Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[mpok1519]

There are dozens of parameters that Creationists have pointed out that must be in place for organic life forms to survive. If one believes in evolution, the tolerances are far tighter--the universe does not have octillions of years to be successful, because after sufficient time, black holes would gobble up their respective stars, and the stars would complete the process of converting their mass into scattered EM rays. I personally do not think the universe is infinite, and an assumption to the contrary seems to require faith, and it seems to require a Creator.

Time is a function of mass and velocity within the context of our physical universe. Heaven is outside of our universal time altogether. Hence, the events in Heaven described in the Bible did not happen in conjunction with human concepts of time. The Bible doesn't say how long Adam was by himself, and it doesn't say how long it took Adam and Eve to sin. I think it took about a year, but I have absolutely no basis for that. It could have taken no more than 128 years (assuming Cain and Abel were twins, and that Seth was born a year later).

As an FYI, If you read my thread more carefully, you'll see that I said "extremely close to circular." You're other points are technically accurate.

But the immutable laws of physics denotes that the formation of earth could not have taken place within a few hundrd hours or so. Okay, sure, the War in Heaven could've been like, two seconds in our times, but a mllenia in Heaven's time; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, but I canot ignore this idea that the earth is young, and only ten thousand years young or so that most yecs believe. I've studied geology on the university level, and what the professor says seems to make more sense than any creationist has.

Also, what is the proof that black holes will consume everything within an octillion years?

I don't think these are faith-based assertions you are making; I think you are simply making assumptions about the physical world that fits your theological views.

also, the elliptical orbit is very different from a circular orbit; the two are 'roundish', but in no way good reflections of each other when describing the path of orbit.

I don't think that black holes will consume the entire universe in an octillion years; I think you're making that up.

 

[True_Blue]

But the immutable laws of physics denotes that the formation of earth could not have taken place within a few hundrd hours or so. Okay, sure, the War in Heaven could've been like, two seconds in our times, but a mllenia in Heaven's time; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, but I canot ignore this idea that the earth is young, and only ten thousand years young or so that most yecs believe. I've studied geology on the university level, and what the professor says seems to make more sense than any creationist has.

Also, what is the proof that black holes will consume everything within an octillion years?

I don't think these are faith-based assertions you are making; I think you are simply making assumptions about the physical world that fits your theological views.

also, the elliptical orbit is very different from a circular orbit; the two are 'roundish', but in no way good reflections of each other when describing the path of orbit.

I don't think that black holes will consume the entire universe in an octillion years; I think you're making that up.

K, the cosmology I find most reasonable has the earth being a subcomponent of a vast ball of water ("the Earth was formless and empty") containing all the mass of the universe, and after Time 0, it began compressing, stripping the water molecules and igniting fusion reactions throughout. God then changed the cosmological constant and expanded the ball on the surface of a hypersphere. That expansion is apparently still continuing, but perhaps at a different rate. The earth, being a formless fiery ball in the midst of this vast object, underwent a very rapid expansion, which would cause extremely rapid cooling.

One might object to this theory because of the changing cosmological constant issue, but the Big Bang Theory shares that in common with creationism.

The difficulty with the age of the earth is that we only have one earth to work with. We ought not to simply look at the earth and assume it's old or young. We need compelling scientific data and/or compelling scripture with indicia of authorship from God. My favorite scientific evidence of a young earth is here:
Pay particular attention to Figure 4. Evolutionists have to add in two outliers and ignore the 2nd Law in order to explain away the conclusion that the Earth is young.

 

[mpok1519]

This guy's theory you propose is not particularily a good one, for it has low tolerance for scientific scrutiny for a multitude of reasons mankind does not have the energy to complete; I wouldnt object to it based on a cosmological constant; I would object because there might still be evidence left from tht ball of water-fusion only a few thousand years ago.

We DO have compelling scientific data indicating the earth's age, mountains and mountains of it my friend; or at least mountains, indicating that it is not ten thousand years young; you simply choose to look at pseudo-science and try to intertwine it with your faith, when you know you cannot combine spirituality and science, for that underminds both faith, and science.

The EXACT age of the earth isn't known, but they got it pretty close in the ballpark of perhaps a few hundred thousand years(less than a blink of the eye in the eye of the universe, and God)

 

[True_Blue]

This guy's theory you propose is not particularily a good one, for it has low tolerance for scientific scrutiny for a multitude of reasons mankind does not have the energy to complete; I wouldnt object to it based on a cosmological constant; I would object because there might still be evidence left from tht ball of water-fusion only a few thousand years ago.

We DO have compelling scientific data indicating the earth's age, mountains and mountains of it my friend; or at least mountains, indicating that it is not ten thousand years young; you simply choose to look at pseudo-science and try to intertwine it with your faith, when you know you cannot combine spirituality and science, for that underminds both faith, and science.

The EXACT age of the earth isn't known, but they got it pretty close in the ballpark of perhaps a few hundred thousand years(less than a blink of the eye in the eye of the universe, and God)

K, you mentioned "time" in your previous post. I recommend you read the cosmology I'm referring to so that you can more properly refute it. Creationists have all been spoon-fed evolutionist teachings in junior high, high school, and college. Few evolutionists have really taken the time to study the Creationist perspective. Try here:

When most scientific-minded people talk about the age of the earth, they point to the slow rate of continental drift. But every natural process decays on a decaying non-linear curve. If you kick a soccer ball across a field, its velocity slows non-linearly due to the force of friction and asymptotically approaches zero. By the same token, the continents haven't always been moving at an inch a year. The far more likely explanation is that, based on an exogenous shock, they shifted 500 mph, then 100 mph, then 10 mph, then 5 mph, then 1, .......Continental drift logically behaves the same way as every other physical dynamic. It's not reasonable to believe that the continents have always drifted at the same rate for millions of years.

I also think that if you research the creationist theories regarding the Flood, you'll be surprised with how elegantly they explain geological phenomena.

 

[True_Blue]

I don't think that black holes will consume the entire universe in an octillion years; I think you're making that up.

Ok.....I said the black holes would gobble up their respective stars, by that meaning their respective galaxies. If the data is accurate that the galaxies are all accelerating away from our frame of reference, that means the universe itself will never ever be swallowed by a single black hole.

 

[sinan90]

But every natural process decays on a decaying non-linear curve.

Well time to get cracking with the graphs to show that this is true then.

 

[True_Blue]

Well time to get cracking with the graphs to show that this is true then.

This is pure 2nd law, so I expect this effect to be universally true. My favorite graph is Figure 4 on this link:

Even better than graphs is if you tested it yourself. Open up the oven when it's hot and record the decay of the interior oven temperature over time. Drop a superball on the ground and record the successive maximum heights of the ball.

An application of this principle is that complicated objects break down over time. If a small DNA fragment is in existence, it will decay over time rather than coalesce as part of a living cell.

 

[rhaegar]

Ok.....I said the black holes would gobble up their respective stars, by that meaning their respective galaxies.

Why? A black hole doesnt mean that the laws of motion stop working. The sun could magically turn into a solar mass black hole right now and the Earth will continue its merry orbit around it for eternity ignoring extrasolar disturbances.

 

[True_Blue]

Why? A black hole doesnt mean that the laws of motion stop working. The sun could magically turn into a solar mass black hole right now and the Earth will continue its merry orbit around it for eternity ignoring extrasolar disturbances.

By the 2nd Law, orbits don't last forever. Eventually the object either leaves orbit, or its orbit intersects with the gravitating body. NASA has lots of experience with this truism.

 

[us38]

This is pure 2nd law, so I expect this effect to be universally true.

No, it's not, and I really wish you would stop throwing around the second law of thermodynamics with understanding it or the things it governs.

Does anyone know of a small, free equation editor? For some reason, my copy of Word doesn't have one, and I'd very much like T_B to point out the specific things in the second law he keeps referring to.

My favorite graph is Figure 4 on this link:

A single example does not prove that all naturalistic processes follow a non-linear decay.

 

[us38]

By the 2nd Law, orbits don't last forever.

No, by general relativity, orbits don't last forever. The second law of thermodynamics says nothing of orbits.

 

[True_Blue]

A single example does not prove that all naturalistic processes follow a non-linear decay.

Sigh...that was an inevitable response by someone. That's why I mentioned the 2nd Law. The overriding instinct of an evolutionist/atheist is to make the 2nd Law narrowly applicable as possible.

 

[us38]

Sigh...that was an inevitable response by someone. That's why I mentioned the 2nd Law.

The 2nd law has no relevance here. If you actually understood it, you would know it.

The overriding instinct of an evolutionist/atheist is to make the 2nd Law narrowly applicable as possible.

And the overriding instinct of a creationist is to make the 2nd Law widely applicable as possible. You don't understand the second law of thermodynamics, and invoking it evert time you make a statement does not constitute and explanation.

But, hey, what do I know? I'm only a chemical engineer. I only had two whole classes dedicated to thermodynamics. Just about no other job requires more use the second law of thermodynamics. I can see how a lawyer would know more about it than me, though.

 

[True_Blue]

The 2nd law has no relevance here. If you actually understood it, you would know it.

And the overriding instinct of a creationist is to make the 2nd Law widely applicable as possible. You don't understand the second law of thermodynamics, and invoking it evert time you make a statement does not constitute and explanation.

But, hey, what do I know? I'm only a chemical engineer. I only had two whole classes dedicated to thermodynamics. Just about no other job requires more use the second law of thermodynamics. I can see how a lawyer would know more about it than me, though.

I had one class on thermodynamics. It was all I had time for. But regardless, your argument boils down to "I'm right, you're wrong," and "I'm a scientist, and you're not." I don't care if you've had 50 years of education, 60 years of tenure, and 70 years as a chemical engineer. I do care about your actual reasoning, and I care about your soul.

Maybe we can make this a more constructive discussion. Ok, so you're a chemical engineer. That's a useful skill. Do you happen to know the set of reactions that would lead to the formation of adenine paired with Thymidine and Cytosine paired with Guanine? Those reactions would prove useful for one of the lines of debate that peetered out earlier in this thread. It would help build a better probabilistic model for abiogenesis centered on biochemistry rather than generalized abstract math.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

By the 2nd Law, orbits don't last forever.

I've got to hear your explanation for this one.

Eventually the object either leaves orbit, or its orbit intersects with the gravitating body. NASA has lots of experience with this truism.

Ever heard of unstable equilibrium? The Earth has been orbiting the Sun since they both formed 4.55 billion years ago, and it will only stop when the Sun's ballooning into a Red Giant blows the Earth into interstellar space.

So... yeah, the 2[sup]nd[/sup] law?

 

[us38]

I had one class on thermodynamics.

And you apparently learned nothing from it.

But regardless, your argument boils down to "I'm right, you're wrong," and "I'm a scientist, and you're not."

Until you explain how everything you attribute to the 2nd law can be derived from:

You certainly aren't right.

I do care about your actual reasoning, and I care about your soul.

Evolution and abiogenesis have nothing to do with christianity, or any other religion, being correct.

Do you happen to know the set of reactions that would lead to the formation of adenine paired with Thymidine and Cytosine paired with Guanine?

That's hydrogen bonding, as has been already pointed out to you in this topic.

It would help build a better probabilistic model for abiogenesis centered on biochemistry rather than generalized abstract math.

You'll fail, because you refuse to accept that chemical reactions aren't random. Besides, before you go using it on reactions that we'd have to go to a lab to check, why don't you use your model on the example Temperate posted?

 

[True_Blue]

And you apparently learned nothing from it.

Until you explain how everything you attribute to the 2nd law can be derived from:

You certainly aren't right.

Evolution and abiogenesis have nothing to do with christianity, or any other religion, being correct.

That's hydrogen bonding, as has been already pointed out to you in this topic.

You'll fail, because you refuse to accept that chemical reactions aren't random. Besides, before you go using it on reactions that we'd have to go to a lab to check, why don't you use your model on the example Temperate posted?

Repeating earlier posts adds nothing new to the thread, Garamond. I'm not going to repeat my earlier responses, except to restate that chemistry is non-random, to a very, very limited point with respect to the spontaneous generation of life forms.

 

[thaumaturgy]

But every natural process decays on a decaying non-linear curve.

Why am I not surprised you are unfamiliar with zeroth order rate kinetics?

Again, please learn some chemistry before you make more comments like this.

Please. I'm begging you.

 

[Vene]

\ I'm not going to repeat my earlier responses, except to restate that chemistry is non-random, to a very, very limited point with respect to the spontaneous generation of life forms.

Then why is your entire model based on random chance?

 

[mpok1519]

K, you mentioned "time" in your previous post. I recommend you read the cosmology I'm referring to so that you can more properly refute it. Creationists have all been spoon-fed evolutionist teachings in junior high, high school, and college. Few evolutionists have really taken the time to study the Creationist perspective. Try here:

When most scientific-minded people talk about the age of the earth, they point to the slow rate of continental drift. But every natural process decays on a decaying non-linear curve. If you kick a soccer ball across a field, its velocity slows non-linearly due to the force of friction and asymptotically approaches zero. By the same token, the continents haven't always been moving at an inch a year. The far more likely explanation is that, based on an exogenous shock, they shifted 500 mph, then 100 mph, then 10 mph, then 5 mph, then 1, .......Continental drift logically behaves the same way as every other physical dynamic. It's not reasonable to believe that the continents have always drifted at the same rate for millions of years.

I also think that if you research the creationist theories regarding the Flood, you'll be surprised with how elegantly they explain geological phenomena.

but techtonic plates dont get their kinetic energy from one single big push (kicking a soccer ball), they move because they are constantly guided by other forces all the time; ie, magma sheets under the techtonic plates.

what kind of crackpot theory suggest continents moved five hundred miles per hour?