Answering any questions on Evolution

[SkyWriting]

Once again your reading comprehension skills have failed you.Here was my statement:"Here we go again with the classic "Laws of Thermodynamics deny abiogenesis/evolution/you-name-it" argument."Even if you HAD succeeded in coming up with a NEW kind of abuse of the Laws of Thermodynamics---something I find very unlikely---it would have been covered by the universal catch-all "you-name-it". But as it happened, you simply restated the same old lame misunderstanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics applied to abiogenesis!What ALL of those bogus claims have in common is a fundamental lack of understanding that the L.O.T. are about "heat engines" --- not information systems or "design complexity' or any other pointless tangent. I suppose one can forgive the scientifically-illiterate for their confusion over the words "entropy" and "disorder." As with so many scientific terms, many people assume their general definitions/connotations and fail to understand that they refer to the distribution and "usefulness" [i.e., availability to do work] of energy, not order/disorder of things in some general sense. So, yes, you have yet again walked right into a popular fallacy which even many "creation science" advocates have abandoned and begged their allies to avoid!But for those who are Bible-believing Christians, this silly "war" on abiogenesis defies the Bible itself. Genesis 2:7 says that "God made the man from the dust of the ground." Biological life from non-living ingredients is abiogenesis. It couldn't be any more clear. The Bible states that living things come, not from some sort of magical "life-matter" as many used to believe, but from the same inorganic materials as the earth itself. The simple "non-living" chemical elements of the earth are the ingredients of life. (The Bible says we come from dust, and to dust we shall return. We and ALL living things.) So the Bible has no beef with Science as to abiogenesis! So let's put a halt to this silly "war on science" which so many of our Christian brethren insist on waging! Science is methodologically naturalistic by definition. It is NOT theology! (And quit confusing the methodological naturalism of science with the philosophical naturalism of various well-known atheists that many of you obsess over!)Skywriting, do you TRULY believe that these ridiculous, ill-informed attacks on established science (and cherished scriptures) advance the Kingdom of God in any way? There are real wrongs and heresies in this world that deserve your time and energy. Why do you and your allies insist on attacking the answers which God has provided to our questions within His Creation? Do you honestly believe that any non-believer is impressed by your denial of God's scientific evidence and God's scriptures? Do you believe that this contrived "war" on science somehow increases your credibility and the credibility of the Bible itself? Why not use the harmonies of God's Bible and God's Science (i.e. Creation) to build bridges of communication and mutual respect with non-Christians?If you truly believe that I'm in error, I invite you to correct and educate me off-list. If you send a message to me, my T.A. will send you an invitation to the Bible.and.Science.Forum where such an exchange can take place among Bible-believing, Christ-followers rather than in an open forum for the general public.

I wouldn't say you have improved the discussion a bit. I don't see any links or claims.
Hardly even a point here except for hatred of others ideas.
But that's your thing.

 

[randyman54321]

Hello there, I saw that you study DNA. I will admit I have a lot to learn in that area but I did have a question for you. Today what we see about information is it always comes from intelligence. If that is true how would you explain the origin of information and the origin of DNA? Why does there seem to be specified complexity in the genetic code?

 

[verysincere]

Hello there, I saw that you study DNA. I will admit I have a lot to learn in that area but I did have a question for you. Today what we see about information is it always comes from intelligence. If that is true how would you explain the origin of information and the origin of DNA? Why does there seem to be specified complexity in the genetic code?

Your question is closely related to another ubiquitous question: Does every code have an encoder? (And that question usually leads to a discussion of whether DNA is truly a code.)


.

 

[randyman54321]

Your question is closely related to another ubiquitous question: Does every code have an encoder? (And that question usually leads to a discussion of whether DNA is truly a code.)


.

Still the question where did information come from if not from intelligence?

 

[JanetReed]

Still the question where did information come from if not from intelligence?

If that's true the next question is 'where did the intelligence come from'?

 

[SkyWriting]

If that's true the next question is 'where did the intelligence come from'?

Intelligence doesn't grow on trees. People claim that it has a natural source, but have never produced the evidence needed for the idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

Intelligence doesn't grow on trees.

-- that made me chuckle.

 

[JanetReed]

If that's true the next question is 'where did the intelligence come from'?

Intelligence doesn't grow on trees. People claim that it has a natural source, but have never produced the evidence needed for the idea.

Just because you are incapable of thinking doesn't mean others are also incapable of thinking, if you want to take the easy way out and say Goddidit that's up to you, just don't expect everyone to agree with you because not everyone is indoctrinated to the extent creationist are.
'verysincere' was lucky enough to escape from the clutches of creationism so there is still hope for you yet.

What he talks about creationist manufactured arguments not being there to change unbelievers minds but there to keep creationists paying money is very true, even you must be able to see that.

 

[AV1611VET]

What he says about creationist argument no there to change minds but to keep creationists paying is true.

-- What kind of a sentence is this?

 

[JanetReed]

-- What kind of a sentence is this?

I've fixed it so read it again.

PS. the part about there still being hope for you was not meant for you, you're way too far gone and too old for hope.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oops -- nevermind.

 

[JanetReed]

Oops -- nevermind.

That unfortunately seems to be your answer to everything.

 

[AV1611VET]

That unfortunately seems to be your answer to everything.

Posts: 2,196,006

I've probably answered more question here than you'll ever have posts.

 

[SkyWriting]

Just because you are incapable of thinking doesn't mean others are also incapable of thinking, if you want to take the easy way out and say Goddidit that's up to you, just don't expect everyone to agree with you because not everyone is indoctrinated to the extent creationist are. 'verysincere' was lucky enough to escape from the clutches of creationism so there is still hope for you yet. What he talks about creationist manufactured arguments not being there to change unbelievers minds but there to keep creationists paying money is very true, even you must be able to see that.

That's such a sweet thought! Why can't I think such deep thoughts?

I have spent time around YE Creationists and they are pretty much independent thinkers.
They come and go and don't show up for Sunday
services just like "Modern" folks. They are all free.

Go to Sunday class and you'll find the same thing. And no, you don't
find money as a motive for anybody. That point fails as well. Yet the
church does need to bring in money to operate. That's partly why
I've never joined one.

I note, Jane, that you haven't provided evidence that intelligence grows on trees.
Or that anything "dumb" will produce anything "smart". (That's a general statement,
not a reflection on how much smarter YOUR kids may be than you. I wish them the best of everything.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes I have read some of them.........1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 and so on yard after yard.
You are most definitely a creationist.

Despite that, I've answered more questions here than you'll probably ever ask.

When you've been through an Internet inquisition, and when you can get to the point where you can q.v. your answers so many times, you're asked to stop, I might consider your point valid; but until then, keep posting --

You've got a LONG way to go!

 

[verysincere]

If creationists were independent thinkers they would not be creationists,
they are creationists primarily because they are not independent thinkers.

Absolutely true. The faculty belief statements I had to sign at various Christian universities was the OPPOSITE of academic freedom and indepenent thought.

Indeed, peer pressure was the major reason I stayed in the creation science camp as long as I did. Flash forward 40 to 50 years: virtually every argument posted on this forum from the "creation science" promoters comes direct from just a few sources: Ken Ham & Co., Kent Hovind, Creation.com, and the carbon copies.

For that matter, I can't say that I have EVER met a "creation science" independent thinker. Every person I know who left the movement did so as they looked at the evidence and started thinking independently, despite the cost they incurred in losing friends, losing faculty and pulpit positions, and being considered "a bad Christian" in some circles. (Ken Ham often talks of "compromised Christians". That term appears often at Answers in Genesis webpages.)

Oil geologist Glenn Morton's story is worth reading. He was a very prolific C.S. "scholar" writing for the various "journals" until he started questioning what he saw in his oil field work.

I will admit that I burst out laughing when I read the claim that "creationists were independent thinkers." One rarely finds much independence of thought among those who cherish tradition over the Biblical evidence and the scientific evidence.

.

.

 

[verysincere]

Despite that, I've answered more questions here than you'll probably ever ask.

I may regret asking.......but why do such numbers matter?

You've got a LONG way to go!

You seem to suggest that QUANTITY of posts is more important than the QUALITY of the answers???


(And yes. I already regret asking.)

.
.

 

[AV1611VET]

I will admit that I burst out laughing when I read the claim that "creationists were independent thinkers."

You don't know me very well, do you?

"Independent" is my middle name.

I've even been called 'backwater' here.

 

[AV1611VET]

I may regret asking.......but why do such numbers matter?

It matters quite a bit, when I have to respond to such remarks as this:

That unfortunately seems to be your answer to everything.

And believe me, I've made it clear that every time someone thinks they know everything I said or didn't say -- even if I did or didn't say it -- is going to get a reference to my post count.

(Unless I choose otherwise -- )

If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to go over to -- say -- CARM, find someone with [just] 100 posts, and tell them they've never apologized for anything, or tell them they've never said x, y, or z, and see how they like it.

 

[randyman54321]

Just because you are incapable of thinking doesn't mean others are also incapable of thinking, if you want to take the easy way out and say Goddidit that's up to you, just don't expect everyone to agree with you because not everyone is indoctrinated to the extent creationist are.
'verysincere' was lucky enough to escape from the clutches of creationism so there is still hope for you yet.

What he talks about creationist manufactured arguments not being there to change unbelievers minds but there to keep creationists paying money is very true, even you must be able to see that.

The simple fact is what we see today is that information always comes from intelligence so the logical conclusion is that information originated from intelligence which is God. Saying God did it is not taking the easy way out, that is simply where the evidence points too. You say keep the creationists paying money, the atheists do this too with all their schools and to be able to pay to push this evolution theory onto everyone.
Lets face it Evolution and Christianity are both religious. You have to believe in one or the other. No one was around when the earth was made so explaining origins of the earth and universe is not observable therefore it is not science it is religious.