Evolution vs. The Laws of Physics

Jet Black · #81 28th November 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by ForeRunner

If you want my advice, ignore the web for now. Go read those books, they are published and reviewed by the established scientific community. You'll avoid all the nonsense that way.

good advice, please be a regular

PhantomLlama · #82 28th November 2003, 03:56 PM

I was halfway through a response to your response to my response (isn't debate fun?) when I had to go. There is no point me responding now as that was 3 pages ago and Jet Black did his own response. So, sorry I won't be responding to that.

In other news, your 'maybe I was wrong' attitude is a very refreshing and positive change from standard YECs on these forums, who would rather give up their Christianity than admit that Hovind might not be the greatest human being to walk the earth since Jesus.

LorentzHA · #83 28th November 2003, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Lyle

One can read the Bible, and not understand. For the natural man cannot understand spiritual things. Whether you are truely saved or not, I cannot tell

So you assume that if someone does not have the same interpretation of you, they do not get it? I thought Christ dies on the cross to save all mankind. Like so many you are telling us we have additional hoops to jump through. But these hoops are not for God but for people who want to keep control and feel just a little bit holier than thou' GARBAGE!

Originally Posted by Lyle

It seems in all your studies of religion they didn't teach you much, the Old testiment was fully created till later

(raises one eyebrow) didn't teach me much?? Old testament created later? Meaning what? Later than what? The NT wasn't written until OVER a 1,000 years AFTER the death of Jesus so when pray tell, was the Old testament created?

Originally Posted by Lyle

The Bible is written to Christians

And another Hubris meter explodes. Christianity AND Islam spun out of Judaism. Abraham was the father of 3 religions. What you "know" is what you have been taught at your church and you are simply regurgitating it. If you really want to "know" anything research it from ALL sides on your own!

And you say I did not learn much about Christianity??

Originally Posted by Lyle

Just as many Jews will deny, but I pulled ut over 21 pages of Prophcies of Christ from the Old Testiment...

Isn't funny how when you want something to be there, it is? So because you pull something "up" it makes it correct or even true? I cxould go to a Jewish website that says and "proves" different. It is religion Lyle, base on faith, emotion and hope. What you believe does not PROVE anything. Bring the data and I will listen.

Originally Posted by Lyle

The Oldtestiment was written for our learning and edification. because those who do not learn from the mistakes of history, are doomed to repeat them. Yet those who are Christians and have believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and Him crucified, it is for them. They are the ones with the hope of eternal life, because they are the children of God.

According to Christianity. Other religions say other wise. Unfortunately it is religion and we have no proof. It all comes down to faith. What makes Christianity correct is not because yo uare a member of it. I have a feeling if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be a militant Moslem. You would be ranting about Islam and the inherent truthfulness in it. Open your mind Lyle, and the rest will follow.

LorentzHA · #84 28th November 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Lyle

But I didn't ask if you read it, I asked if you studied it.... There is a hugh difference..

Actually Lyle, I study as I read. I realize there is a big difference. I do not think I could have made it to Medical School reading and not absorbing or understanding what I read, do you? Plus it is theology, not science EVERYONE gets something different from it. It is not a formula, there is no right or wrong way to "understand scripture".

ForeRunner · #85 28th November 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Jet Black

good advice, please be a regular

Thanks! I'll try

lucaspa · #86 28th November 2003, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Lyle

The Big Bang Theory

The traditional theory that two atoms/ matter/ electrons collided together and caused a enormous explosion. Due to this explosion dust was created that the began to settle around the universe. It was spun into action with the right chemistry to create the sun, then dust collected in balls and got caught within the gravitational pull of the sun and became what we know of as our planets... This is going of the grounds, of the creation of our solar system under such a theory alone. Apart, that is, form the creation of the rest of the universe... This is known as the Big Bang theory, brought about by Charles Darwin, who invented the rest of the theory of evolution.

Sorry, but Big Bang was first proposed over 100 years after Origin was published and 80 years after Darwin died!

BB states that the universe started as an infinitely small hot point in which was all the matter/energy of the universe. There was no "explosion" in the traditional sense but rather the spacetime of the universe expanded.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html

Refute

This may seem as a nice way to write off any form of creation, for it just all exploded into place. But just looking first at the two particles. According to this theory they floated around in space for billions and billions of years.. Or the void we know as space. Yet if you look at the laws of physics, this cannot be so. For the energy of these two particles would have worn out many eons before they ever met,

Since the theory never had "two particles" in it to begin with, the refutation doesn't address the theory of BB.

The nature of an explosion is of such that it never creates life. Never has something exploded into something completely different. And looking even into the blasts of the atomic bombs. Explosions always cause degeneration, never generation, or life.

Since the BB was not an explosion to begin with, this refutation is also irrelevant. The origin of life is not connected directly to BB to begin with. It is due to chemistry.

Cycle of the Universe

This title sounds as though it would make a good horror movie, or some sci-fi flick. Yet let's look at it this way. Obviously this would state that the universe has had no beginning, but has kept renewing itself through all the ages of eternity. With what would it renew itself? For the laws of science say that natural systems left to themselves decay and grow old. Yet there had to have been some kind of renewing source, or stars would have burnt themselves out.

The cyclic universe was originally proposed as gravity overcoming the expansion and the universe collapsing to a "Big Crunch" which would then expand again. Yes, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does forbid thes Bangs and Crunch's from proceeding indefinitely.

However, there is a new theory called ekpyrotic that is a variation on this. You can read about it here:
1. C Seife, Big bangs's new rival debuts with a splash. Science 292: 189-190, Apr 13, 2001. www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5515/189
2. Turok on ekpyrotic http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/turok2/

Earth

Ok let's say that the explosion under either theory was able to work. And hung in space you had the fresh planet earth. Though we could stop here for just a minute and point something out. The sun is gases and therefore burs itself away, as does any star. it has been recorded that the sun loses about five feet every hour. Well judging the distance between the earth and the sun, and factor in time. You would have the sun much larger then it is now, and to the point that the earth would be engulfed in that inferno.. therefore causing a major riff in that theory....

The "shrinking sun" of Barnes has been thoroughly refuted. The sun shrinks and explands in size in cycle based upon the fusion reactions going on within the sun.

Which is something I cannot answer, for I have never heard an evolutionist speak about how plant life form.

It turns out that protocells formed by polymerization of amino acids to proteins and then the addition of water are also photosynthetic! Photosynthesis is one of the inherent reactions in them. Thus, plants were there from the beginning.

Bahn PR, Fox SW. Models for protocellular photophosphorylation. Biosystems. 1981;14(1):3-14.
Masinovsky Z, Lozovaya GI, Sivash AA, Drasner M. Porphyrin-proteinoid complexes as models of prebiotic photosensitizers. Biosystems 1989;22(4):305-10.
Masinovsky Z, Lozovaya GI, Sivash AA. Some aspects of the early evolution of photosynthesis. Adv Space Res 1992;12(4):199-205.

The Creatures

Men have seemingly come to an agreement on this matter that, in the dawning days of the world, there was a great pool of slime. Where this slime comes from they will not say. One theory says a particle fell into this slime and a creature came out, another says, that these fishy creatures evolved and then came out as this walking fish creature. Another still says (most widely held) that all life developed from a single-celled organism that evolved. Well for that single-cell organism would be made up of hundreds, in not thousands of proteins. And science has made the estimation that the probability of one protein evolving is. 1 to the 47,000,000 power (something along those lines).

The real theory is that all life developed from a single-celled organism. This is simply common ancestry.

The initial proteins didn't "evolve". They formed by chemistry. And they are frightenly easy to form. In fact, it is easy to make life. You can do so in your kitchen.

Start here and we can discuss this in as much detail as you would like:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Yet this little single-celled creature would stay a single-celled creature, for it would see no need, nor have any blueprint to change into anything else. That is only on the grounds that it evolved a brain, or a sense of logic.

Natural selection doesn't depend on a brain. That is the whole problem creationists have with natural selection. The individual doesn't decide anything. Instead, the process of natural selection decides how evolution proceeds. The individual is either lucky enough or unlucky enough to have a favorable design. Nothing to do with the individual at all.

The Dinosaurs

Let's say creatures made it far enough to the dinosaurs... Well what happened to them. There are several theories. The main one you'll read is that a meteor hint the earth and created a dust storm. Wouldn't we see the effects of said meteor today? They say the crater in Flagstaff, Arizona was probably about the size of a house. A rock the size of a house landing in the ocean is said to have an extreme effect on the world, though one has not. If it was enough to kill all the dinosaurs.. Then where is the marking? And why did only the dinosaurs die?

The most recent Scientific American has a discussion of the effects of the meteor collision that caused the dinos to go extinct. And yes, we do see the effects today. Including the iridium layer all over the world at the KT boundary.

Now explain this? If the Bible is all false, and there was no flood, then why is the ark on Mt. Ararat?

There isn't. It's all a fraud. The "Ark" has been spotted at at least 3 different locations on Ararat. How is that possible?

Lyle · #87 28th November 2003, 07:23 PM

LorentzHa- Please understand i was not saying anythign about you, or your faith. Though the Bible is not to be taken lightly. yes many people may see it different, but there are standards that cannot be denied in the Bible that many people jump right over....
I was reffering to the Old testiment as the Prophets, the Law and such all together under one cover.. I am aware that Judaists disagree, and I thank God that He has "Opened my eyes." Islam is an absurd religion, chalk full of falsehood, just read the Qu 'ran

Chi_Cygni · #88 28th November 2003, 07:54 PM

Lyle,

This might be a Christian forum but I would lay off the slamming of other religions. There are some 1.8 billion Christians on this planet but that implies some 4.3 billion people are not. Also there are about 1.3 billion Muslims and to call Islam absurd is itself an absurd comment.

I am a Christian, not a Muslim, but the Qu'ran has many positives and of course many negatives. So does the Bible. In fact one can justifiably argue the Qu'ran is not as corrupted a document as the Bible with respect to it's original content. It certainly has less of a checkered past as regards multiple translations and copies.

Tolerance often comes with age, I hope you learn as you get older. I have quite a few Muslim friends who certainly are more godly people than many Christians I know.

LorentzHA · #89 28th November 2003, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by Lyle

LorentzHa- Please understand i was not saying anythign about you, or your faith

OK, fair enough, thank you for saying so

Originally Posted by Lyle

there are standards that cannot be denied in the Bible

I think there is good and bad in most religions. I do not think Christianity has an "ultimate truth" over the others (My opinion). I think there is a common theme that runs through most religions. I would agree that the Bible has some points- good food for thought, and a fairly good guide for life when taken in context and not literally.

Originally Posted by Lyle

Islam is an absurd religion, chalk full of falsehood, just read the Qu 'ran

Actually I have a copy of it, translated to English, of course. I will admit I have not studied it carefully or in depth do to my reading load with school but I really do not think it is chocked with falsehoods, well, no more than the Bible. It mentions several Biblical figures. What do you find absurd about Islam? Just curious?

Originally Posted by Lyle

and I thank God that He has "Opened my eyes."

With all do respect, are you sure it was God and you are not seeing what you want to see and attributing it, to God?

lucaspa · #90 28th November 2003, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by Lyle

LorentzHa- Please understand i was not saying anythign about you, or your faith. Though the Bible is not to be taken lightly. yes many people may see it different, but there are standards that cannot be denied in the Bible that many people jump right over....
I was reffering to the Old testiment as the Prophets, the Law and such all together under one cover.

Not a good example, since you 'jump over' most of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

I am aware that Judaists disagree, and I thank God that He has "Opened my eyes." Islam is an absurd religion, chalk full of falsehood, just read the Qu 'ran

You need to qualify this as LorentzHA has done. Your opinion. I share your opinion of Islam, but that is my opinion. It's not a fact that "Islam is an absurd religion" but my and your opinion that it is. Obviously, there are more Muslims than Judeo-Christians and they disagree with us. And I have read the Quran.