Genesis chapter one

[themeecer]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
I don't understand how you can construct a macroevolutionary probability argument from microevolutionary probability assumptions.

I didn't constuct the argument.  Check out Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, pp. 118-20

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Hey, dueling quotes!

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from knowledge and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. . . . Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

-- Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD)

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by themeecer
I didn't constuct the argument.  Check out Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, pp. 118-20

Why didn't he publish this in a peer-reviewed scientific journal instead of in a book for a lay audience?

 

[chickenman]

Dr. Harry Rimmer (SC.D, D.D) who was allegedly one of only 12 men around 1940 capable of understanding Einstein's theory of relativity.

apparently he wasn't capable of understanding the theory of evolution

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Would that be the same Harry Rimmer mentioned in Robert Newman's essay, "Evangelicals and Crackpot Science", at www.arn.org/docs/newman/rn_crackpot.htm ??

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas
Would that be the same Harry Rimmer mentioned in Robert Newman's essay, "Evangelicals and Crackpot Science", at www.arn.org/docs/newman/rn_crackpot.htm ??

LOL you have to love those crackpot scientist.

 

[themeecer]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Why didn't he publish this in a peer-reviewed scientific journal instead of in a book for a lay audience?

I don't know ... maybe you should ask him.  But he has probably passed away by now.

 

[themeecer]

Originally posted by chickenman
apparently he wasn't capable of understanding the theory of evolution

Why because he believes that evolution is a far fetched idea?  I could say you are a complete moron, just because you say evolution is a viable solution.  That wouldn't be fair, though.  Just because you follow morons on one idea, doesn't make you moronic in all your decisions.  In fact ... I have learned it is a good idea to eat the meat and spit out the bones.  If a person had a bunch of good ideas and one bad one, I don't throw out all the good ideas as well.

 

[chickenman]

Why because he believes that evolution is a far fetched idea?

no, because he claims evolution requires multiplied millions of miracles and that it violates biological and paleontological laws. It betrays his lack of understanding of evolution. Which steps in evolution are miraculous, and which laws does it violate - perhaps you can tell me?

 

[themeecer]

Originally posted by chickenman
no, because he claims evolution requires multiplied millions of miracles and that it violates biological and paleontological laws. It betrays his lack of understanding of evolution. Which steps in evolution are miraculous, and which laws does it violate - perhaps you can tell me?

The Second Law Thermodynamics (Law of Energy Decay) states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work.

How many laws does it take for a concept to break in order for the concept to be invalid?  I think the answer is one.  So I will stop right here.

 

[Douglaangu]

That would work, if the earth was a closed system, and didnt recieve energy from the sun.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by themeecer
The Second Law Thermodynamics (Law of Energy Decay) states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work.

So I guess your own body, having grown from a single cell, violates the 2nd law.

...which means your existence is impossible.

...which means you don't exist.

...which, by applying the corollary to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" gives: "You are not, therefore you don't think."

 

[themeecer]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
So I guess your own body, having grown from a single cell, violates the 2nd law.

...which means your existence is impossible.

...which means you don't exist.

...which, by applying the corollary to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" gives: "You are not, therefore you don't think."

Um no ... very simply my body recieves energy from outside sources, ie. food

 

 

 

[themeecer]

Originally posted by Douglaangu
That would work, if the earth was a closed system, and didnt recieve energy from the sun.

The sun doesn't build life, except in plants, it breaks it down...

 

[chickenman]

evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics as long as your cells are capable of dividing and the DNA polymerases which allow that to happen are working - because its the very same DNA polymerases + mutations + natural selection that maintain and increase order during evolution. - unless you'd like to claim that the single celled zygote contains more information than any of the subsequent cells it gives rise to - of course, that would be a silly claim

evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics because life doesn't violate it.

 

[chickenman]

The sun doesn't build life, except in plants, it breaks it down...

- where do you think the energy to synthesise your body ultimately came from - try tracing the food chain back to its source

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Really, the question is: Is there a God, or not. How you answer this question has a direct impact on your opinion of the evolution vs creation debate.

Nope. The question is whether you believe science and reason or you ignore it and believe your own INTERPRETATION of the bible.

Science and evolution are entirely silent on the existance of God. It has absolutly nothing to say on the matter. I think most YECs deny science because they are afraid of the implications. Not about God, but that they are unable to grasp the enormity and complexity of everything, so retreat to the little tiny simple universe of YEC that doesn't scare them so much.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by themeecer
Um no ... very simply my body recieves energy from outside sources, ie. food.

Bingo! So an input of energy from an outside source allows a system to decrease in entropy.

What other systems do we know that take in energy from an outside source and show a decrease in entropy over time? Something world-wide, that covers all living things?

Yes, the ECOSYSTEM! The sun provides the energy that enables highly ordered living things to arise.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by MSBS
The question is whether you believe science and reason or you ignore it 

Believe which one: science or reason?

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.


Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. [9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

1 Cor. 3:19  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness";



 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Really, the question is: Is there a God, or not. How you answer this question has a direct impact on your opinion of the evolution vs creation debate.

Sorry, John, but it doesn't.  Especially regarding evoution vs creation it has no impact.  Evolution isn't atheism.  Evolution, for theists, is simply how God created.

Nor does belief in the existence of a deity affect whether you accept evolution.  Over half the evolutionary biologists in history have been theists.  So, believing a deity exists has no direct impact.

Now, believing a deity does not exist does have an impact.  That I'll grant. Because if you don't believe in a deity, then evolution is the only answer you have to the Argument from Design.  Without evolution, you can't be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist."

But accepting evolution does not require giving up belief in a deity.