. Mans significance changed. (Genesis 1:24-28)
"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (Genesis 1:26)

Instead of being made in Gods image, man was created imperfect, as algae which evolved. He is no longer a leader over the animals, but instead he is an animal. In 1 Corinthians 15: 39 (which we will look at later) Paul says that "All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is on kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds."
Also god says that God gave to His flesh creations green herbs and fruit to eat. But suddenly each separate group: Plants, animals, fish, birds, and man have become one branch of the same thing.
According to TE, Adam is a myth, perhaps a symbolic representation of the dawn of man. Also, the account of Eve coming from Adam's rib is subsequently myth. If the account of Adam and Eve is myth, then this leads us to the next thing TE challenges:

The Fall:

1. Bloodshed before sin. (Romans 8:20-22)
All evolution involves chance and necessity, mutation, natural selection, isolation, death, and millions of years. In order for man to evolve, there would have had to be evil in the world. It would have to be a bloody struggle for survival, full of need and contention. This would undermine the biblical view of these things. Death is a result of sin, as is need and contention. Creation was "subjected to futility" not created by it. Thus the fall is undermined, because God would have created a sinful world. God clearly states that there was no bloodshed or death before Adams fall (Genesis 1:29-30).
This is also an attack on God's character. If God "saw that it was good", then death and need must be good.

2. Sins significance changed.
The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam's fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realise that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who 'came to save that which was lost' (Luke 19:10). TE teaches that man has always lived through blood and strife, rendering sin obsolete. How can God judge his creation when he designed us that way. Instead he created good and through Adams fall, as recorded in the bible, sin entered the human nature.

3. Through one man (part I): (Romans 5:12-19)
Since Adam is a myth, then sin could not have entered through one man as it says in this verse. This directly contends with every teacher in the bible, who believed in Adam as one man as much as they believed Moses and Jesus and Paul were one person. This leads us to the next issue:

Redemption:

1. Through one man. (part II) (Romans 5:12-19)
God is clearly saying in Romans that Adam was one man, not a symbolic figure of the beginnings of an intellectual race. How can we trust what the bible says about Jesus if we don't trust it on Adam. We might as well say that Jesus was the symbol of some spiritual enlightenment that came to the apostles, and to better explain that they put it in the figure of one man. The very idea of redemption through Christ Jesus is challenged, and it draws our eyes off Him and onto evolution. The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that 'The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us' (John 1:14), 'Christ Jesus ... was made in the likeness of men' (Philippians 2:5-7).

2. The Resurrection. (1 Corinthians 35-49)
God does not change. Neither does what He decrees change. Thus if evolution was true of the past it is true of today, meaning that man is evolving into something else. This may lead us into beliefs that the second coming is some evolutionary event.
Yet it is these bodies which we will resurrected later. Shall, in the new earth, we still evolve? When God creates it will He use evolution? Will our new bodies simply be the evolutionary acme of the human race? May it never be! For God will make everything perfect, and perfection needs no change.




Attack on Gods Character:

- Theistic Evolution is essentially an attack on Gods character.
- The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that 'God is love', 'light', and 'life' (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as 'very good' (Genesis 1:31) and 'perfect' (Deuteronomy 32:4).
According to Theistic evolution, over millions of God-absent years, through horrid bloodshed, imperfect creatures slowly perfected themselves. This gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation.

"Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us..." (Psalm 100:3).
- The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. 'But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him' (1 Corinthians 8:6). However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot 'explain' with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a 'god of the gaps' for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that "God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved - He is evolution." (E. Jantsch, Die Selbstorganisation des Universums, Munchen, 1979, p. 412.)
- The trustworthiness of Gods word is also brought in extreme question. Instead of looking at the world through biblical glasses we begin to look at the Bible through evolutionary glasses. This is wrong because is questions the authority of the Bible of science and the ability of God to communicate with man.

Conclusion

Because TE requires such a detachment from what the Bible teaches it is not an option for Christians. The account in Genesis, upheld throughout the Bible, was never intended to be interpreted for more than it is. It is factual, just like the rest of Genesis and the works of Moses (ultimately God however). Let us depart from this heresy, stop giving the devil a foothold, and strengthen our faith in Gods creative acts.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Heh, I disagree. If science isn't afraid to say "I don't know", then why is the same faulty information being taught in our schools today?

Such as?

 

[Bowser]

Such as planets being millions of years old, when it's not proven. It's merely a theory. Same with the ape man and all of evolution; it's being taught as fact when it's simply not.

Unfortunately, I don't have a school-issued science book handy right now, but there are many things that are bogus. Science (especially in the schools) teach only one or two sides of the issue, rather than having a well-rounded view.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Hmmm.

Last time I checked, evolution was still being taught as the THEORY of Evolution. Not the FACT of Evolution.

As far as astronomy and the age of the planets, without knowing where you got that, I can't really comment on it. All I can say is that when science posits a theory like that, there are facts, numbers, evidence, reason, etc to back it up.

You claim that science is only teaches one or two sides of an issue, not a well rounded view...but ID and Creationism only teaches ONE SINGULAR side, does it not? Don't you think that's being a bit hypocritical?

Also, please define what you mean by "bogus". Are you insinuating that there is a secret conspiracy to fool people into believing something that isn't true by the scientific community?

 

[Bowser]

Hmmm.

Last time I checked, evolution was still being taught as the THEORY of Evolution. Not the FACT of Evolution.

That's interesting. Fair enough, but it's the only theory being taught in schools. Don't you think it'd be healthy if we got a number of theories to learn from, rather than just one?

As far as astronomy and the age of the planets, without knowing where you got that, I can't really comment on it. All I can say is that when science posits a theory like that, there are facts, numbers, evidence, reason, etc to back it up.

Right. But common sense tells us that much of the dating system is faulty.

You claim that science is only teaches one or two sides of an issue, not a well rounded view...but ID and Creationism only teaches ONE SINGULAR side, does it not? Don't you think that's being a bit hypocritical?

You do have a very good point. However, creationism has several different viewpoints (you say yourself that Christians can't agree on how and when we were created), whereas evolution usually just focuses on the big bang theory and the idea that we all came from a particle, or a cell. I think it's safe to say that many scientists, whether they agree with evolution or creationism, hang on to their beliefs with white knuckles.

Also, please define what you mean by "bogus". Are you insinuating that there is a secret conspiracy to fool people into believing something that isn't true by the scientific community?

lol, conspiracy seems a bit childish, but it does seem like the science books are hiding something. Why just post one theory, the theory of evolution? Why not of creationism?

 

[Jericho_falls]

A couple quick comments here regarding the other side of the conversation:

Last time I checked, evolution was still being taught as the THEORY of Evolution. Not the FACT of Evolution.

Actually, many schools and textbooks DO TEACH EVOLUTION AS A FACT. This is no joke. They call it The Theory but treat it like (and even call it) a fact (or religion for that matter).

You claim that science is only teaches one or two sides of an issue, not a well rounded view...but ID and Creationism only teaches ONE SINGULAR side, does it not? Don't you think that's being a bit hypocritical?

I think that both sides can call both sides hypocritical till the cows come home. Think of it this way: evolution assumes a billions of years old universe and a spontaneous creation. Creationism teaches a planned creation and a young universe. The two do not coincide and so no teacher will ever throw the two together on equal ground. You cant escape bias. Take a side and stop complaining about the other's bias.

All I can say is that when science posits a theory like that, there are facts, numbers, evidence, reason, etc to back it up.

This is not the case. Much of todays science is pure speculation or very sketchy reasoning. For example the distance of stars is not actually known because, using triginometry, the "numbers" for the calculation are very finicky: a slight change makes a totally different answer. Evidence is always based on assumptions and can never prove anything.

Are you insinuating that there is a secret conspiracy

Yes.

 

[Jericho_falls]

I dont want to clog this thread up, but I had a thought:

Evolution is taking the evidence and simply building from there:

(Evidence)------>(Hypothesis)---->(Theory)------>(Scientific Law)!

It is a constant building up, and if something goes wrong in the path, it all goes wrong.

Creationism is based on the infallible Truth of the Bible, so it is taking the evidence and the Truth, and filling in the blanks.

(Evidence)------->!(Theory)!<----------(Truth)

 

[Dark Virtue]

A couple quick comments here regarding the other side of the conversation:

Actually, many schools and textbooks DO TEACH EVOLUTION AS A FACT. This is no joke. They call it The Theory but treat it like (and even call it) a fact (or religion for that matter).

There are MANY things that we can point out about scholastic textbooks and how wrong they are. You can't equate scientific principle with crappy textbooks.

I think that both sides can call both sides hypocritical till the cows come home. Think of it this way: evolution assumes a billions of years old universe and a spontaneous creation. Creationism teaches a planned creation and a young universe. The two do not coincide and so no teacher will ever throw the two together on equal ground. You cant escape bias. Take a side and stop complaining about the other's bias.

Funny how science assumes and creationism teaches. For your edification, science does not ASSUME anything.

This is not the case. Much of todays science is pure speculation or very sketchy reasoning. For example the distance of stars is not actually known because, using triginometry, the "numbers" for the calculation are very finicky: a slight change makes a totally different answer. Evidence is always based on assumptions and can never prove anything.

I agree, but not in the way you suggest. Science doesn't have the answer to every question. Those gaps are filled with THEORIES (what you call speculation and sketchy reasoning).

Yes.

I hope you aren't serious.

I dont want to clog this thread up, but I had a thought:

Evolution is taking the evidence and simply building from there:

(Evidence)------>(Hypothesis)---->(Theory)------>(Scientific Law)!

It is a constant building up, and if something goes wrong in the path, it all goes wrong.

Creationism is based on the infallible Truth of the Bible, so it is taking the evidence and the Truth, and filling in the blanks.

(Evidence)------->!(Theory)!<----------(Truth)

I suggest you actually define the terms you use. Or as Inigo Montoya would say, "I do not think that words means what you think it means."