Abiogenesis or God?

[Tomk80]

What Hovind says is completely correct. Have you ever seen him debate evolutionists? He crushes them and makes them speechless. And all you people say is that I'm wrong. I know i do the same, but you people never answer the questions i ask, and when i told you about thermodynamics, you said it was false. Let me ask you one thing, why do both the first and second law disprove evolution, yet you won't even touch it? -

The debates on infidel guy between Hovind and various evolutionists give another picture though. The evolutionists aren't exactly speechless there .

And as far as I know neither the first nor the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution. Care to explain how I am wrong. What part of evolution doesn't add up with it. Mutation doesn't go against it. Selection doesn't go against it. Since mutation and selection are the mechanisms for evolution and neither break any of the laws of thermodynamics, evolution is quite safe from them as far as I can see.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

What Hovind says is completely correct.

The reality is that what Hovind says you want to be completely correct. Let's see just how far that faith extends. I really want you to answer this claim rather than ignore it.

Hovind has claimed in debates and seminars that geologists shrunk the African continent by 40% to construct paleogeographic maps of pangea and that this was a deliberate hoax to substantiate modern geology.

Obviously his claim is false. No scaling or skewing of the continent is required for it to fit neatly into the North and South American continents. An easy way to see this is to look at an animation of the fragmentation of pangea and the movement of the continents to their present locations based upon paleomagnetic data:

http://www.scotese.com/sfsanim.htm

Are you willing to admit that Hovind's claim is wrong, first of all?

Implications:

1. Hovind has never looked at a paleogeographic map or compared it to a map of the planet's surface at present, but he makes the claim anyway from a position of total ignorance while pretending like he did actually perform such a comparison

2. Hovind has looked at paleogeographic maps and present day maps of earth's surface, but he makes the claim anyway knowing full well that it's false.

Either way, he is promoting a deliberate falsehood because the evidence does not fit young earth creationism.

Have you ever seen him debate evolutionists? He crushes them and makes them speechless.

That's an absurd exaggeration. As has been already explained (so I don't know why you ignored it), in an oral debate Hovind just has to list off a bunch of fallaceous arguments. That only takes a few minutes. However to expose each of his fallaceous argument requires much more time than it takes him to make the claim originally. There simply isn't enough time to talk about each of his assertions in an oral debate. He just makes knowingly false arguments with the tone that he is right so he doesn't even have to back up any of his statements. The audiences are predominantly uneducated creationists so they take whatever he says at face value without investigating his falsehoods.

The question becomes, why not do a written debate so that each side has the time to go over all claims in detail and show their sources? Because Hovind will lose. His game is being a charismatic liar, and he's good at it. He can't afford to be exposed as such (because that's how he makes a living), and participating in a written debates allows for his lies to be exposed one by one.

when i told you about thermodynamics, you said it was false. Let me ask you one thing, why do both the first and second law disprove evolution, yet you won't even touch it? -

You've just contradicted yourself. People have already told you that the first and second laws of thermodynamics do not disprove evolution by any stretch of the imagination, so they did touch it more than once. That is a combination of ignorance of what the first and second laws of thermodynamics are and what evolution is on your part. It shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Ondoher]

What Hovind says is completely correct. Have you ever seen him debate evolutionists? He crushes them and makes them speechless. And all you people say is that I'm wrong. I know i do the same, but you people never answer the questions i ask, and when i told you about thermodynamics, you said it was false. Let me ask you one thing, why do both the first and second law disprove evolution, yet you won't even touch it? -

Hovind is wrong. I debated him myself on the InfidelGuy show, and the best he could do to counter was to compare scientists to Iraqis and imply they are inventing evidence.

Which mechanisms of evolution violate any laws of themodynamics? And please, show your work. http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html.

 

[RyanLJohnson1]

1st Law of Thermodynamics: Matter can neither be created or destroyed.

• Do evolutionists try to go around this by saying that the matter was ALWAYS here, so it was neither created nor destroyed?

2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Increase in disorder.

• Don't try to tell me that you don't get wrinkly and more fragile as you get older.
• Evolution says that lifeforms get more complex (not over the time-period of their life, but within the time period of generations.) A good example to show that through generations lifeforms get less complex is with dogs. Ever do research on a poodle?

Here's the standpoint of 6-day Creationists, if most of you don't know it.

1. We believe that DARWIN WAS COMPLETELY CORRECT IN HIS INITIAL OBSERVATIONS! Natural selection is in complete existence. Mutation is in complete existence (natural selection depends on this.) The mutation we talk about is deleterious and changing, not additive. That's why poodles are so degenerated Variation within KINDS... that doesn't mean that a kind can turn into another kind, such as a fish into a bird or the sort. Darwin's finches were STILL FINCHES!
2. The world was perfect before the sin of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created by God, and did not evolve from soup. Karl, if you think that Adam and Eve evolved (which I doubt you do) then you are in error, because for them to evolve death must have existed. There wasn't death before Adam and Eve sinned.
3. God created EVERYTHING! In 6 literal days! The context of creation days in comparison to similar contexts within the Old Testament (and determined in-and-of-itself) go to show that the days were LITERAL... such as, in Genesis, "morning" and "evening" were referenced, as well as "day" and "night."
4. If science does not line up to the Word of God, then it is in error.
5. Information must come from information. God is INFINITE INFORMATION.

Natural selection? Yes.
Mutations? Yes.
Additive mutations? No.

I believe, "in the beginning God." If you're an evolutionist, then you probably believe, "in the beginning, dirt."

Just a wrap-up and reminder of our stances Thank you for your time.

Love in Jesus Christ,
Ryan

www.answersinGenesis.org
www.drdino.com

 

[Tomk80]

Man, were to start.

1st Law of Thermodynamics: Matter can neither be created or destroyed.

• Do evolutionists try to go around this by saying that the matter was ALWAYS here, so it was neither created nor destroyed?

Wrong on 3 counts:

1: The definintion itself: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.

2: Evolution does not address the creation of matter, so your point is moot even if the definition would be correct.

3: We can create and totally destroy matter. For example, combining matter and antimatter completely destroys both. In this, a lot of energy is created.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Increase in disorder.

• Don't try to tell me that you don't get wrinkly and more fragile as you get older.
• Evolution says that lifeforms get more complex (not over the time-period of their life, but within the time period of generations.) A good example to show that through generations lifeforms get less complex is with dogs. Ever do research on a poodle?

1) The real definition: in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state

2) The 2lot should be applied to a closed system. Since the earth is an open system, I'm quite curious how you would like to use it on an earth-wide process.

3) Getting wrinkly and more fragile has nothing to do with the law of thermodynamics. If it would, what happens in your first 20 years. Are you getting less complex in that time? Why do you only focus on the end of life, and not on the beginning?

4) How about St.Bernards or Bull dogs? How is the current diversity among dogs in comparison to many 1000's of years ago less complex. I'd say it's more complex.

Here's the standpoint of 6-day Creationists, if most of you don't know it.

Oh goody

We believe that DARWIN WAS COMPLETELY CORRECT IN HIS INITIAL OBSERVATIONS! Natural selection is in complete existence. Mutation is in complete existence (natural selection depends on this.) The mutation we talk about is deleterious and changing, not additive. That's why poodles are so degenerated Variation within KINDS... that doesn't mean that a kind can turn into another kind, such as a fish into a bird or the sort. Darwin's finches were STILL FINCHES!

So what about St. Bernards? Why ignore German Shepherds? Are they degenerated too? And what about the documented neutral and beneficial notations? Why do you ignore those?

The world was perfect before the sin of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created by God, and did not evolve from soup. Karl, if you think that Adam and Eve evolved (which I doubt you do) then you are in error, because for them to evolve death must have existed. There wasn't death before Adam and Eve sinned.

The whole structure of Genesis 1 and 2 (and further) is one of a myth. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a myth. If it has the structure of a myth and the themes of a myth, it probably is a myth.

God created EVERYTHING! In 6 literal days! The context of creation days in comparison to similar contexts within the Old Testament (and determined in-and-of-itself) go to show that the days were LITERAL... such as, in Genesis, "morning" and "evening" were referenced, as well as "day" and "night."

So what about the scientific evidence against a young earth?

If science does not line up to the Word of God, then it is in error.

If science does not line up with your interpretation of the Bible, probably your interpretation is at fault.

Information must come from information. God is INFINITE INFORMATION.

2 unsupported assumptions. Care to support them with something?

Natural selection? Yes.
Mutations? Yes.
Additive mutations? No.

So the poodle is the result of one mutation? Since mutations don't add up, a poodle should have the exact same DNA as a German Shepherd, except for two mutations (1 in the poodle, 1 in the shepherd). Please back up this claim.

[/quote]I believe, "in the beginning God." If you're an evolutionist, then you probably believe, "in the beginning, dirt."[/quote]
Evolution =/= atheism. Get it over with, evolution says nothing about the existence of a God.

Just a wrap-up and reminder of our stances Thank you for your time.

Love in Jesus Christ,
Ryan

www.answersinGenesis.org
www.drdino.com

It is good to see where you get your misinformation. Here is a link on the laws of thermodynamics. Have fun learning, you've got a lot of that ahead.

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html

 

[Ondoher]

1st Law of Thermodynamics: Matter can neither be created or destroyed.

• Do evolutionists try to go around this by saying that the matter was ALWAYS here, so it was neither created nor destroyed?

Evolution doesn't address the origin of matter or energy at all.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Increase in disorder.

This is not the second law of thermodynamics, it is a cartoon. The second law says that a cold body cannot give heat to a warm body.

• Don't try to tell me that you don't get wrinkly and more fragile as you get older.
• Evolution says that lifeforms get more complex (not over the time-period of their life, but within the time period of generations.) A good example to show that through generations lifeforms get less complex is with dogs. Ever do research on a poodle?

Over time, there has been an increase in biological complexity. The mechanisms for this complexity are reproduction and mutation. None of these mechanisms violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Here's the standpoint of 6-day Creationists, if most of you don't know it.

1. We believe that DARWIN WAS COMPLETELY CORRECT IN HIS INITIAL OBSERVATIONS! Natural selection is in complete existence. Mutation is in complete existence (natural selection depends on this.) The mutation we talk about is deleterious and changing, not additive. That's why poodles are so degenerated Variation within KINDS... that doesn't mean that a kind can turn into another kind, such as a fish into a bird or the sort. Darwin's finches were STILL FINCHES!
2. The world was perfect before the sin of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created by God, and did not evolve from soup. Karl, if you think that Adam and Eve evolved (which I doubt you do) then you are in error, because for them to evolve death must have existed. There wasn't death before Adam and Eve sinned.
3. God created EVERYTHING! In 6 literal days! The context of creation days in comparison to similar contexts within the Old Testament (and determined in-and-of-itself) go to show that the days were LITERAL... such as, in Genesis, "morning" and "evening" were referenced, as well as "day" and "night."
4. If science does not line up to the Word of God, then it is in error.
5. Information must come from information. God is INFINITE INFORMATION.

Natural selection? Yes.
Mutations? Yes.
Additive mutations? No.

As has been well documented in other threads and other posts, the notion that mutation cannot add information is plainly false. At the bottom of this post, I list three peer-reviewed articles that explore mutations that result in the creation of novel genes: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9913868#post9913868

I believe, "in the beginning God." If you're an evolutionist, then you probably believe, "in the beginning, dirt."

No, I believe Hovind creates bad strawmen.

Just a wrap-up and reminder of our stances Thank you for your time.

Love in Jesus Christ,
Ryan

www.answersinGenesis.org
www.drdino.com

 

[RyanLJohnson1]

So do you want to go into the Law of Conservation of MASS AND ENERGY now, too? Mass cannot be created. Energy cannot be created. Simple physics, by Einstein.

 

[RyanLJohnson1]

Either God created the universe, or it developed completely by itself.

By the way... if evolution is true... where did sound come from? Did sound evolve? I've been wondering about that one

Love in Jesus Christ be to all of you,
Ryan

 

[RyanLJohnson1]

Something doesn't come from nothing. Matter doesn't just appear. Even the big bang theory states that matter was already in existence, as well as energy. Energy doesn't just appear.

Matter, mass, and energy do not come from nothing. So, you either believe "in the beginning God," or "in the beginning dirt," or "in the beginning energy," or "in the beginning, mass," or "in the beginning, matter."

Ever do a study on mutts? I believe that they are like the original dogs. They carry as much genetic information from as many pools as possible. Once a mutt is placed in a different environment, it passes on the traits that are the most beneficial. Thus, we get another type of dog, lacking some of the genetic information that it used to have.

If you breed dogs enough through selective breeding, you'll get something with whatever information you want it to have. It makes sense for the original dog to be a medium-sized dog, and it makes sense for Adam and Eve to have mid-toned skin. Basic genetics, no?

 

[David Gould]

Basic genetics, no?

No. It might be basic something but it certainly is not basic genetics.

I recommend this site:

http://www.genetics.com.au/

The fact sheets give you some good information. Enjoy.

 

[David Gould]

By the way: wolves are the original* dogs.



By original, I mean 'most recent common ancestor of all dogs', which is not really original at all. But there you go.

 

[RyanLJohnson1]

When I mean basic, I mean STUFF THAT I LEARNED IN 9TH GRADE BIOLOGY

 

[RyanLJohnson1]

By the way: wolves are the original* dogs.



By original, I mean 'most recent common ancestor of all dogs', which is not really original at all. But there you go.

Yes this is what it appears to be. I live in a rural area, and have seen wild dogs (you know, mutts that live in the wild, etc.) ... they look like wolves, to be honest. They're smaller, more like coyotes... they actually breed with coyotes and have what we call "coy dogs." Not many survive. Ken Ham and Kent Hovind both seem to feel that the first dogs were something like a wolf.

 

[David Gould]

When I mean basic, I mean STUFF THAT I LEARNED IN 9TH GRADE BIOLOGY

I do not know where you were taught but genetics is not, 'You start in the middle and then end up with extremes.'

 

[David Gould]

Yes this is what it appears to be. I live in a rural area, and have seen wild dogs (you know, mutts that live in the wild, etc.) ... they look like wolves, to be honest. They're smaller, more like coyotes... they actually breed with coyotes and have what we call "coy dogs." Not many survive. Ken Ham and Kent Hovind both seem to feel that the first dogs were something like a wolf.

The genetic evidence tells us that the common ancestor of all current dogs was a wolf. It is not based on a feeling. Mutts do not all look like wolves, although all obviously have similarities to wolves.

 

[Praxiteles]

Ryan,

You are arguing from a very limited knowledge base. There is nothing wrong with this, but when someone explains something to show you where your knowledge could be improved it is poor form to continue to argue with them without first considering that additional knowledge.

What you are doing is akin to this:

I say to you that Christians are disgusting blood drinkers. You respond by explaining that it's too simplistic an explanation of the metaphor of the blood of Christ. I then turn around and say that you're full of it, and Christians drink blood.

That would be annoying, wouldn't it?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Is it really easier to mangle the first and second laws of thermodynamics rather than looking them up in, say, a basic chemistry or physics textbook or one of the scientific resources on the internet? Isn't it worth taking that extra time to check whether your representations are accurate or not?

1. The First Law of Thermodynamics is the principle of the conservation of energy. The least complicated way of putting it is that energy can be converted from one form to another but can be neither created nor destroyed.

Obviously this is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. In no way does the theory of evolution contradict the first law of thermodynamics.

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, putting it in the least complicated way, is that the entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease.

Obviously the earth is an open system because there is matter and energy exchange with its surroundings. Entropy can decrease on earth with the input of energy. The sun is a source of energy. The theory of evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

By the false representation of the second law you presented earlier, snowflakes would not form and you would not have salt on your table to put on your food. The processes that produce snow crystals and salt crystals would violate your version of the second law of thermodynamics. Since most people don't relate to geologic conepts, I won't elaborate there and instead use the example of an embryo that ends up being a fully formed human baby. By your false definition of the second law of thermodyamics, reproduction should not be able to occur for humans the way it does. Obviously your definition must be wrong, and you didn't think it through very carefully.

Furthermore, the first and second laws of thermodynamics are basic principles in science. Do you really think the theory of evolution would be used by biologists if it were contrary to these two basic concepts? Are scientists lying as part of some mass conspiracy or are they so grossly incompetent that they overlooked something so simple for a century and a half? I have yet to see an answer for this by creationists.


I see that you have neither acknowledged that your representations of laws of thermodynamics were wrong nor that your attempted application of them to the theory of evolution was wrong. It would be best for you to stick to issues and directly answer the things people bring up rather than distracting with another misrepresentation to skirt the topic.

And moreover, you should not be getting your scientific information from creationist resources, particularly Kent Hovind (known liar extraordinaire). You should be getting your scientific information from scientific sources. Some of your errors, such as your representations of the laws of thermodynamics could have been easily corrected had you done that.

 

[Ondoher]

Either God created the universe, or it developed completely by itself.

By the way... if evolution is true... where did sound come from? Did sound evolve? I've been wondering about that one

Love in Jesus Christ be to all of you,
Ryan

The question of the origin of the universe is a hard one. I see no utility in proposing it is due to magic. Nor do I see anyway to test this idea.

Evolution is a theory that explains the diversity of life as descent with modification due to differential reproductive success acting on random, genetic variability. It has nothing to do with sound.

 

[Jet Black]

So do you want to go into the Law of Conservation of MASS AND ENERGY now, too? Mass cannot be created. Energy cannot be created. Simple physics, by Einstein.

actually false, mass and energy can be created where dEdt > h/2pi and this happens all the time. If it didn't then yoghurt and non drip paint would just coalesce into a blob at the bottom of a pool of water. In the early universe which was both highly relativistic and highly quantum, it is quite possible that energy conservation might have been the norm. Energy conservation is a simple derivation from time symmetry (to take the modern derivation, rather than the outmoded classical derivation) and one thing the BB is not, is time symmetric.

 

[Mistermystery]

So do you want to go into the Law of Conservation of MASS AND ENERGY now, too? Mass cannot be created. Energy cannot be created. Simple physics, by Einstein.

Mr Johnson, you were just outgunned in your initial argument on (a.o.) the 2lotd. Please learn about your initial mistakes before you make new ones again.