A Challenge for Anti-evolutionists

[ohtoseehisface]

It's not supposed to. The origin of life is a different idea called abiogenesis. Saying evolution doesn't explain the origin of life is like saying the germ theory of disease doesn't explain how clouds stay in midair... so what?

The reason is also not the first OR the second law of thermodynamics. Those are gross misapplications to try and use them against the ToE. And the first would be applicable (but still misused) against the origin of the UNIVERSE, not of life.

Metherion

Yes I agree evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life. The part I forgot to put in my post is that so many people ignorantly believe it is. There are many people I've encountered who believe evolution explains how we got here entirely and that it defeats the possibility of God existing. Where as we know, it only picks up where life already exists.

But that's besides the point, I was just trying to clarify the previous poster's statement.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

if I ever found evidence that absolutely all evidence pointing towards evolution was found to be a hoax I would stop believing it. As it stands though, I stick by evolution, it makes sense when I think about it and apply it to what I know and observe about nature, and I trust in the far greater expertise of brilliant, Christian scientists who believe in the theory because there is simply no reason scientifically not to.

ToE relies on many other sciences and for it be correct, all of science must be concrete within it's involvement and there must be no anomalies in the theory itself. And yet, there are flaws in every science and of the theory itself.

It's one of those things that must fit perfectly or it simply doesn't work. In fact, all sciences are like this in one way or another. Anyone versed in physics knows the scrutiny that scientific theory holds, and since ToE is so controversal, I feel scientists should be a little more careful how they portray it. It simply has not been proven or confirmed to a degree that should be accepted.

All the evidence pointed towards ToE is only so because it is fitted into the theory, not because the evidence actually supports it.
In other words, if I were to take a piece from one jigsaw puzzle and it were to fit into another puzzle perfectly, I could say it's 'weird but true' even if it does not match the picture of the puzzle.
The idea is that ToE is an ugly theory

All the organisms on Earth were created. We find their remains and presume them to be of some sort of evolutionary system, because surely God did not make them.
Carbon dating actually only dates a few thousand years, despite the popular idea that it goes back much further. They base age off of geology and other things, which really, requires more faith between scientists and theory then us and God.
Must we think that God put all of Earth's material in a status of 'brand new' as in it's atomic junction would match 7000 years old? After all, pearly gates did not have to wait billions of years for clams to produce them.

 

[spiritual warrior]

Ah, but now you have to explain and define kinds,

I thought I did...the first original form of a group of organism (elephant, dog, whatever).

show that there were created 'kinds' instead of the accepted common descent

As I said earlier, genetic demonstrates the fallacy of common descent, and no matter how many may accept it does not in any way, shape, or form prove it to be correct.

go find out all the evidence that largely Christian geologists have found since as early as the 1830s (note: before Darwin published his theory) that convinced them there was no Biblical Flood, as well as everything since then, and show THAT wrong too.

Christian? Christian perhaps in name only, for most Christian geologists today demonstrate adequate evidence for flood geology...evidence that is much more convincing than standard evolutionary textbook geology. Flood geology also explains more satisfactorily certain formations than TOE geology, as well as ALL other formations that TOE geology cannot explain. It is wrong, not because I say so, but because the facts of nature demonstrate it so (minus all the unwarranted and illegitimate assumptions TOE places upon those facts).

After all, your replacement idea can't stand if it flat out contradicts geology (since it includes the Noachian Flood, if I am inferring correctly).

You are correct...but it doesn't contradict geology, which is more than can be said for standard TOE geology. When one theory has more assumptions than another in order to "work," we are better aligned with the theory that has less assumptions. That theory is flood geology.

And it's really nice to be called atheistic and anti-God too, for accepting the TOE. It really feels good and isn't insulting, belittling, demeaning, or hurtful at all. (take knife, cut sarcasm).

I didn't call anyone on this forum an atheistic person or anti-God. When I made that statement, I directed it (as my post readily shows) to the atheistic scientists of the Synthesis...which does not include anyone still living as far as I know. Ernst Mayr died a few years ago, and I could be wrong, but to my knowledge he was the last "big name" of the Synthesis that is still alive. I am sure there are probably more, but if there is, I am sure they are not on this board today.

If you are an atheist, then you are not supposed to be posting here. Since I don't think you are one, you should not feel insulted or belittled by anything that I stated.

 

[spiritual warrior]

I take from your statement that we should go by what the bible tells us literally? If my assumptions are correct, then how should we reconcile the differing accounts of creation between Genesis 1 and 2?

This is a common misconception. But to get the full idea behind your statement, do you refer to Genesis 1.1-2, or chapters 1 and 2?

It says that God molded man from the earth. When you mold pottery, does it not start from a lump yet is molded slowly through all of the in-between forms until it is a work of art? Why could this not be the same image of God's loving and careful creation?

Certain passages of scripture are literal, and certain passages are figurative, and we need discernment in order to figure out which is which. When God said He created the earth in 6 days, that was literal, not figurative...which He (and Jesus) reiterated over and again in many passages. The creation of organisms was also literal, not figurative.

I would have no problem believing TOE if it was how God created life on this planet...IF that is the way He wanted to do it, but the undoctored evidence of nature demonstrates this to be false.

 

[spiritual warrior]

It makes no sense for it to be a separate account, why? Because an account was given on the previous page, why would the writer want to confuse his audience? The second account is a summation in order to provide the context for the following passages concerning the fall of man.

Actually, they are not two separate accounts. Genesis 2 flows in continuation from Genesis 1, up until verse 5 when God begins to go into the details of the creation of Adam and then Eve.

There is no contradiction between the two. You are correct.

 

[spiritual warrior]

The reason is also not the first OR the second law of thermodynamics. Those are gross misapplications to try and use them against the ToE.

Not so, for the Second Law applies to all forms of energy/matter, including that inherent to genetics. Just as noise in information systems demonstrate the Second Law in those systems, so mutations are the effect of the Second Law in genetics. DNA is an information system, and true mutations (random chance copy errors) are the result of the Second Law.

 

[spiritual warrior]

@ thephilosophizer

From allaboutscience.org-
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The First Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Matter, states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.
Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

According to the second LAW of thermodynamics, if something only deteriorates over time, then the THEORY of evolution is not only impossible but ridiculous. The first LAW also nullifies the big bang THEORY and thus we can throw out the baby with the bath water. Furthermore, the lack of fossil evidence of one species changing into another is yet undiscovered (because it doesn't exist) so until something other than sketches show up in a museum, you must go back to the drawing board, or accept the evidence right in front of your face: Genesis is accurate, reliable, and true.

Correct, mutations (random chance copy errors) are what's called in genetics as Bio-entropy.

 

[metherion]

THERE IS NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE CHANGE OF ONE SPECIES INTO ANOTHER.

Micro-evolution, yes. Macro-evolution no.


Really? So what about, say, the horses pictured in all the biology textbooks? The fossil history of whales (that includes that rather well known ambelocetus natons)?

Or how about you tell me which of these skulls is the first human and which is the first non-human ape?

10% is a HUGE HUGE HUGE DIFFERENCE

Yes. That is why we are different species. I’m sorry, I routinely deal with numbers of varying magnitudes, saying just how much typewriter space something might take up does not impress me.

guess it's also true that there are different kinds of lies also, like the lie of omission for example vs. the lie of commission. Evolution promotes both kinds of lies upon careful examination, doesn't it?

Well, THIS is a rather serious accusation to level. Care to elaborate with examples?

thought I did...the first original form of a group of organism (elephant, dog, whatever).

And your evidence that those are kinds, and there is nothing before them, or relating them together is what...?

As I said earlier, genetic demonstrates the fallacy of common descent, and no matter how many may accept it does not in any way, shape, or form prove it to be correct.

Then please humor me and repeat WHICH genetic demonstrations?

Christian? Christian perhaps in name only, for most Christian geologists today demonstrate adequate evidence for flood geology...evidence that is much more convincing than standard evolutionary textbook geology. Flood geology also explains more satisfactorily certain formations than TOE geology, as well as ALL other formations that TOE geology cannot explain. It is wrong, not because I say so, but because the facts of nature demonstrate it so (minus all the unwarranted and illegitimate assumptions TOE places upon those facts).

Wow, what a broad brush! Any geologist who doesn’t subscribe to ‘flood geology’ isn’t even Christian? And ‘evolutionary geology’? There’s no such thing. Evolution is biology. Geology is... geology. There is no evolutionary geology.

What formations are you talking about?

I didn't call anyone on this forum an atheistic person or anti-God. When I made that statement, I directed it (as my post readily shows) to the atheistic scientists of the Synthesis...which does not include anyone still living as far as I know. Ernst Mayr died a few years ago, and I could be wrong, but to my knowledge he was the last "big name" of the Synthesis that is still alive. I am sure there are probably more, but if there is, I am sure they are not on this board today.


And you made it quite clear that the only reason (according to your statement) that evolution is around is because of ATHEIST scientists, which means it is an atheist science, and everyone who accepts it would therefore be one, right? Especially with your previous statement about geologists stretching all the way back to the 1830s ish.

Not so, for the Second Law applies to all forms of energy/matter, including that inherent to genetics.

If you mean the energy/matter involved in say, copying DNA (needing more DNA and using energy to put them together and all) then yes, of course.

Just as noise in information systems demonstrate the Second Law in those systems, so mutations are the effect of the Second Law in genetics. DNA is an information system, and true mutations (random chance copy errors) are the result of the Second Law.

1) Assertion.
2) Okay, let’s talk about this. You say DNA is an information system subject to thermodynamic entropy. Thermodynamic entropy as it relates to information is just the amount of shannon information needed to define the microstate of a system given the macrostate. This is NOT shannon information entropy, which would be the only thing you could be referring to.

Shannon information entropy deals with the uncertainty of random variables. So, how do you define it? First, you need a unit. What unit do you use? Second, you need a random variable. What is your random variable? Third, if you have the entire DNA code, there are no random variable, everything is set. According to information theory, there would then be NO INFORMATION ENTROPY, since there would be no random variables.

So, would you kindly give me your definition of information, how you determine it, how you jive it with information theory and the term of entropy you are trying to use?

3) Even if you do do all of #2, then you are STILL left with the incorrect statement of

and true mutations (random chance copy errors) are the result of the Second Law.

True mutations are NOT due to the second law, true mutations are due to errors in the DNA copying process which are influenced by but not CAUSED by the SLoT. The fact that the chemical reactions of the cellular machinery reduces the amount of usable energy in the system of your cell when your cells make more DNA is NOT the reason that mutations happen.

Also, where do you see this being called bio-entropy? I’ve never heard that term (but admitted I’m a chemist, not a geneticist), but googling it came up with nothing in the first several pages.

Metherion

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

as I am sure you are aware, it is far more than probable that the accounts were written far apart and by separate authors, as many of the early stories of the bible did not just appear together in the form we have them, but were rather put together by an editor or editors much later, like the books from deuteronomy through II Kings were likely put together by one priestly source in a defined volume during the exile in Babylon. So it would actually make less sense for a separate author to write a summary, especially seeing as the second account is thought to be much older than the first. The wikipedia page on the subject has some great information to look at.

But that is an assumption and I concede so is my interpretation, but the writing styles seem similar, the language is consistent in both accounts.

In regards to the OT being penned in Babylon is a secular myth with no real basis what so ever, see below as to why secularists believe the OT could not have been written earlier.

1. God does not exist
2. As God does not exist, the prophecies that were fulfilled in the OT could not of been fulfilled
3. As God does not exist, prophecies cannot be fulfilled therefore the OT was penned after the occurrences described

But we, the faithful, should not accept the conclusions of these "experts" especially considering that the majority of these elitists are ardent atheists.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Metherion, those fossils prove one thing and one thing only, that there were different ape like creatures living in the past that are now extinct. You are assuming they "evolved", I assume they were created.

 

[metherion]

So then, it should be easy to say. Instead of assuming they came chronologically, which (a-n) alphabetically is the first human and which is the last non-human ape?

Also, things such as, oh, geology and paleontology also give different times and species. So.

But the question is still simple.

Metherion

ETA: Also, why do you assume that the idea of parts of the OT being penned in Babylon is:
A) A secular myth
B) promoted by secularists
C) must come from the idea that God does not exist?

Have you done research on exactly who is behind this idea, their evidence, their background and their faiths? I would be interested in knowing if you have.

 

[CTD]

Pictures of skulls impressive? Let's see the series of feet.

(Apes have hands on their feet - nothing in-between-looking's been found, ever.)

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Metherion, not concerned about the opinion of elitists, the wisdom of man matters little and in the end God will reveal His truth to us and I believe that God's truth will be completely contradictory to man's.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Is that right CTD?

 

[metherion]

So, so far the two responses are:

1) Show me something totally different, and I am going to introduce a claim that it does not even exist,

and

2) Doesn't matter, everything man knows is wrong anyways (seemingly presented as a categorical denial).

and no answers.

Interesting.

Metherion

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Metherion, I have done some digging around yes, I have a couple of good books by Eta Linnemann (former secularist scholar turned Christian) and she delves into the so called evidences presented by secular scholars and guess what? They are based on opinions, yes, baseless assertions with absolutely no historical verification.

They also like to point out that the language Or words used in the OT was not spoken at that particular point in time, but guess what they have found, artifacts dating back to the 10th century bc with writing of a similar grammatical style used in the OT.

Khirbet Qeiyafa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Meth, do not underestimate the power of the enemy, humans do know a lot but cannot know everything. I won't discuss this point any further as I am not qualified to do so.

 

[lenpettis74]

Consider the coelocanth. Once thought to be extinct, fossil records show this fish lived about 400 million years ago in the cretaceous time period, until one was caught off the coast of Africa in the Indian ocean, and is now shown to live in abundance. Comparisons show there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the modern fish and the fossil. After 400 million years, there is no evolution shown in the species; neither micro or macro. Could it be because evolution is a lie? I think so.

 

[metherion]

Except:
1) Coelacanth is actually the term for the entire order.
2) There are actually two species of coelacanths (source: From the Cover: Two living species of coelacanths?) which means one or both (actually both) are different from the fossilized species found in that entire order.
3) The two new species were named as NEW SPECIES upon discovery, which means they were different from any species in that entire order.

You might want to check your claims a bit better, especially considering your accusations of lying.

Metherion

 

[Dark_Lite]

I thought I did...the first original form of a group of organism (elephant, dog, whatever).

So "kind" is the "original group." That's about as non-specific as I've ever seen it. I've seen definitions of "kind" range from species up to genus. Maybe even higher. The definition changes as necessary.

So since kind is the "original group," how do we classify the following:
- Bacteria (all part of the "bacteria kind?")
- Viruses (not really living, but they are an important question)
- Spiders, insects, and other bugs (are they all part of the "bug kind"?)
- Mammoths (were they part of the "elephant kind"?)
- Mules, Ligers, or any other hybrid animal

After that, how about a clear-cut scientific definition for kind? If it's as obvious as you say it is, we should be able to describe all animals according to their kind and identify a precise definition for kind.

It can't be species, obviously. It also can't be delineated on basis of reproductive ability. Some species can reproduce with certain species, but not with others. Is it equal to family? Order? Genus? Maybe it just depends?