Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Actually, the conflict is between evolutionists. For example how do we reconcile punctuated equilibrium with phyletic gradualism? Gould came under criticism by biologists who felt his beliefs were out of step with mainstream evolutionary theory.
You call the intermediates like those in the horse links "claims" and demand.. what? Anything we give you guys you will reject our of hand as "claims," "guesses," or even "frauds" and "hoaxes."
No, No, NO! P.E. does not mean a bird hatched from a reptile egg! This is the type of LIE you are being fed, and I assume you then feed to your congregation, propagating the lie. P.E. does not preclude the transitional stages this thread is about, it only says that they are relatively rapid compared to the longer periods of little distinct change. In fact, in the links I gave you, it talks about both gradual change and relatively fast changes, and how horse evolution has represented both types of evolution. Note that the transitionals are still there! Now... will you stop using this false representation of Punctuated Equilibrium? I have my doubts....
Nothing is "gospel truth," except when it comes to the fallible interpretations of scripture that creationists base their dogma on. As I said, everything in science is held as tentative. That includes atomic theory, yet we know atomic bombs work. Not only that, but we know more about evolution than the structure of the atom. Evolution is as much a fact as we get in science. How would you prefer science be taught practically at the intermediate level in public schools?
No! It is not a hyrax! This is yet another example of the LIES you are being fed by these so-called Christians on these "Creation Ministry" websites.
Not really. The math from Adam to Abraham is easy to do. Even Luke has the generations in his book. Bishops Usshers book is a history of the last 6,000 years and he has very little to say about whatever took place before that point in time. What Science would call prehistoric or pre recorded history. Ussher's book deals with recorded history. He does not say much about science or the natural record. Did they even have the fossil record to examine 500 years ago?
Originally Posted by MostlyLurkinghttp://www.christianforums.com/t7653920/#post60565638
And even the Bishop Ussher chronology requires a great deal of speculation and calculationNot really. I have done the math and from Adam to Abraham is very easy to do.
I really do not know what your talking about. Can you give me an example of these "facts" and "speculation"? Do you question the date he gives us for when Abraham was born? Do you question the date he gives us for Noah's flood? Do you question the date he uses for when Solomon builds the temple? As far as I know most scholars accept Ussher chronology and do not consider it speculation at all. I agree with most everything your saying. So maybe you just need to clarify this a bit.
His Popeness said:
Now you're confusing order with organized complexity. ( in case you missed it in the article ) Isaak argues that Creationists try to “get around” something by claiming that “the information carried by living things lets them create order...but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.”
What Isaak says here reveals some confusion on his part,between simple “order” and “organized complexity.” All living things (down to even a single-celled organism) are highly complex and organized—each component in its proper place and functioning according to its instructions to keep the organism going. They don’t just “happen” in nature—the notion of spontaneous generation was long ago and often disproven [Redi (1688), Spallanzani (1780), Pasteur (1860), and Virchow (1858)], establishing the Law of Biogenesis, which remains confirmed in that man has never observed life coming from anything but life itself, which is not observed to exist at all without all of the above described factors in place in some form.
On the other hand, simple “order” such as that found in a snowflake or a crystal, for example, is exceedingly trivial, when compared to the increase in information, organization or complexity that would be required for either spontaneous generation (the beginning of biological evolution), or any form of progressive macro-evolution itself. The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function. Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and maintain those levels.
Thus, crystals are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems even remotely parallel to those inherent in living organisms, even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of patterns (the very structure of which is both enabled and limited by the molecules which comprise them), and they certainly cannot serve realistically as “proof” that life can therefore create itself.
To so erroneously equate mere passive “order” of molecules as they enter a state of energy equilibrium (e.g., the formation of crystals) with a spontaneous, self-induced increase in “organized complexity” (as demanded by evolutionary theory for both the beginning and development of life—and as prohibited by the 2nd law), is to truly misunderstand the 2nd law AND evolution. This seems to be exactly what Isaak has done.
Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) does recognize the difference, however, having described it this way:
“‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’” [Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]
Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference, even acknowledging the extreme unlikelihood that the requisite complexity for life could arise from non-life:
“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.” [I. Prigogine, G. Nicolas and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]
Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:
“As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings... The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however... The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.” [C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]
Isaak asks, “If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?” By now it should be clear to any objective reader that Isaak’s logic is faulty:
1. his assumption that “order from disorder” is “ubiquitous in nature” is an error 2. life’s “order” (better described as “organized complexity”is possible only because of life’s inherent information and energy conversion mechanisms 3. the “order” found in non-living natural structures is not simply due to an unaided decrease in entropy, but to a decrease in molecular or atomic energy level, due to external factors (usually temperature and the existing molecular structure of the elements involved).
Please learn to use the Quote button and separate the parts you are responding to. You can cut and paste the Quote and /Quote markers to facilitate this. Otherwise, it is difficult to make out where your responese are. Thanks
You call the intermediates like those in the horse links "claims" and demand.. what? Anything we give you guys you will reject our of hand as "claims," "guesses," or even "frauds" and "hoaxes."
No, No, NO! P.E. does not mean a bird hatched from a reptile egg! This is the type of LIE you are being fed, and I assume you then feed to your congregation, propagating the lie. P.E. does not preclude the transitional stages this thread is about, it only says that they are relatively rapid compared to the longer periods of little distinct change. In fact, in the links I gave you, it talks about both gradual change and relatively fast changes, and how horse evolution has represented both types of evolution. Note that the transitionals are still there! Now... will you stop using this false representation of Punctuated Equilibrium? I have my doubts....
Nothing is "gospel truth," except when it comes to the fallible interpretations of scripture that creationists base their dogma on. As I said, everything in science is held as tentative. That includes atomic theory, yet we know atomic bombs work. Not only that, but we know more about evolution than the structure of the atom. Evolution is as much a fact as we get in science. How would you prefer science be taught practically at the intermediate level in public schools?
No! It is not a hyrax! This is yet another example of the LIES you are being fed by these so-called Christians on these "Creation Ministry" websites.
Here is a hyrax http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3357/3475186210_9012f4ec26.jpg
Here is Hyracotherium http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/95/12395-004-05BE72E9.jpg
Do they look the same to you? Why are these self-proclaimed experts telling you they are the same? Does it matter to you you are being lied to?
Please lets not go off on halos, and instead stick to evolution. One thing at a time. Both theropod dinosaurs and birds have Both feathers and scales. Is this a coincedence? And no the second law does not preclude local increases in entropy, as long as the net entropy of the system is increasing. If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any life, or hurricanes, or snowflakes, or even sand dunes.
Just because I DO NOT waste peoples time with information that does not pertain to the conversation? It would look like you have nothing constructive to add, so you waste time on nonsense like this. Even when we quote a Bible verse we do not always quote the whole verse. We may only quote the A, B or C part of the verse. If people want to know the context then they should look it up.
