TE has nonexistent theology (?)

[shernren]

It's going to be 2 here so I'd better restrain myself, where words are many sin is not absent ... especially at such a brain-unfriendly time of day.

Yes, phenomenological is not prescientific, thanks for correcting me. I would argue however that it is an ascientific way of describing the universe. Saying that "the sun stopped in the sky" can be converted in orbital terms dodges the question of what on earth (hehe) is the sun doing in the sky? To treat the idea of "kinds" phenomenologically seems as consistent to me as any other way to treat kinds, maybe even more. I've dealt with that in responding to your response to my initial treatment in that manner.

Secondly, it is not generally accepted that a single-celled organism has more information than a human. How do you define it so?

In terms of biochemical complexity? But mutations produce new proteins, so (to a first approximation) mutations can produce new information.
In terms of the genome's length? But mutations can lengthen the genome, so mutations can produce new information.

So in terms of what?

I agree that it is difficult to pin down the concept of biological information in the genome - but that is a loss for creationists, not evolutionists. Evolutionists have never needed to define evolution in terms of information being gained or information being lost. The whole idea that evolution requires a (quantifiable) increase in information was a creationist construct, and so it's your problem to measure that information increase required, not ours.

Get your Masters in Information Theory and then help me figure out what those creationists are saying and how come I'm not convinced by their arguments!

Thirdly, "generalized" 2nd Law? Might as well call it the Creationist 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because I've never heard of any "generalized" 2nd Law. Thermodynamics, as the name implies, is the science of the movement of heat and energy. When the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that "the entropy of a system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time approaching a maximum value", this entropy has a strict thermodynamics meaning and is simply not equatable to any biological sense of informational entropy. To compare the two is like saying that "the speaker spoke with so much gravity, he became a black hole".

And no, Pats, Mark didn't define God here. I think he's tried elsewhere though.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Your scenario is fine and dandy. But you omit the geneology record book in your basement that links your grandfather to Othello. Now I have strong reason to believe (1) your dad (or you) is a charlatan or (2) Othello really is a real person. See Luke 3. And Genesis 3-12. These "just so" explanations only work when examining part of the Bible. The Bible, taken as a whole, refuses to be altered.

Oh, so you believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, not the 10,000 year old earth that so many backslidering YECs like AiG and ICR like to refer to.

You make light of my logical outworking,

No, I simply applied reductio ad absurdum.

and make a poor connection: the revolution of the earth is an empirical fact. Billions of years is not, not is universal common ancestry.

This demonstrates that either you fail to understand the decidedly non-trivial knowledge and groundwork necessary to demonstrate that the earth rotates upon its axis or you don't fully comprehend the evidence for an ancient earth and common descent.

Or, most likely, both.

Before you take too great of offense, I note that it wasn't until recently that I realized how much background is needed.

"Proving" inertia, Newton's laws and applying them to show the origins of the coreolis affect and explain the behaviour of the faucault pendulum, and thence to infer the rotation of the earth is neither easy nor obvious.

It only seems like an "empirical fact" because you've been taught it since grade school.

Emperical evidence has recorded up to five varves formed in a single year.

it's been observed that some trees produce two rings in good years.

Lions grow to over 400 lbs, have no stripes or spots to speak of and live in prides. If I have a leopard kit, same genus as lions, should I base my expectations based upon lion characteristics?
Yet despite all the alternate explanations, when you look at those individual samples of hundreds or thousands of years from Arizona, California, Germany, England, Ireland ...
none of them show higher levels of C14 in earlier rings, and when you match ring width patterns you get a chronology that agrees with samples of known dates going back thousands of years.

Similarly when you count varves (in lakes that continue to form them), whether in Japan, New England, the Midwest, or Europe, the farther down you go the less C14 shows up in the organic (e.g. leaves) found in the core samples and for the 11,000 years of tree ring chronology you get very close agreement.

When you get past 25,000 years or so the agreement between the various methods used out at that date, most of which are relatively new and lack large statisticial samples, gets worse. (But still trending in the same direction, do a google on the paper at the end of this post for a 2005 paper on the issue).
[edit of following quote to clarify who is quoting whom when]

Robert:

"the fact that our Chromosome 2 looks like chimps' 2 and 3 glued together..."​

Comparisons show a common design, not common ancestry.

Do you understand what I wrote?

As a programmer I can tell you that when you reuse code you copy the modules you need, you don't do a wholesale cut and paste including common initialization of clean up codes,
you don't make minor and inconsequential changes all over the place (that just happen to follow the nested morphological hierarchy e.g. cytochrome c),
and you most certainly don't include broken copies of code (vitamin C).

Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (2005) 1781.1796
Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based
on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals
Richard G. Fairbanks, Richard A. Mortlock, Tzu-Chien Chiu, Li Caoa,
Alexey Kaplan, Thomas P. Guilderson, Todd W. Fairbanks, Arthur L. Bloom,
Pieter M. Grootes, Marie-Jose´e Nadeau

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Robert: "the fact that our Chromosome 2 looks like chimps' 2 and 3 glued together..." Comparisons show a common design, not common ancestry.

snip snip

As a programmer I can tell you that when you reuse code you copy the modules you need, you don't do a wholesale cut and paste including common initialization of clean up codes,
you don't make minor and inconsequential changes all over the place (that just happen to follow the nested morphological hierarchy e.g. cytochrome c),
and you most certainly don't include broken copies of code (vitamin C).

snip snip

as is pointed out, chimp 2q+2p=human 2 is evidence for common descent and good evidence against common design.

the reason is that the 2nd centrosome and backwards telomeres are indicators that the 2 chromosomes are products of a unification event. If a designer designed them then he made it look exactly like it would if it had been two chromosomes just hooked together, there is no evidence of removing the excess 2nd centrosome, or fixing the backwards internal telomeres. So the Designer doesn't clean up after himself, nor does he do things to distinguish his work from evolution.

 

[Dispy]

Where?

From the Book Common Questions About the Grace Message by Joel Finck.

14) Where in Scripture do we ever findthe Great Commission that was given tothe Twelve being suspended?

This is a good question. Most churches today operate under the Great Commission. They believe there has been no interruption of the Great Commission from the time it was given until this day. But in fact, its suspension was recognized at the Jerusalem Council. In Galatians 2, Paul explains why he had a meeting with the remainder of the Twelve Apostles. In Galatians 2:7-9 we read, “But contrariwise, when they [Apostles] saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.” Uncircumcision means those who were not a part of the Jewish program. Circumcision was a Jewish ritual. He is talking about a message which does not include rituals, does not include the law, and the keeping of the law, and all of the other ordinances that went along with it. “When they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me [Paul says], as the gospel of the circumcision was committed unto Peter: (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”But how can they do that? At least two of these men were right there when the Lord told them to go into all the world beginning in Jerusalem, and Judea, and Samara, and then unto the uttermost part of the earth.

How could Peter and John who were standing with the Lord when He said they were to go into all the world, now suddenly say, “We won’t go to the nations anymore. Paul, you do that. We will go to the circumcision.” How can they do that? They can do it because God revealed something new to them. He revealed that God had now begun a new program in order to bring salvation to the nations. It was not going to be according to the Great Commission He had given them. It included a different message. Not only was the responsibility being transferred to a new apostle, the Apostle Paul, but a new message was being committed to him as well. So the answer to the question, “Where is the Great Commission suspended?” is right here in Galatians 2:9 - where the remainder of the Twelve Apostles recognize that God has given a new ministry to Paul, and God has given a new message to Paul. It was no longer their task to go to the nations anymore and they stopped at that point. Paul and the new program took over with the Gospel of the Grace of God.

With that background we will now go back and look at the various accounts of the Great Commission and see that it cannot be carried out today, at least not the way the Lord told them to do it. Matthew 28:18 says, “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Many people try to carry out these instructions; yet they cannot and still be scriptural in this dispensation of Grace. Why is this? Because for one thing - to carry out the Great Commission, as recorded here, means you must bind your followers to the Law of Moses. Some will ask “where does it say that?” Notice the first part of verse 20,

“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Did the Lord Jesus Christ ever command his disciples to be subject to the Law of Moses? Yes, indeed. In Matthew 23:1-3 we read, “Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.” Thisis the seat of the Law, the authority of the Law. “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” Our Lord commanded His disciples to be subject to the Law of Moses. Now as He commissions them to take the kingdom gospel to the world, He says to teach them to observe all things He commanded them. What a contrast to Paul’s later teaching that we are “not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14b).

Another area which some try to do but does not work very well is the Lord’s teaching to sell everything they had and to give it to the poor. He taught that on more than one occasion. (See Matthew 19:21 & Luke 12:33). Did they teach those that they reached to do the same thing? They certainly did! Read Acts 2 and 4 where the early disciples of the Twelve sold everything they had and they laid the money at the apostles feet. The Apostle Paul never tells us to do that. He tells us to be careful not to trust in riches, but he never tells us that we are to sell everything we have and bring it to the apostles feet. Which apostles would we take it to anyway?

Keeping the Commission of Matthew 28 would require keeping the Law, selling everything you have and laying it at the apostles’ feet. Obviously, these are things we cannot do if we are going to try to keep that Kingdom Commission. A more controversial passage and one that is quoted most often is in Mark 16:15, “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” Usually this is all you ever hear quoted of the Great Commission. This part sounds wonderful. Of course, we should do that. But the details that the Lord tells them are simply not compatible with the Dispensation of Grace. This is a Kingdom commission. Verse 16 says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Where do people get the idea that water baptism will save them? Right here in this verse. According to this commission, water baptism was required along with their faith. Does this mean that the water saved them? No. But it was an act of obedience which demonstrated their faith and if they did not do it, it only showed they did not have faith. Some people will tell you this is true today. But the Apostle Paul is clear: Ephesians 2:8, 9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Titus 3:5 “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration.” There was a time when water baptism was a requirement in God’s program. This is not the case today.

Mark 16:17, “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils...” Thisis a kingdom sign. What will happen to the devil in the kingdom? He will be cast out for 1,000 years. “They shall speak with new tongues...” What language will people speak in the kingdom? The Bible says God will give them a pure language (Zephaniah 3:9). Everyone will be able to speak the same language once again someday. God gave a gift to these people to illustrate the kingdom. That is not the case today. “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.” People today try this and many times end up six feet under. This is not a commission for today. “They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” We will discuss the question of healing later, but for now let us affirm that God can heal, but He is not obligated to do so.

Luke 24:47, “Beginning in Jerusalem...” and Acts 1:8, “...in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” Many people will spiritualize this passage and say this means to start in your own home town. For us, they say, the Great Commission is to start in your home town, then your county, and then your state, and then the United States, and so forth. Is this what the Lord was saying? Of course not. First of all, Jerusalem was not the home town of many of these disciples. He was telling them to start in Jerusalem because Jerusalem was to be the capital city ofthe earth, of the Kingdom program. If the capital citydoes not believe, what good is it going on from there?

Are we to begin in Jerusalem today? II Corinthians 5 says we are ambassadors for Christ. We are already in a foreign land. We are already missionaries right where weare. We may go wherever the Lord opens a door, but it does not have to begin in Jerusalem.

The fourth and one of the most neglected references of the Great Commission is John 20. In this account, we find that Christ entrusts the forgiveness of sins to human mediators. John 20:19-23 says, “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” Again, we remind you, in this dispensation, forgiveness is not committed to men. There is one mediator between God and men, the Apostle Paul says, the man Christ Jesus (I Timothy 2:5). But at that time, under the Kingdom commission, God committed the authority to forgive sins to the disciples. Does this mean they had the power in and of themselves? Of course not. But they did have the authority. This is something we do not have today. God has not entrusted this to men today. But it was a part of the Great Commission.

The Great Commission was Jewish, it was a Kingdom Commission, but it is not our commission today. Upon hearing this, many will ask, “Does this mean you do not believe in missions? Does this mean you do not believe in getting the gospel out?” Of course not. We do believe in a commission, but not the one given to the Twelve. That one has been suspended. God has given us another commission and it is tragically the most neglected commission in all the Scriptures. We have a two-fold commission.

Paul says in I Timothy 2:4 that God “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” Those are the two things that God wants to accomplish in this Dispensation of the Grace of God. He wants all men to be saved and He wants everyone to come to the knowledge of the truth. What does this entail? In II Corinthians 5:18, 19 we find the ministry of reconciliation. Verse 18 “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.” What’s that? Verse 19 “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

The message of reconciliation is simply that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. When Christ came to this earth, died for our sins, was buried and rose again, He paid the entire price of our sin. In so doing, He reconciled the world. That does not mean that the whole world is saved. It simply means that the world is savable. This is the Divine part. Now our part is to preach the word of reconciliation, which says now you must be reconciled to God. God reconciled the world. That is something we could not do. We could not pay for our own sins. We could not take care of our own sin problem. Now He says to be reconciled to God. How do we do that? By believing in what God has done for us through Christ. The ministry of reconciliation is the first part of our commission.

The second part is in Ephesians 3:9. Once a person is saved, then God wants him/her to understand the fellowship of the mystery. In verse 9, Paul says, “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery.” Literally, in the Greek (Majority Text), it is “dispensation of the mystery”, “...which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.” What is the fellowship or the dispensation of the mystery? It involves the fact that God revealed a new message through the Apostle Paul which had not been revealed to the prophetsand had not been told to the Twelve. It was first committed to Paul. And God wants everyone to know about it. This is part of our job. We are asked why we make such an emphasis of the mystery, of the Grace message committed to the Apostle Paul? It is because it is our job. God has told us to do it. If we are not doing it, we are disobedient children.

Many today have been laboring under the commission given to the Twelve. We might commend them for doing something, yet they have been unfaithful servants if they are not doing what God has told us to do in this Dispensation of Grace. We pray that you will not be an unfaithful servant, but that you will carry out God’s commission to us.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry, but it sounds like a cop out to me. The great commission was never revoked, or if it was I think someone would have said something about it.

Were each of the apostles supposed to go to every nation? Or is it possible that in teaching them to obey everything that he commanded, including the great commission, the commission would be fulfilled, not by the 12 apostles, but by disciples of disciples of disciples that they had discipled? In which case, why would the commission annulled by Peter still being an apostle to the Jews?

Finck claims we are not meant to obey everything Jesus commanded the apostles, because he said to obey the Pharisees 'who sit in Moses seat'. But who does he quote to contrast this with the grace we are under? Who was it who fought for the Gentiles to be free of the Jewish law, that the Mosaic covenent did not apply to them? None other than the Pharisee Paul.

I am glad Finck does not totally reject mission, but it is really watered down. The great commission wasn't just Jewish. It was given to Jews who were told to teach it to all the nations.

Blessings Assyrian

 

[jereth]

Can I just say: What a fantastic poll result!
Irrefutable proof that TEism is neither compromise nor liberal.

AiG is full of smelly brown biological waste

 

[rmwilliamsll]

From the Book Common Questions About the Grace Message by Joel Finck.


YECism may not be a heretical movement.
but dispensationalism is.
why post these long diatribes here?
you have a dispensationalist forum for such things, why bother the rest of us with it?

 

[Dispy]

Sorry, but it sounds like a cop out to me. The great commission was never revoked, or if it was I think someone would have said something about it.

Were each of the apostles supposed to go to every nation? Or is it possible that in teaching them to obey everything that he commanded, including the great commission, the commission would be fulfilled, not by the 12 apostles, but by disciples of disciples of disciples that they had discipled? In which case, why would the commission annulled by Peter still being an apostle to the Jews?

Finck claims we are not meant to obey everything Jesus commanded the apostles, because he said to obey the Pharisees 'who sit in Moses seat'. But who does he quote to contrast this with the grace we are under? Who was it who fought for the Gentiles to be free of the Jewish law, that the Mosaic covenent did not apply to them? None other than the Pharisee Paul.

I am glad Finck does not totally reject mission, but it is really watered down. The great commission wasn't just Jewish. It was given to Jews who were told to teach it to all the nations.

Blessings Assyrian

IMHO, the "so called" great commission was interrupted, not suspended. It will be fulfilled AFTER the rapture of the Church, the Body of Christ.

Jesus Himself said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt.15:24). Also, Paul, in Rms 15:8 says: "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision, to confirm the promises made to the fathers."

Joel Finck adaquately pointed out that the nations were to be blessed through the Jews, as a nation, but that nation of Israel, rejected their King and His Kingdom. Therefore, God set the nation of Israel aside, temporarily, and raised up Saul/Paul to go to all mankind.

Suggest you read Joel Finck's article one more time, and then search the Scriptures to see if those things which he said are so.

God Bless.
Live well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord.

 

[Dispy]

From the Book Common Questions About the Grace Message by Joel Finck.


YECism may not be a heretical movement.
but dispensationalism is.
why post these long diatribes here?
you have a dispensationalist forum for such things, why bother the rest of us with it?

Your opening statement is an opinion and not supported by fact. Therefore, I will ignore it. Also, I did not know that dispensationalists were bared from this board. Further, if you will go to the dispensational board you will find that I am a frequent poster there, and there are anti-dispensationalists making frequent posting there. I have never complained about it. Neither am I offended by it.

If you will please notice I was responding to posts #98 and 100. If my responses offended you in any way, that was not my intent, and it is something you will have to learn to live with.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[vossler]

YECism may not be a heretical movement.
but dispensationalism is.
why post these long diatribes here?
you have a dispensationalist forum for such things, why bother the rest of us with it?

I find almost anything that is Scriptural in content to be fascinating, whereas much of what normally is posted here (scientific data, hypothesis, etc.) to be not nearly as interesting. So I wasn't in the least bit bothered by it. I'll have to spend some time reviewing what he said, but from my perspective it certainly wasn't a diatribe.

 

[Dispy]

I find almost anything that is Scriptural in content to be fascinating, whereas much of what normally is posted here (scientific data, hypothesis, etc.) to be not nearly as interesting. So I wasn't in the least bit bothered by it. I'll have to spend some time reviewing what he said, but from my perspective it certainly wasn't a diatribe.

I do appreciate your remarks to rmwilliamsll. Also the fact that you will study what I had posted. Would also appreciate any comments that you have concerning the articles.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The reason forums are broken up by topic and community is so that we can participate in those areas that we are interested in.

I realize that you could not just give a link to the dozen paragraphs that you quoted since they were from a copywrited book and therefore can not legally be posted to the net.

But i would point out that on line discussions would soon become useless it everyone posted long cut and pastes on their favorite issues- everywhere and without reference to the forums purposes. It is hard enough to justify the time spend here and to wade through the 50% of the messages that are not on topic as is.

let alone be subjected to long postings of things that you do not want to hear, which is exactly why i am not on dispensationalist boards. i'm sure you are free to repost chapters of your favorite books here, but i would point out that greatly diminishes the value of being here to everyone else who is not interested in reading your book, or they would have bought it themselves. quoting a few lines and leaving the buying information is sufficient and is an acknowledgment of the rules here that we need to work with if anyone is going to be here to read anything.

 

[Dispy]

The reason forums are broken up by topic and community is so that we can participate in those areas that we are interested in.

I realize that you could not just give a link to the dozen paragraphs that you quoted since they were from a copywrited book and therefore can not legally be posted to the net.

But i would point out that on line discussions would soon become useless it everyone posted long cut and pastes on their favorite issues- everywhere and without reference to the forums purposes. It is hard enough to justify the time spend here and to wade through the 50% of the messages that are not on topic as is.

let alone be subjected to long postings of things that you do not want to hear, which is exactly why i am not on dispensationalist boards. i'm sure you are free to repost chapters of your favorite books here, but i would point out that greatly diminishes the value of being here to everyone else who is not interested in reading your book, or they would have bought it themselves. quoting a few lines and leaving the buying information is sufficient and is an acknowledgment of the rules here that we need to work with if anyone is going to be here to read anything.

The views I posted ane written by Joel Finck, are also my views; or I wouldn't have posted them

I consider Joel Finck a personal friend and have known him for several years. He is well aware of the fact that I do copy from his books on occasions and he has no problems with that. In fact, I keep several of his books on hand to just give away. If you, or any other, would like to have copy of the book that I posted from, All one has to do is e-mail your mailing address. This I PROMISE to keep confidential and not send any other unrequested materials. Also, I will be with Joel at a Bible Conference next week.

Usually most of my postings are from my own thought, but I do copy from books on occasions.

Last Friday while painting stucco on two sides of the lower portion of my home, I strained a tendon on my right hand. I presently have one finger that I cannot straighten, and it makes it very difficult to type. With my fingers on my keyboard; the "L" finger rests on the keys below. So even now, it is taking me some effort to type this much. My doctor is in hopes that the tendon will mend and my finger will straighten. He recommends that I keep a splint on my finger and hope that my finger will get back to normal.

So because of my finger condition, it is soooo much easier and faster for me to copy and past.

Joel and I are "like minded" believers, and I feel I can defend what I posted of his writings. If I couldn't I wouldn't post them.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[vossler]

The reason forums are broken up by topic and community is so that we can participate in those areas that we are interested in.

I understand the point your making but I must say that this is the first time I've seen someone react in the manner you have to a post here in OT. Remember the digression from the original thread may be in your eyes broad, but you would have to admit such acts are not all that uncommon an occurence around here. At least this one was a solid biblical analysis as opposed to so many others that don't fall anywhere near the Bible.

The fact that you've responded more than once to this shows that time really isn't the issue.

 

[Assyrian]

IMHO, the "so called" great commission was interrupted, not suspended. It will be fulfilled AFTER the rapture of the Church, the Body of Christ.

Jesus Himself said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt.15:24). Also, Paul, in Rms 15:8 says: "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision, to confirm the promises made to the fathers."

Joel Finck adaquately pointed out that the nations were to be blessed through the Jews, as a nation, but that nation of Israel, rejected their King and His Kingdom. Therefore, God set the nation of Israel aside, temporarily, and raised up Saul/Paul to go to all mankind.

Suggest you read Joel Finck's article one more time, and then search the Scriptures to see if those things which he said are so.

God Bless.
Live well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord.

Now that doesn't make any sense to me. Yes Jesus ministered to the Jews before the gospel went out to the Gentiles. Your quotations Matt 15:24 and Romans 15:8 refer to what Jesus did before he gave the great commission, so obviously when he gave the commission, the fact that he had ministered to the Jews in no way prevented his sending his Jewish apostles out to the Gentiles.

If Jesus ministry to the Jews did not prevent his giving the great commission, how can it be evidence the the commission was interrupted?

And why should the rejection of Jesus by the Jews prevent the Jews who did accept Jesus from carrying out their commission, which was to teach all nations to follow his commands, including the great commission?

Anyway, I hope the finger gets better soon.

Assyrian
(sorry for the digression rmwilliams!)

 

[Dispy]

IMHO, the "so called" great commission was interrupted, not suspended. It will be fulfilled AFTER the rapture of the Church, the Body of Christ.

Jesus Himself said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt.15:24). Also, Paul, in Rms 15:8 says: "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision, to confirm the promises made to the fathers."

Joel Finck adaquately pointed out that the nations were to be blessed through the Jews, as a nation, but that nation of Israel, rejected their King and His Kingdom. Therefore, God set the nation of Israel aside, temporarily, and raised up Saul/Paul to go to all mankind.

Suggest you read Joel Finck's article one more time, and then search the Scriptures to see if those things which he said are so.

Now that doesn't make any sense to me. Yes Jesus ministered to the Jews before the gospel went out to the Gentiles. Your quotations Matt 15:24 and Romans 15:8 refer to what Jesus did before he gave the great commission, so obviously when he gave the commission, the fact that he had ministered to the Jews in no way prevented his sending his Jewish apostles out to the Gentiles.

First of all, Romans 15:8 was written several years AFTER Christ ministered upon the earth.

Paul, in that verse, is telling up that Jesus came to fulfill the promises made to the OT Jewish fathers.

Lets look back at those primary promises in the OT that Jesus came to fulfill.

Way back in Genesis 12:1-3 God told Abram that his physical seed would be a blessing to all the families (nations) of the earth.

In Exodus 19:3-8 we find that if Israel would keep God's commandments, then they would be a holy nation of priests. To enter the priesthood, one had to go through a ceremonial washing (baptism). Therefore we find that John the Baptist, the forerunner, baptizing to prepare Israel to be that holy nation of priests.

In 2Sam.7 God told Nathan to David that "When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up they seed (Jesus) after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his (Jesus') kingdom. He (Jesus) shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom forever" (vss12-13).

Jesus, in John 8:12 says that He is "the light of the world." In his writing I do believe Joel Finck did explain very well how the Gentiles would come to the light of Israel's rising, of Isaiah 60:1-3. This is not possible when Israel as a nation rejected their King and His Kingdom. dIsaiah 60:1-3 still await future fulfillment, and it will be fulfilled.

Being it is somewhat of a problem to type, I will direct you back to what Joel Finck wrote concerning this.

With Israel's rejection of their King and His Kingdom, there is no way that the nations of the earth can be bless through Israel. Also with their rejection mode, they cannot become that holy nation of priests.

From the gospels, we learn that Israel, as a nation, rejected God the Father when they and the leaders of Israel refused to be baptized by John (yes some individual Jews did), and allowed John the Bapist to be killed. They rejected God the Son when then demanded that Jesus be crucified. Then, the rejected God the Holy Spirit when the leaders of Israel killed (stoned) Stephen who was filled with the Spirit. It was after the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 that God set the nation of Israel aside.[/QUOTE]

If Jesus ministry to the Jews did not prevent his giving the great commission, how can it be evidence the the commission was interrupted?

And why should the rejection of Jesus by the Jews prevent the Jews who did accept Jesus from carrying out their commission, which was to teach all nations to follow his commands, including the great
commission?

Please consider this.

Jesus gave the commission to the 12 to go into all the world. The order of that commission can be found in Acts 1:8. It would be vertually impossible for 12 men to do that by themselves. (In the future, after the rapture of the Chruch, the Body of Chrsit, It will be believing Israel that will carry out that commission.)

Why would God raise up one man (Paul) to go to the Gentiles, kings and children of Israel, when he had already commissioned 12 to do that. They, the 12 disciples, agreed with Paul that they would stay with the circumcision (Jews) while he and Barnabas would go to the heathen (Gentiles).

Sending 12 to one people, and 1 man to the rest of the world just doen't sound right to me for some reason or other.

I will conclude with saying that Jesus came to fulfill the prophetic program to Israel, i.e. to establish the promised kingdom. Israel, as a nation, rejected that kingdom. Therefore, God interrupted the prophetic program and instituted His plan that He had "kept secret since the world began," and raised up Saul/Paul to usher iin this dispensation of grace, and "the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began" (Rms.16:25).

Anyway, I hope the finger gets better soon.

So do I. However, It isn't painfull or sore. Just a inconvenience.

Also, please read Joel's writings again and compare then to the Scriptures to see if those things are true.

If it were easier typeing, I would go further into this.

Looking forward to your reply

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[Buho]

I'm going to ignore the side-topic by Assyrian and Dipsy. I am at a loss for how this connects with the topic "TE has nonexistent theology (?)". (Actually, this response doesn't really hit on theology either, so maybe I should keep quiet )

Yes, phenomenological is not prescientific, thanks for correcting me. I would argue however that it is an ascientific way of describing the universe.

I agree.

To treat the idea of "kinds" phenomenologically seems as consistent to me as any other way to treat kinds, maybe even more.

Thank you. I read an article on this recently which really made sense to me.

Secondly, it is not generally accepted that a single-celled organism has more information than a human. How do you define it so?

In terms of biochemical complexity? But mutations produce new proteins, so (to a first approximation) mutations can produce new information.
In terms of the genome's length? But mutations can lengthen the genome, so mutations can produce new information.

So in terms of what?

I agree that it is difficult to pin down the concept of biological information in the genome - but that is a loss for creationists, not evolutionists. Evolutionists have never needed to define evolution in terms of information being gained or information being lost. The whole idea that evolution requires a (quantifiable) increase in information was a creationist construct, and so it's your problem to measure that information increase required, not ours.

Get your Masters in Information Theory and then help me figure out what those creationists are saying and how come I'm not convinced by their arguments!

I agree. Quantifying "information" is a very tricky thing. Suppose we assume that a single-celled organism contains more "information" than a human, but that, when the single-celled organism develops (splits, whatever), 99.999999% of that information is not used. (This reminds me of nuerological pathways in the brain in immature humans -- an initial large number of connections exist, which are then "pruned" to a "normal" level.) Throughout the course of evolution, different parts of the information are switched on.

However, is it possible to stuff that much information into a single-celled organism? If you look at organisms with the smallest genomes, could information be compressed down to fit into them? I think it's an unanswered question. Assuming not, then information has to have been "created" over time to align with evolutionary thought. Assuming yes, then where did this boatload of information come from in the first place when the first organisms arose from inorganic matter? Can it happen? Again, I think this is an unanswered question, and this line of thought gets into signal theory which may or may not be a good analogy to biological systems.

Thirdly, "generalized" 2nd Law?

The Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics does not deal with heat and energy relationships, but with how we, as humans, understand and precieve the world to operate. The messy room is the common example for this -- rooms tend to become disordered through time unless constructive effort is applied to it to clean it up and organize it again. For more information (no pun intended), check out this article which uses this term (warning, the original article goes through about four iterations of rebuttals which take a lot of time to read, which I have read and the term stands). What I meant by using that term is simply thus: Increasing information in a genome (in history) is counter-intuitive to most everything we see and experience in the real world. Yes, adding energy to a system is required for increased complexity (an acorn does this when it grows into a spreading oak), but you cannot simply apply undirected energy at something and expect things to become ordered by themselves. If you doubt, take a blowtorch to an acorn (which contains the genetic code for an oak) and see what happens. Undirected energy disorders things. But where did the "information" for ordering this energy come from in the first place? These are all tired-out rehashed topics, so don't bother responding, Shern. We've all been here and I don't expect this paragraph to sway anyone reading. It's just a clarification on your third question.

Your scenario is fine and dandy. But you omit the geneology record book in your basement that links your grandfather to Othello. Now I have strong reason to believe (1) your dad (or you) is a charlatan or (2) Othello really is a real person. See Luke 3. And Genesis 3-12. These "just so" explanations only work when examining part of the Bible. The Bible, taken as a whole, refuses to be altered.

Oh, so you believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, not the 10,000 year old earth that so many backslidering YECs like AiG and ICR like to refer to.

6,000, 10,000... whatever. If I say 10,000 then I concede gaps in the geneological record recorded in the Bible and I'm rounding for simplicity. However, I have difficulty extending that number beyond 10,000 because then the gaps become much wider than the recorded geneology. And I'll say that the earth is definately less than 100,000 years, which is plenty sufficient distinction when talking to evolutionists or old earth creationists.

As far as I can see, if Genesis 1-11 isn't historical narrative and Darwinian evolution (plus billions of years) is fact, there is no reason to be a Christian, none of us need saving, Jesus was a liar and a charletan, []Yes, I'm making big logical jumps, but that is the end conclusion from a logical outworking of the fuller theory of Darwinian evolution.

Why stop there? why not join Dad and declare that the Earth has never revolved?

You make light of my logical outworking,

No, I simply applied reductio ad absurdum.

That was a serious rebuttal? So... you followed from my premise that, if Genesis 1-11 is not historical and Darwinian evolution (plus billions of years) is fact, then we should declare that the Earth has never revolved. Well, that I'll agree is highly absurd. Therefore, the initial premise must be incorrect: Genesis 1-11 must be historical narrative and Darwinian evolution (plus billions of years) must be false! I don't think that will fly with you. I think you either had a logical misstep with your reductio ad absurdum or you weren't serious with your reply.

and make a poor connection: the revolution of the earth is an empirical fact. Billions of years is not, nor is universal common ancestry.

This demonstrates that either you fail to understand the decidedly non-trivial knowledge and groundwork necessary to demonstrate that the earth rotates upon its axis or you don't fully comprehend the evidence for an ancient earth and common descent.

Or, most likely, both.

Before you take too great of offense, I note that it wasn't until recently that I realized how much background is needed.

At the same time, a simple comprehension suffices. Look at the planet from space.

Photo taken from Apollo 17 on Dec. 7, 1972. A bit of trivia: This is also, I believe, the most recent single photograph of the complete sphere of the Earth -- no other mission has moved away from Earth far enough to get the whole sphere in view and taken a picture of it.

You have some very good points in your rebuttal, Robert, especially "It only seems like an "empirical fact" because you've been taught it since grade school." However, you overcomplicate the "proof" for a spherical earth.

Additionally, all your methods for proving the empirical fact of the spherocity of the Earth can be repeated. Contrast this with universal common ancestry. You can't repeat any experiment to prove universal common ancestry. That is my point and therein lies the distinction. I'm not saying universal common ancestry is wrong because of that distinction, but that the evidence doesn't line up with the theory and it can't be proven.

Additionally, I'd like to highlight "evolution as empirical fact simply because you've been taught it since grade school." Keep it in mind. I was an evolutionist because of this until I started looking at the details. My school classes never showed the evidence that is difficult or impossible to explain with the theory of evolution.

when you look at those individual samples of hundreds or thousands of years from Arizona, California, Germany, England, Ireland ...
none of them show higher levels of C14 in earlier rings, and when you match ring width patterns you get a chronology that agrees with samples of known dates going back thousands of years.

Similarly when you count varves (in lakes that continue to form them), whether in Japan, New England, the Midwest, or Europe, the farther down you go the less C14 shows up in the organic (e.g. leaves) found in the core samples and for the 11,000 years of tree ring chronology you get very close agreement.

When you get past 25,000 years or so the agreement between the various methods used out at that date, most of which are relatively new and lack large statisticial samples, gets worse. (But still trending in the same direction, do a google on the paper at the end of this post for a 2005 paper on the issue).

So, how do you reconcile this with what the Bible says? Specifically, how do you treat Genesis 1-11 in comparison with Genesis 12-50 (and the rest of Jewish history in the Tenach)?

As a programmer I can tell you that when you reuse code you copy the modules you need, you don't do a wholesale cut and paste including common initialization of clean up codes,
you don't make minor and inconsequential changes all over the place (that just happen to follow the nested morphological hierarchy e.g. cytochrome c),
and you most certainly don't include broken copies of code (vitamin C).

as is pointed out, chimp 2q+2p=human 2 is evidence for common descent and good evidence against common design.

the reason is that the 2nd centrosome and backwards telomeres are indicators that the 2 chromosomes are products of a unification event. If a designer designed them then he made it look exactly like it would if it had been two chromosomes just hooked together, there is no evidence of removing the excess 2nd centrosome, or fixing the backwards internal telomeres. So the Designer doesn't clean up after himself, nor does he do things to distinguish his work from evolution.

Some comparison research done by Patterson concludes that some of our code more closely matches gorillas than chimps. This is very difficult to explain in a Darwinian framework and is not very good evidence for common descent at all. However, on the chromosome 2 fusion, I can't contribute as I haven't done much research at all on this.

 

[steen]

I agree. Quantifying "information" is a very tricky thing.

And ultimately is irrelevant. Mutations lead to new genes, and even to MORE genes. This has been directly witnessed and observed, so the "no new information" is (1) a strawman, and (2) proven false already by the actual science.

Suppose we assume that a single-celled organism contains more "information" than a human, but that, when the single-celled organism develops (splits, whatever), 99.999999% of that information is not used. (This reminds me of nuerological pathways in the brain in immature humans -- an initial large number of connections exist, which are then "pruned" to a "normal" level.) Throughout the course of evolution, different parts of the information are switched on.

However, is it possible to stuff that much information into a single-celled organism?

We have shown this to be true. So yes.

If you look at organisms with the smallest genomes, could information be compressed down to fit into them? I think it's an unanswered question.

We know these organisms have a genome. We know that the genes complete the actions necessary for the life of these organisms, so the question is already answered affirmative. It is almost as if you are trying to generate claims that deny what we can already see.

Assuming not, then information has to have been "created" over time to align with evolutionary thought.

It is not clear what you mean here?

Assuming yes, then where did this boatload of information come from in the first place when the first organisms arose from inorganic matter?

Utterly irrelevant to Evolution, as Evolution is not about how life originated, only about how life changes.

Can it happen? Again, I think this is an unanswered question, and this line of thought gets into signal theory which may or may not be a good analogy to biological systems.

It appears that you are seeking to discuss Abiogenesis instead of Evolution. That would be more of a chemistry issue than a biology issue.

The Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics does not deal with heat and energy relationships, but with how we, as humans, understand and precieve the world to operate.

So what you are doing here is taking a Scientific Principle dealing with energy and seeking to apply it outside of its defined sphere.

That means that you instantly loose Scientific validation, and that before you in any way will be able to use this in any form or argument, you will need to provide scientific validation for your claim.

So please provide the Scientific Documentation for the validity of your alternative use of terminology and ideas.

Until then, you can not in any scientific context justify calling it a law; that would be a serious misrepresentation.

....What I meant by using that term is simply thus: Increasing information in a genome (in history) is counter-intuitive to most everything we see and experience in the real world.

but that is not true. We have seen increases in base pairs and in gene activation many times. Your claim is directly contradicted by many scientific studies. Now, when you thus make such a claim, you need to provide the scientific documentation that validates your claims. So I await it eagerly.

Yes, adding energy to a system is required for increased complexity (an acorn does this when it grows into a spreading oak), but you cannot simply apply undirected energy at something and expect things to become ordered by themselves.

but then, nobody claim undirected energy anywhere. metabolism and cell divisions are highly regulated and controlled processes.

If you doubt, take a blowtorch to an acorn (which contains the genetic code for an oak) and see what happens. Undirected energy disorders things.

Sorry, but that is a strawman argument. You are making arguments against what has never even been implied by Science.

But where did the "information" for ordering this energy come from in the first place? These are all tired-out rehashed topics, so don't bother responding, Shern. We've all been here and I don't expect this paragraph to sway anyone reading. It's just a clarification on your third question.

It also does not make ANY sense from a biological standpoint. You REALLY need to provide some evidence for your claims here. So far, all I read are your "just because I say so" claims that either are proven false decades ago or really have no relevance with the real world. Unfortunately, your argument comes across as pure sophistry.

6,000, 10,000... whatever. If I say 10,000 then I concede gaps in the geneological record recorded in the Bible and I'm rounding for simplicity. However, I have difficulty extending that number beyond 10,000 because then the gaps become much wider than the recorded geneology. And I'll say that the earth is definately less than 100,000 years, which is plenty sufficient distinction when talking to evolutionists or old earth creationists.

And again, your claim is directly contradicted by actually observed scientific data. You need to look at this tread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t3086519-varves-only-discussion.html

That was a serious rebuttal? So... you followed from my premise that, if Genesis 1-11 is not historical and Darwinian evolution (plus billions of years) is fact, then we should declare that the Earth has never revolved. Well, that I'll agree is highly absurd. Therefore, the initial premise must be incorrect: Genesis 1-11 must be historical narrative and Darwinian evolution (plus billions of years) must be false!

nope. That is more sophistry and "just because I say so" misrepresentation of the Science and of Robert's post. Artificial dichotomies are not factual.

At the same time, a simple comprehension suffices. Look at the planet from space.

Which doesn't show any revolution either. The picture proves nothing in this off-topic point.

....I'm not saying universal common ancestry is wrong because of that distinction, but that the evidence doesn't line up with the theory and it can't be proven.

You are misrepresenting the Scientific Theory. The Scientific Theory of Evolution is the explanation that best explains all the data gathered through research over the years. And no data disproves it. Claiming that it does, or trying to pick minutia out of context and contrasting them with misrepresentations of the actual science is not evidence of anything.

Additionally, I'd like to highlight "evolution as empirical fact simply because you've been taught it since grade school."

No, rather because we directly observe it. I am beginning to question whether you know what evolution actually is? I am getting the feeling that what you characterize as evolution is either not related to the Scientific Theory or that it is some unique, esoteric sub-part that doesn't apply universally.

Keep it in mind. I was an evolutionist because of this until I started looking at the details. My school classes never showed the evidence that is difficult or impossible to explain with the theory of evolution.

Such as?

So, how do you reconcile this with what the Bible says? Specifically, how do you treat Genesis 1-11 in comparison with Genesis 12-50 (and the rest of Jewish history in the Tenach)?

As an allegorical explanation of why God matters.

The Bible is not a history text book, nor is it a science text book. History deals with the "when." Science deal with the "what" and the "how." The Bible deals with the "why."

Some comparison research done by Patterson concludes that some of our code more closely matches gorillas than chimps. This is very difficult to explain in a Darwinian framework and is not very good evidence for common descent at all.

Your claim is incorrect. If chimps evolved more away from the proconsul genome in these areas than the hominids did, then that is a perfectly logical outcome. All it takes is for the chimps to have a unique mutation in that specific area, while the hominids did not. Your answer simply is not correct. I would suggest you make your claims about science a bit less absolutist.

Now, when you specifically talk about Darwin (or Darwinian), remember that Darwin didn't know about genes and DNA. But when you talk about the Scientific Theory of Evolution, then there is absolutely nothing unusual about the observation you mentioned. To claim that it gives problems for the science is simply not true. I must ask you to not make such claims until you actually have proven this to be the case, thanks.

 

[Buho]

Steen, I read your post, plus the thread on varves you linked. I'm really not sure what your intentions are with your response to my response to someone completely different. You sort of just popped into this thread, and you seem to exhibit a lack of knowledge of what was written prior to this page in this thread. Much of what you demand of me has already been given earlier.

Additionally, I detect some kind of desire to inflame an argument of hate. I admit that many of my prior posts may have been direct, but every post I attempt to write in love, and in the spirit of reconciliation, not divisiveness. If you or any other reader thinks otherwise, say so here or privately and I will appologize.

+ + + + +

And while I'm here, is it any wonder that YECs stay out of the shark-infested waters of the C&E forums what with 15 evo-frenzied people reinforcing each other by belittling YECs that refuse to take a dip? Such an audience is not interested in evidence to the contrary or logical, scientific discussion at all. Nay, I've waded with the sharks before, and as soon as I present solid evidence to the topic that shows YECs actually have science on their side, the sharks swim away disinterested. But not after lots of bites and nips. I tell you, it's not a fun or rewarding experience.

Such is your attitude here, and it's in stark contrast to most other TEs on this thread. I refuse to swim with you. Grace and peace to you, brother in Christ.

 

[shernren]

While I agree that Robert's reductio ad absurdum is quite flawed, allow me to offer my own.

As far as I can see, if Genesis 1-11 isn't historical narrative and Darwinian evolution (plus billions of years) is fact, there is no reason to be a Christian, none of us need saving, Jesus was a liar and a charletan, []Yes, I'm making big logical jumps, but that is the end conclusion from a logical outworking of the fuller theory of Darwinian evolution.

Therefore, evolutionists believe that there is no reason to be a Christian, none of us need saving, Jesus was a liar and a charlatan.
Therefore, evolutionists are not Christians.

Either the initial premise is wrong, or I have made a misstep in my reductio ad absurdum. Actually, I have, can you find it? (Hint: breaking the logical link requires insulting every evolutionist who ever existed.)

I agree. Quantifying "information" is a very tricky thing. Suppose we assume that a single-celled organism contains more "information" than a human, but that, when the single-celled organism develops (splits, whatever), 99.999999% of that information is not used. (This reminds me of nuerological pathways in the brain in immature humans -- an initial large number of connections exist, which are then "pruned" to a "normal" level.) Throughout the course of evolution, different parts of the information are switched on.

You are still assuming that evolution requires information, without having backed up that claim. How are you defining information? How do you compare two genomes and see which has more information?

However, is it possible to stuff that much information into a single-celled organism? If you look at organisms with the smallest genomes, could information be compressed down to fit into them? I think it's an unanswered question. Assuming not, then information has to have been "created" over time to align with evolutionary thought. Assuming yes, then where did this boatload of information come from in the first place when the first organisms arose from inorganic matter? Can it happen? Again, I think this is an unanswered question, and this line of thought gets into signal theory which may or may not be a good analogy to biological systems.

You are now using a rough "longer genome = more information" definition. May I point out that under this definition, random mutations can increase information. Mutations have been observed to insert bases in genetic sequences before. If a longer genome has more information, and mutations can make genomes longer, then mutations can add information to a genome.

See why definitions are so important here? And I haven't even touched complexity yet.

The Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics does not deal with heat and energy relationships, but with how we, as humans, understand and precieve the world to operate. The messy room is the common example for this -- rooms tend to become disordered through time unless constructive effort is applied to it to clean it up and organize it again. For more information (no pun intended), check out this article which uses this term (warning, the original article goes through about four iterations of rebuttals which take a lot of time to read, which I have read and the term stands). What I meant by using that term is simply thus: Increasing information in a genome (in history) is counter-intuitive to most everything we see and experience in the real world. Yes, adding energy to a system is required for increased complexity (an acorn does this when it grows into a spreading oak), but you cannot simply apply undirected energy at something and expect things to become ordered by themselves. If you doubt, take a blowtorch to an acorn (which contains the genetic code for an oak) and see what happens. Undirected energy disorders things. But where did the "information" for ordering this energy come from in the first place? These are all tired-out rehashed topics, so don't bother responding, Shern. We've all been here and I don't expect this paragraph to sway anyone reading. It's just a clarification on your third question.

It's late now, and though I've looked up informational entropy, I don't want to do it again right now. Let's see what statistical entropy is.

The quantity is zero when all events are of the same kind, p =1 for any one a of A and is positive otherwise. Its upper limit is log_2 N where N is the number of categories available (see degrees of freedom) and the distribution is uniform over these, p = 1/N for all a of A (see variety, uncertainty, negentropy).

(from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/STATIS_ENTRO.html ; I didn't use the mathematical definition because the symbols are out.)

What does this mean? This means that:

"aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" has zero entropy. Doesn't look very complex to me, although it certainly is very ordered.

"abcdefghhijklmnooopqrrsttuvwxyz''' " has nearly maximum entropy (nearly, because of repetitions). Very ordered, but not complex. However,

"th' quick brown fox jumped ov'r th' lazy dog" has exactly the same amount of entropy, because it constitutes the exact same letters (barring human error ). The order doesn't make a difference. And yet it is far more complex and has "more information". In fact, it has more entropy than

"abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz' " (with no repetitions), and yet this "less-entropic" message is less meaningful than the one with more entropy.

It should be quite clear that entropy is not strictly equal to disorder, and that any "general law" stated in terms of entropy has nothing to say about order and complexity in the sense that evolution and the Big Bang specify.

And this is from a journal of chemistry educators. Are they in league with the evilutionists too?

To aid students in visualizing an increase in entropy, many elementary chemistry texts use artists' before-and-after drawings of groups of "orderly" molecules that become "disorderly". This seems to be a useful visual support, but it can be so misleading as actually to be a failure-prone crutch. Ten examples illustrate the problem. Entropy is not disorder, not a measure of chaos, not a driving force. Energy's diffusion or dispersal to more microstates is the driving force in chemistry. Entropy is the measure or index of that dispersal. In thermodynamics, the entropy of a substance increases when it is warmed because more thermal energy has been dispersed within it from the warmer surroundings. In contrast, when ideal gases or liquids are allowed to expand or to mix in a larger volume, the entropy increase is due to a greater dispersion of their original unchanged thermal energy. From a molecular viewpoint all such entropy increases involve the dispersal of energy over a greater number, or a more readily accessible set, of microstates. Frequently misleading, order-disorder as a description of entropy change is also an anachronism. It should be replaced by describing entropy change as energy dispersal--from a molecular viewpoint, by changes in molecular motions and occupancy of microstates.

http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/2002/Feb/abs187.html