[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang and evolution as viewed by creationists.

[aiki]

Hey, Drew!

There are well-informed scientists who see the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as being in distinct opposition to the Theory of Evolution. Consider the following:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... amics.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... namics.asp

http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt7.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt8.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt9.html

This one, in particular, addresses your point about the Earth not being a closed system:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp#open

Apparently, the issue of entropy and its implications for the viability of Evolution is not quite as you state it to be. :wink: :D

Late Cretaceous:

You wrote:

Except that evolutionists don't have this view. Life did not "spontaneously" form from non life.

Some evolutionists may not hold this view, but many others do.

Besides the theory is evolution is not contingent on how life arose.

Uh huh.

How life arose is called the thoery of abiogenesis.

Yes. And?

Even is the Invisible Pink Unicorn waved a magic want to create life, the theory of evolution only applies to the process of change that occured after life began.

Over the many years I've encountered this theory in textbooks, in lectures by professors at university, and on t.v. series explaining evolution, I've never heard a general account of the theory not suggest the idea of abiogenesis. That life began spontaneously from non-life is a well-known, basic proposition of the Theory of Evolution (typically taught under the heading of "organic evolution"). It was what I was taught in school and university less than 20 years ago.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Quath]

There are well-informed scientists who see the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as being in distinct opposition to the Theory of Evolution.

They are the great minority since 95% of all scientists believe that evolution represents the best explanation of the origin of species. If you just deal with biology and earth sciences, it goes up to over 99%. There are some that want their belief to be true so badly, that they convince themselves of it. However, they can not convince people that ty to see it objectively. (About half of scientists believe in a god, so they accept evolution when their bias would be to reject it.)

As for the 2nd Law, it is a statement of probability. It is equivalent to saying that if you had a bunch of dice and they were all on 1, then if you bounce them, you would have less dice with the number 1 up. Everything about the second law comes from this idea.

So with the sun supplying loads of energy to Earth, you can have a system that reduces local entrophy at the expense of raising entrophy elsewhere. Without the sun, everything would use up its heat and wind down.

If the second law did not work for the theory of evolution, it would not work today to keep us alive.

Quath

 

[aiki]

Quath:

They are the great minority since 95% of all scientists believe that evolution represents the best explanation of the origin of species. If you just deal with biology and earth sciences, it goes up to over 99%.

How do you know this, exactly?

The majority being mistaken has occured within the scientific community a number of times. I'm sure you've heard of Galileo...

There are some that want their belief to be true so badly, that they convince themselves of it.

Sounds like most of the evolutionists I know.

However, they can not convince people that ty to see it objectively.

Quite right. I think Evolutionist scientists expect that what they propose will be adopted without much thought by the general human population. But, there are some, like Creationists, who have scrutinized the Theory of Evolution more carefully and objectively and found it sorely wanting as an explanation of the history of life on Earth.

(About half of scientists believe in a god, so they accept evolution when their bias would be to reject it.)

How do you know that "about half of scientists believe in a god"? Have you taken a poll? In any event, their bias for or against evolution depends, not on a belief in a god, necessarily, but on the nature of that god. For many people, the belief in a god amounts to nothing more than a belief in an amorphous, impersonal, distant force, which would hardly be antithetical to the Theory of Evolution.

Syntax Vorlon:

You wrote:

Other animals have sex without getting married, other animals display homosexuality(which percentage wise corresponds to the occurance of homosexuality in humans). Even assuming there's no reason to believe that humans are animals, these are our only examples of sexual behavior that we can point to outside ourselves.

Sometimes animals kill and eat their own young. They eat the waste matter of other animals and even their own vomit. Should we follow their example in these behaviours, too? I mean, if you're going to take your cue from them in the area of sexuality why not in other areas, as well?

Unless you want to point to God, whose only kid he had, out of wedlock, who went on to spend all his time hanging out with 12 guys and 1 woman, who many christians would have you believe he never married.

Wedlock is a God-ordained human institution. It is for the creature, not the Creator.

Christ had more than just the 12 disciples and 1 woman around him. Often there were many men and women, whom Scripture refers to as "disciples", who followed and served Jesus. (Jn. 6:66, 67; Mk. 15:40, 41) And he spent most of his time preaching the Kingdom of God and healing the sick, not just "hanging out" with the twelve disciples.

That Jesus never married is suggested by the fact that the Bible makes no mention whatsoever of such a relationship between Christ and a woman.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Sometimes animals kill and eat their own young. They eat the waste matter of other animals and even their own vomit. Should we follow their example in these behaviours, too? I mean, if you're going to take your cue from them in the area of sexuality why not in other areas, as well?

Many animals enter into monogamous relationships, obviously we shouldn't take a cue from animals and stop getting married.:roll:

Humans are not following animals' example when we enter intimate same-sex relationships, we're following our sexuality, just as you follow your sexuality by entering into intimate relationships with the opposite sex. The fact that other animals do it, in statistically similar ways to humans suggests that it is a trait of animals in general, not of humans specifically that creates homosexuality and heterosexuality in a population.

Wedlock is a God-ordained human institution. It is for the creature, not the Creator.

So you give your god the get out of rape free card, marvelous. I'm sure you would jump for joy if your deity impregnated someone close to you.

 

[Barbarian]

I looked at the "2nd law prohibits evolution" websites, but found nothing but a lot of obfuscation.

Let's cut to the chase. Can anyone who believes those websites name one process, required for evolution, that is prohibited by the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

If not, what makes you believe those guys?

 

[Drew]

I looked at the "2nd law prohibits evolution" websites, but found nothing but a lot of obfuscation.

Let's cut to the chase. Can anyone who believes those websites name one process, required for evolution, that is prohibited by the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

If not, what makes you believe those guys?

No takers on this?

 

[Barbarian]

That challenge is usually a thread-killer. Looks like it happened again.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The logic used to claim that evolutionary thoery violates the second law of thermodynamics would also mean that all of the other processes of life itself violated the second law.

 

[aiki]

Hello.

I would be more inclined to continue this discussion if reasoned argument, such as was presented in the articles to which I gave links, wasn't so quickly set aside as "obfuscation" by those who disagree. Seems pointless to me to debate with those who respond this way.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Barbarian]

Couldn't think of any? Neither can I. No one can show that any process required by evolution is is prohibited by the 2nd law, so we must conclude that there isn't any, pending an example.

If you ever do find some, let us know.

 

[bibleberean]

Well, I know of Creationist scientists who would disagree with you. In light of this, I take the above comment as another of your opinions rather than fact.

Creation science is an oxymoron. These are people who posit that the Grand Canyon could have formed in a single flood event. :roll:

Mount St. Helens a local catastropic event produced a canyon 1/40 the scale of the Grand Canyon... Imagine what the world wide flood as recorded in Genesis could do?

The following quotation is from answers in Genesis at the following link...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 7-2000.asp

"The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years. One particular canyon was formed, which has since been named the ‘Little Grand Canyon.’ About 100 feet deep and somewhat wider, it is about 1/40th the scale of the mighty Grand Canyon. This canyon was formed in one day from a mudflow. A newly formed river then flowed through the Canyon formed by the mudflow."

 

[Barbarian]

Creation science is an oxymoron. These are people who posit that the Grand Canyon could have formed in a single flood event.

Mount St. Helens a local catastropic event produced a canyon 1/40 the scale of the Grand Canyon...

I've been there. You've been had. Not only are the walls of the gulleys not "1/40th the scale of the Grand Canyon", they don't look remotely like the Grand Canyon. Whever the walls erode more than a few yards deep, they just slump, and collapse. And you would never see entrenched meanders in soft sediment like that at Mt. St. Helens, as you do in the Grand Canyon. Would you like to see it?

The following quotation is from answers in Genesis at the following link...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 7-2000.asp

"The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years.

Horsefeathers. I've seen that happen in similar soft sediments in a single season.

One particular canyon was formed, which has since been named the ‘Little Grand Canyon.’ About 100 feet deep and somewhat wider, it is about 1/40th the scale of the mighty Grand Canyon. This canyon was formed in one day from a mudflow. A newly formed river then flowed through the Canyon formed by the mudflow."

I have a picture. It's not what they told you.

Note the walls slumping. No vertical walls here. And no entrenched meanders.

 

[bibleberean]

Now that you have screwed this thread up with your over sized picture... :smt013

I suggest you read the link and fix your screw up!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 7-2000.asp

 

[Barbarian]

Had a good look? OK. I'll see if I can make it a bit smaller...

Suffice to say that it's not 100 feet deep, and it can't keep vertical walls, and it cannot form structures like those found in the Grand Canyon.

Like these:

 

[bibleberean]

I don't know how deep it the canyon is in every spot from that picture.

I do know this. That water can cut through solid rock under the right circumstances.

The Grand Canyon could have been formed quickly as a result of the flood described in Genesis.

I believe the Genesis account of creation and that there has been a catastrophic world wide flood of proportions millions of times greater than Mount St. Helens.

I have a video tape of the Turtle river flowing through the canyon formed in less than one day... It is quite impressive...

Another quote from this site...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 7-2000.asp

"Now I remember being taught in school that when you saw a canyon with a river running through it, you assumed that the river took a long time to erode the canyon. My teachersâ€â€not having known what happened at Mount St. Helensâ€â€would have concluded the same thing about the small river cutting through the Little Grand Canyon."

Fine layering was produced within hours at MT St Helens on June 12, 1980 by hurricane velocity surging flows from the crater of the volcano. The 25-foot thick (7.6 m), June 12 deposit is exposed in the middle of the cliff. It is overlain by the massive, but thinner, March 19,1982 mudflow deposit, and is underlain by the air-fall debris from the last hours of the May 18, 1980, nine-hour eruption.
(Photo: S.A. Austin)


Photo and text from this site.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/nature.asp

 

[Barbarian]

I don't know how deep it the canyon is in every spot from that picture.

In some places, nearly a mile deep with an almost vertical wall. Soft sediment collapses when it gets a few meters deep in an eroded channel.

I do know this. That water can cut through solid rock under the right circumstances.

It cut through the Grand Canyon, after all.

The Grand Canyon could have been formed quickly as a result of the flood described in Genesis.

Nope. For several reasons. First, you can't cut an entrenched meander by a sudden rush of water. Try it. Won't work. Second, there's no time for the deserts and forests in different layers of the rock to have formed, if it was laid down rapid. Third, there's no evidence of such a rush of water, either in the canyon, or in the surrounding area, which certainly would have shown scabland features if such a flood had happened.

I believe the Genesis account of creation

I believe the Genesis account of creation without adding all that stuff you attached to it.

and that there has been a catastrophic world wide flood of proportions millions of times greater than Mount St. Helens.

There's a couple of problems:
1. No scriptural foundation for it. ("eretz" can mean just "the area around here")

2. There's no evidence for such a flood.

I have a video tape of the Turtle river flowing through the canyon formed in less than one day... It is quite impressive...

Me too. But not even close to the kind of flood you'd need.

"Now I remember being taught in school that when you saw a canyon with a river running through it, you assumed that the river took a long time to erode the canyon. My teachersâ€â€not having known what happened at Mount St. Helensâ€â€would have concluded the same thing about the small river cutting through the Little Grand Canyon."

Actually, the gulleys that cut through ash have been observes numerous times by geologists. AIG wasn't being entirely honest with you.

Fine layering was produced within hours at MT St Helens on June 12, 1980 by hurricane velocity surging flows from the crater of the volcano. The 25-foot thick (7.6 m), June 12 deposit is exposed in the middle of the cliff. It is overlain by the massive, but thinner, March 19,1982 mudflow deposit, and is underlain by the air-fall debris from the last hours of the May 18, 1980, nine-hour eruption.

Right. It's not the first, or even the greatest pyroclastic flow. But scientists can tell the difference between a huge accumulation of ash, and sedimentary rock laid down by water or other processes.

Austin, BTW, used to tell groups that Mt. St. Helens made a creationist of him. But then one day, someone pointed out that he had been writing creationists tracts under a psuedonym Stuart Nevins long before Mt St. Helens blew up.

Here is a site by a former YE creationist, trained by the Institute for Creation Research, who discusses some of the things you've been told.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/erosion.htm

 

[bibleberean]

There is evidence to support a global flood.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... eology.asp

Genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

The flood covered the whole earth according to Genesis.

Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

This is the type of cataclysmic event that could form huge Canyons... etc.

There is nothing wrong with using scientific information from a creationist site.

This is a Christian forum. 8-)

There are scientists who believe that there is evidence to support a the Genesis account.

I find them quite credible...

 

[sheseala]

Someone doesn't understand the basic concepts of geomorphology or soil mechanics...

 

[Barbarian]

There is evidence to support a global flood.

Nope. No sign of a global flood.

Genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Obviously, there are no windows above us. The ancient Hebrews imagined that there was a ocean above as well, with a dome having windows which let water fall to the earth when opened. The word "raqua" means "something beaten out", like a copper dish. So we know this one is figurative.

The flood covered the whole earth according to Genesis.

Actually, the word "eretz" means "land." And it is used in various ways, including "the land hereabouts" or "this particular country." So the Bible does not say there was a worldwide flood.

This is the type of cataclysmic event that could form huge Canyons... etc.

As this discussion shows, it cannot build river canyons, since they have features that can only be produced over long periods of time.

There is nothing wrong with using scientific information from a creationist site.

No, there isn't. But so far, you haven't done that.

This is a Christian forum.

Most Christians know that it doesn't mean a literal, worldwide flood.

There are scientists who believe that there is evidence to support a the Genesis account.

There is no evidence to support a literal worldwide flood. This is why so few scientists think there was. And all of them think so for religious reasons.

Most scientists who are Christians see no possible way, either Scripturally, or from the evidence, that there could have been a worldwide flood.

 

[bibleberean]

"Nope. No sign of a global flood"

BB responds:

Yep, there is evidence. :D

Actually the bible talks about a global catastrope not a local one...

The "windows of heaven" are not figuritive any more than the "fountains of the deep" are figuritive.

You are wrong and that is that...

You believe what ever you want...

I am too busy elsewhere to debate this right now...

I suggest you go to the following links and actually read them.

by by for now... :D

http://www.advancemeants.com/creation/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.aspx

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html

http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc/

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/