Biblical impossibility of evolution

[SkyWriting]

... Why must people believe in the errant words of mere men instead of taking lesson from the unaltered work of his hand? Fossils, science; these are the works of God! Everyone has different religions and beliefs about God, even different interpretations of the Bible, but the only work of God you can study, really study, without bias is the work of his hands. Yet you ignore them in favor of a book written by men so far after the fact that it's ridiculous.

"All of the works which would eventually be incorporated into the New Testament would seem to have been written no later than the mid-2nd century.[2]"

Truly I say unto you, these passages COULD be in error, but they cover your points directly:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness";

Lastly, Science and History are mutually exclusive. Fossils don't tell stories. People tell stories based on their personal worldview.

 

[SkyWriting]

Except science says that we came from dust! We started out as (Living, unicellular) dust, and got incrementally more complex until we became what we are today.

Except science says that things become less complex over time. Cells are not "less complex." They are nearly infinitely complex.
Is there any scientific law to suggest complexity grows? There is not. Here we are living inside the only example of life in the cosmos and we can't find a scientific law or principal that would even suggest why life occurs. Isn't that scientifically odd?

If evolution or pure "change" were responsible, don't you think science would have a rule, law, theory....anything at all we could test to support the idea?

 

[British Bulldog]

Fossils don't tell stories. People tell stories based on their personal worldview.

You've said a mouthful there.

 

[British Bulldog]

Except science says that things become less complex over time. Cells are not "less complex." They are nearly infinitely complex.
Is there any scientific law to suggest complexity grows? There is not. Here we are living inside the only example of life in the cosmos and we can't find a scientific law or principal that would even suggest why life occurs. Isn't that scientifically odd?

If evolution or pure "change" were responsible, don't you think science would have a rule, law, theory....anything at all we could test to support the idea?

Chaos theory covers the supposed problem of the enormous complexity of living things having occurred by natural processes. You might enjoy this documentary about it. It is very good:

Complexity - Secret Life of Chaos - BBC 2010 - YouTube

 

[SkyWriting]

What's stopping God from forming them with and using evolution? Nothing in the bible says that God must only use magic to do things, why can't He use science?

Man uses Science to create new limbs for people and cause the blind to see and the lame to walk. One of my clients uses a new science created leg.

But, according to science, (we'll call that "a reproducible event") life does not come from non-life, complex does not come from non-complex, and energy does not come from non-energy. So science rules-out science.

 

[Psudopod]

But, according to science, (we'll call that "a reproducible event") life does not come from non-life,

Yes it does. Seeds are non living but produce living plants

complex does not come from non-complex,

Yes it does, entropy can and frequently does decrease at a local level. See snowflakes for example.

and energy does not come from non-energy.

Yes it does. See fusion generators and fission bombs for examples.

So science rules-out science.

Not at all. You're just mistaken.

 

[Split Rock]

Science actually is not a magic genie god to be worshiped blindly.

Wow, I actually agree with you, dad! Someone make a note of this!!

Some things in science are good and real knowledge. Other things, like the creation replacement junk, is garbage.

I'm not sure what the "creation replacement junk" is, but you are in no position to determine what is "good and real knowledge" and what is "garbage," when it comes to science. Especially since your understanding of science is even worse than your theology.

 

[SkyWriting]

Wow, I actually agree with you, dad! Someone make a note of this!! I'm not sure what the "creation replacement junk" is, but you are in no position to determine what is "good and real knowledge" and what is "garbage," when it comes to science. Especially since your understanding of science is even worse than your theology.

Most people's is.
Much worse.

 

[Split Rock]

Lastly, Science and History are mutually exclusive. Fossils don't tell stories. People tell stories based on their personal worldview.

Science and history are not mutually exclusive. I have no idea where you get that idea from. Fossils can tell us about life that existed in the past... life that the authors of scripture knew nothing about, btw.

Except science says that things become less complex over time. Cells are not "less complex." They are nearly infinitely complex.

Your understanding of thermodynamics is flawed. The second law tells us that in an isolated system, entropy tends to increase. Local increases in entropy that are off set by increases in entropy are not precluded in such systems, and we see them all the time. Also, where ever did you get the idea that cells are "infinitely complex?" This is false.

Is there any scientific law to suggest complexity grows? There is not.

We see it all the time: snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, icicles, stalagmites, etc. The laws of thermodynamics allow for this.

Here we are living inside the only example of life in the cosmos and we can't find a scientific law or principal that would even suggest why life occurs. Isn't that scientifically odd?

Life on earth is the only life that we know of, and we haven't looked very far.. just within our own solar system. While we don't have any theories, we have several hypotheses concerning abiogensis. Is this odd? Not when you realize we have only one example of life to study, and precious little data about abiogensis to work with.

If evolution or pure "change" were responsible, don't you think science would have a rule, law, theory....anything at all we could test to support the idea?

The theory of evolution explains speciation, but not the origin of life. See above for that, and we are testing abiogenesis hypotheses.

But, according to science, (we'll call that "a reproducible event") life does not come from non-life, complex does not come from non-complex, and energy does not come from non-energy. So science rules-out science.

This is all wrong, as already explained by Psudopod.

You really need to stop making up these assertions without researching the subjects first.

 

[Split Rock]

Most people's is.
Much worse.

Dad should take a good look at that website, but I doubt he will bother. He is the guardian of "The Truth," and God's One True Prophet on Earth.

 

[dad]

Wow, I actually agree with you, dad! Someone make a note of this!!



I'm not sure what the "creation replacement junk" is, but you are in no position to determine what is "good and real knowledge" and what is "garbage," when it comes to science. Especially since your understanding of science is even worse than your theology.

The big bang, the first lifeform, are creation replacement junk. I am in a perfect position to determine they are absolute belief based nonsense that cannot be supported outside of a belief system in any way whatsoever.

Besides, the thread seems to deal in biblical impossibility, and both of those are certainly also biblical impossibilities.

 

[dad]

Dad should take a good look at that website, but I doubt he will bother. He is the guardian of "The Truth," and God's One True Prophet on Earth.

I have noticed when some evolution defenders get beat, (and I see that a lot) they resort to things like silly patronizing, and such. Ever noticed that?

 

[Split Rock]

The big bang, the first lifeform, are creation replacement junk. I am in a perfect position to determine they are absolute belief based nonsense that cannot be supported outside of a belief system in any way whatsoever.

Besides, the thread seems to deal in biblical impossibility, and both of those are certainly also biblical impossibilities.

According to you, dad. We've already established that your science is even worse than your broken theology, so where does that leave your musings on science based on that theology? The junk yard.

 

[Split Rock]

I have noticed when some evolution defenders get beat, (and I see that a lot) they resort to things like silly patronizing, and such. Ever noticed that?

No, I haven't. Since when have any evolution defenders gotten beaten here, anyway? Do you think your silly tagline makes any difference?

 

[dad]

According to you, dad. We've already established that your science is even worse than your broken theology, so where does that leave your musings on science based on that theology? The junk yard.

Science is fine. But the big bang, and imagined first lifeform is not real science by any stretch of imagination in any real way. We have established that so called science is present state projection religion, that by design, allows no place for God, or the spiritual, or anything but it's fishbowl rules.

Some must begin to wonder what spiritual forces designed it. Kind of like knowledge and anti knowledge. Light and darkness. Truth and lie.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes it does. Seeds are non living but produce living plants.

Seeds that lie in a dormant state are considered life, but dormant.
Life and movement exists, but not always at a visible level or speed.

Yes it does, entropy can and frequently does decrease at a local level. See snowflakes for example.

Crystals are much less complex than chaotic motion. One could conceivably map a crystal.

Yes it does. See fusion generators and fission bombs for examples.

Nope. Fusion releases some mass into energy. The amount (E) being = to mass x the speed of light squared.

Not at all. You're just mistaken.

Not according to any known experiments.

 

[dad]

No, I haven't. Since when have any evolution defenders gotten beaten here, anyway?

Since they cannot prove that the future and far past that they have made claims about existed. Whether you admit it or not, that is the death of so called science.

Now, imagine if say, in the US, some people got together maybe 10 billion dollars for a legal war chest. Imagine that the issue was narrowed down to the present state past needing to be proven to validate what is taught as science using it! Imagine a lot of minds getting free....

The present state existing in the future is a biblical impossibility. I propose that it is also a biblical impossibility for the far past. Ever notice no one challenges that in any significant way? That is because it is true.

 

[Split Rock]

Science is fine. But the big bang, and imagined first lifeform is not real science by any stretch of imagination in any real way. We have established that so called science is present state projection religion, that by design, allows no place for God, or the spiritual, or anything but it's fishbowl rules.

Some must begin to wonder what spiritual forces designed it. Kind of like knowledge and anti knowledge. Light and darkness. Truth and lie.

OK, so you acknowledge that you are on the anti knowledge, darkness and lie side of the equation... got it!

Since they cannot prove that the future and far past that they have made claims about existed. Whether you admit it or not, that is the death of so called science.

No dad, in science we don't "prove" anything. Since you, on the other hand, are in the "Prove" business, why don't you prove that the future and past exist/ed different? I already know the answer, as we all do... You Can't. All you can do is scoff at your betters.

Now, imagine if say, in the US, some people got together maybe 10 billion dollars for a legal war chest. Imagine that the issue was narrowed down to the present state past needing to be proven to validate what is taught as science using it! Imagine a lot of minds getting free....

Imagine a lot of money wasted on nothing. Imagine, instead what could be accomplished if you creationists used yoru efforts to do some good in the world..like clothing, sheltering and feeding the poor. Just imagine what could be accomplished?

The present state existing in the future is a biblical impossibility. I propose that it is also a biblical impossibility for the far past. Ever notice no one challenges that in any significant way? That is because it is true.

HAHAHAHAHAA! No, dad... no one ever challenges you on anything in this forum... do they?? You must me having short term memory problems. Or maybe because you have declared yourself to be "Undefeated," you have deluded yourself into believing you aren't even challenged on your broken science/ theology... Ever wonder why someone would even use "Undefeated" as a tagline under their name in the first place? Overcompensating for something, perhaps? Or maybe this is the only way you can convince yourself you are indeed never wrong?

 

[Split Rock]

Seeds that lie in a dormant state are considered life, but dormant.

I have to agree with you on that one. However, all because we haven't seen life come from non-life, doesn't mean is is not possible. There is no "vital force" required for life and life is made up of the same chemicals as non-life.

[/URL]Life and movement exists, but not always at a visible level or speed.
Crystals are much less complex than chaotic motion. One could conceivably map a crystal.

This makes no sense. What is "chaotic motion" and what does it have to do with your erroneous claim that disorder can never increase?

Nope. Fusion releases some mass into energy. The amount (E) being = to mass x the speed of light squared.

Yes, and it shows your statement about energy never coming from non-energy is wrong.

 

[Tuddrussell]

=
Is there any scientific law to suggest complexity grows? There is not. Here we are living inside the only example of life in the cosmos and we can't find a scientific law or principal that would even suggest why life occurs. Isn't that scientifically odd?

That is called evolution, more specifically evolutionary abiogensesis.

If evolution or pure "change" were responsible, don't you think science would have a rule, law, theory....anything at all we could test to support the idea?

Natural selection for one.