And here, you demonstrate you don't know what Darwinian evolution is. However, the ICR and AIG both acknowledge the fact of speciation and even new families. I discussed this with John Woodmorappe, (ICR's Ark Feasibility Study) and he thought the limit of evolution was new families.
But you've repeatedly refused to tell us what you think "Darwinian evolution" means. What do you think the five points of Darwinian theory are?
Stuff like this:
If you can just insert a miracle you dreamed up, to cover the flaws in your thinking, then any story works.
I think you got it wrong during your training. It's probably the "2nd law of thermodynamics"; there are more than two laws of thermodynamics.
And the laws are mathematical. So if you don't have numbers, you don't have anything.
Thermodynamics is not about the origin of the universe, which is not accessible to science. It can only consider what happened after the origin.
So we have a universe. Now use your knowledge of thermodynamics to prove evolution is impossible.
100% of what?
Virtual particles do that continuously. It's observable.
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.
Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?
So out of the quantum vacuum, a particle and antiparticle can appear, and then destroy each other, returning to 0.
If so, then your laws of thermodynamics are useless. Is that what you want to tell us?
Darwin never commented on how long it took. He merely asserted that the Creator made the first living things:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1879
So far, you've supposed all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to cover problems in your ideas.
[/QUOTE]
"And here, you demonstrate you don't know what Darwinian evolution is. However, the ICR and AIG both acknowledge the fact of speciation and even new families. I discussed this with John Woodmorappe, (ICR's Ark Feasibility Study) and he thought the limit of evolution was new families."
I do not believe ICR would say new families are the result of mutations. I would love to see you give some writing to substantiate Woodmaroppe saying this- for His writing s contradict your conversaation with him.
"But you've repeatedly refused to tell us what you think "Darwinian evolution" means. What do you think the five points of Darwinian theory are?"
Are you referring to Darwin s five points of natural selection? Yes I know them
"If you can just insert a miracle you dreamed up, to cover the flaws in your thinking, then any story works."
As for miracles- well we simply do not know how the ante noahic world looked! It was a lush paradise with untold animals and plants. And the level of water in the atmosphere back then would not be able to be today AFAWK. So I believe it was God doing something that is not natural- so it would be supernatural. sorry but that is the best I can do- I won't read into the Word of God things not there. Just know there was a whole lot of water up in the atmosphere somewhere. whether there was a completely transparent layer prior to the flood is up for debate.
"I think you got it wrong during your training. It's probably the "2nd law of thermodynamics"; there are more than two laws of thermodynamics.
And the laws are mathematical. So if you don't have numbers, you don't have anything."
Well if the universe was an eternal singularity then yes the 2nd law would declare it could not have exploded- it would have gone to complete entropy in th eternal past.
If there was no space/time/matter- then the first law would call it wrong! You cannot have nothing creating everything!
Yes the laws are mathematical but if your formula relies on faulty information-or values and that is the key issue, your answer will be correct according to the formula- but incorrect as to what really takes place!
"100% of what?"
The energy in the universe!
"Virtual particles are indeed real particles."
Well this is now not at the supposed Big Bang!
"So we have a universe. Now use your knowledge of thermodynamics to prove evolution is impossible."
Thermodynamics is not used to disprove biological evolution. Many other fields are used for that!
"If so, then your laws of thermodynamics are useless. Is that what you want to tell us?"
Not in the least!
"Darwin never commented on how long it took. He merely asserted that the Creator made the first living things:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of
On the Origin of Species, 1879"
No he didn't, but he denies a recent earth and unique specific creationb- so he creates his own version of Genesis and blames God!~
"So far, you've supposed all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to cover problems in your ideas"
Me thinks you do not believe in the miraculous so no matter what I write you would call it no scriptural unless the word miracle appears!
