How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[Paul of Eugene OR]

BobRyan said: ↑


How many plants are growing on the sun???

the energy required to push endergonic reactions cannot be limited to 93 million miles from the reaction. The energy has to be in the immediate surroundings to the endergonic reaction. The appeal to the sun god - as if evolutionism was not going to happen in the reactions available to us on earth - is an appeal to fiction for the fiction of evolutionism. Asimov's statement is not about one reaction -- it is about billions of years of reactions not balancing without fusion reactions the Sun.

So you don't believe in solar powered devices or solar powered plant life. The rest of us will just laugh at such silliness.

 

[BobRyan]

So you don't believe in solar powered devices or solar powered plant life. The rest of us will just laugh at such silliness.

The "rest of us" will "just laugh" when you pretend that the sun is sitting next to the solar powered devices or the plant life.

Photons power those systems - regardless of their source.

It is the presence of photons RIGHT ON the skin of the device/plant that powers it - - REGARDLESS of the source of the photon.

Sorry to be the be bearer of bad news - but when it comes to actual science - the total entropy is the sum of that in the system AND and its immediate environment.


ΔS(total) = ΔS(sys) + ΔS(surr)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

After college, Kramer went to seminary to study ways to read Genesis through a different lens, taking the view that you can reconcile faith and science without forcing the two to cohere line by line. By 2009, he had done a complete reversal: “[W]e should proceed with extreme caution when trying to understand science through the writings of an ancient culture that looked at life poetically, not scientifically,” he wrote in an op-ed supporting evolution from a Christian perspective.
In 2014, Kramer became managing editor at BioLogos. This year, he started a blog called “The Evolving Evangelical.” Today he still considers himself a creationist—just one who happens to embrace evolution and who helps others do the same.................

I believe every Christian should become familiar with the Hebrew culture and their writing styles.

Saul/Paul of the New Testament said of himself that he was a "hebrew of hebrews" and knew the language.

Gen 14:13
And one who is escaping cometh and declareth to Abram the Hebrew,
Phl 3:5
circumcision on the eighth day! of the race of Israel! of the tribe of Benjamin! a Hebrew of Hebrews! according to law a Pharisee!

I found this site to be very good for those interested.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/

The Living Words

Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of Eternal Life. John 6:68

The original authors of the Bible, and the original readers of their documents, lived in a world very different from our own. Their language and perspective was very different from ours and if we are going to read their texts we must read it from their perspective, not from our modern twenty-first century perspective. Our own concepts of blessings, praises, and wisdom (all abstract in thought) would be completely foreign to the ancient Hebrews. Instead, they would easily associate with such ideas as kneeling down in respect, following a star and eating cheese (all concrete in thought).

Poetry in the Hebrew Bible
By Jeff A. Benner

Hebrew Parallelism (Chiasmus)
The Chiastic Structure of Genesis 1:1 to 2:3
The Poetry of Genesis Chapter One
Poetical Translation of Genesis Chapter One

Hebrew Parallelism (Chiasmus)

As Hebrew poetry is written much differently than our own Western style of poetry, many do not recognize the poetry which can cause problems when translating or interpreting passages written in poetry.

Approximately 75% of the Hebrew Bible is poetry. All of Psalms and Proverbs are Hebrew poetry and many other books, such as the book of Genesis, are filled with poetry. The reason much of the Bible was written in poetry is that it was originally sung and stories that are sung are much easier to memorize that when simply spoken. There is much more poetry in the Bible than most realize because most people do not understand it.

The most common form of poetry in the Hebrew Bible is parallelisms, which is the expression of one idea in two or more different ways.

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path. (Psalms 119:105)
The above example of a simple parallel and can be written in this manner;

Your word is;
1. a lamp to my feet
2. a light for my path
Here we see that the words "lamp" and "light" are paralleled as well as the words "my feet" and "my path". Below is another example of this style of poetry.

My son, my teachings you shall not forget and my commands your heart shall guard. (Proverbs 3:1)
In this verse the words "my teachings" is paralleled with "my commands" and "you shall not forget" is paralleled with "your heart shall guard" and can be written as follows.

My son;
1. my teachings you shall not forget
2. my commands your heart shall guard
Below is Psalm 15:1-3 broken down into its poetic sequences. In this example each thought is represented by the letters A, B, C and D. Each expression of a thought is represented by the numbers 1 and 2.

A1. Lord, who may dwell in your sanctuary?
A2. Who may live on your holy hill?

B1. He whose walk is blameless
B2. and who does what is righteous.

C1. who speaks the truth from his heart
C2. and has no slander on his tongue.

D1. who does his neighbor no wrong
D2. and casts no slur on his fellow man.
While the book of Psalms and Proverbs are the most recognized as being poetical in nature, it is found throughout the whole of the Hebrew Bible.

The Poetry of Genesis Chapter One

When we read Genesis chapter one we usually see only one story there, but there are actually many stories. Why don't we see these multiple stories? Because we read the Hebrew Bible from a Modern Western thinkers point of view and not from an Ancient Eastern thinkers view like the Hebrews who wrote it. The Hebrews style of writing is prolific with a style of poetry unfamiliar to most readers of the Bible. This poetry is nothing like the poetry we are used to reading today and therefore it is invisible to us..........



.





.

 

[Loudmouth]

The "rest of us" will "just laugh" when you pretend that the sun is sitting next to the solar powered devices or the plant life.

Where do you think the solar power comes from?

Photons power those systems - regardless of their source.

Photons just appearing out of nowhere would violate the 2nd law, wouldn't they?

 

[essentialsaltes]

the energy required to push endergonic reactions cannot be limited to 93 million miles from the reaction. The energy has to be in the immediate surroundings to the endergonic reaction.

You know that warmth you feel when the sun is up in the clear sky (what we scientists call 'daytime') compared to the not so warm feeling when the sun is blocked from your vision by the earth ('night')? That warm feeling? That's energy in your immediate surroundings that came from the sun.

You know that thing in the sky we call the 'sun' that you see with your vision? You are seeing it using light in your immediate surroundings that came from the sun.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The total energy in the immediate surroundings is less than the energy that is available to be used to "push" the Endergonic process for forming glucose.

That is demonstrably incorrect. We can measure the energy of the surroundings, and control for it, demonstrating how much is needed for photosynthesis. Not only is there sufficient energy in full daylight, but the excess is so great that plants have to adapt when exposed to too much of it like human tanning.

 

[pat34lee]

It was supposed to be shown to people already indoctrinated.

That's what I'm doing. Showing the evolutionists indoctrinated
into their false religion, or philosophy.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's what I'm doing. Showing the evolutionists indoctrinated
into their false religion, or philosophy.

No, people already indoctrinated in Christianity. Very few Christian films are actually aimed towards converting atheists.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The "rest of us" will "just laugh" when you pretend that the sun is sitting next to the solar powered devices or the plant life.

Photons power those systems - regardless of their source.

It is the presence of photons RIGHT ON the skin of the device/plant that powers it - - REGARDLESS of the source of the photon.

Sorry to be the be bearer of bad news - but when it comes to actual science - the total entropy is the sum of that in the system AND and its immediate environment.


ΔS(total) = ΔS(sys) + ΔS(surr)

I notice you have not yet responded to my challenge for you to explain how it is that, with all the entropy you have created from merely living as many years you have lived, you are still alive.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The "rest of us" will "just laugh" when you pretend that the sun is sitting next to the solar powered devices or the plant life.

Let me get this straight. You assert that the sun is not close enough to plants and solar powered devices to enable plants to live, solar powered devices to function?

We continue to . . . . just laugh.

 

[BobRyan]

Let me get this straight. You assert that the sun is not close enough to plants and solar powered devices to enable plants to live, solar powered devices to function?

You have "quote you" well. I never said that.

Your failed "appeal to the sun" - so unhappy with photons in our existing immediate environment. "AS IF" you could not figure out the full gibbs energy, enthalpy and entropy equation without first "factoring in a fusion reaction on the sun" has a huge flaw.

If you can't do the immediate physics here in the lab and see the entropy - in the actual experiment - because you "have to account for the origin of the photon" or the "origin of the room temperature" then why didn't you also have to "account for the origin of the sun"??

Why aren't you back tracking to nucleosynthesis of other entire solar systems trying to account for how the sun got the point of even having a hydrogen fusion event in the first place?

That sort of back-tracking-to-account-for-current-local-surroundings has no end to it and is pointless because the experiment "in the lab" already demonstrates the 2nd law.

We continue to . . . . just laugh.

Which may well be the "full explanatory capacity" of blind faith evolutionism.

 

[BobRyan]

I notice you have not yet responded to my challenge for you to explain how it is that, with all the entropy you have created from merely living as many years you have lived, you are still alive.

I assume that is supposed to make sense.

You should add -- "There is always gravity -- so why aren't you a pancake by now".

Is it because "gravity reverses" when you grow a bit taller or when you get out of bed each morning??

 

[BobRyan]

So, if photosynthesis can't use all wavelengths, you're saying that plants growing isn't a decrease in entropy? Show us that. Preferably after the first question you dodged.

The total energy in the immediate surroundings is less than the energy that is available to be used to "push" the Endergonic process for forming glucose.

hint:
During formation of glucose the system is gaining energy – so ΔG is positive – Endergonic, non-spontaneous. To occur at all it must be “pushed or pulled” by associative Exergonic reaction – energy input from its surroundings.

Endergonic reactions can be achieved if they are either pulled or pushed by an exergonic (stability increasing, negative change in free energy) process. Of course, in all cases the net reaction of the total system (the reaction under study plus the puller or pusher reaction) is exergonic.

All physical and chemical systems in the universe follow the second law of thermodynamics and proceed in a downhill, i.e., exergonic, direction. Thus, left to itself, any physical or chemical system will proceed, according to the second law of thermodynamics, in a direction that tends to lower the free energy of the system (ΔG is negative), and thus to expend energy in the form of work.

The energy transfer available in the immediate surrounding (proximity - touching the plant) when combined with the reaction for forming glucos is still a net increase in entropy

And of course - when a photosystem absorbs a photon, the internal energy (U = hν0) of the photon is converted into the free energy of the chlorophyll excited state (ΔG) and some part of the energy is expected to be converted into entropy (ΔS),

===========================================

1. Photosystem I, non-cyclic electron flow path:
   2Chlorophyll + 2γ(700 nm) -> 2Chlorophyll + NADPH + ATP+ H 2 O
   cyclic electron flow path:
   
   2Chlorophyll + 2γ(700 nm) -> 2Chlorophyll + ATP+ H 2 O
2. Photosystem II:
   
   H 2 O + 2γ(680 nm) + 2Chlorophyll -> 2Chlorophyll + 1/2 O 2 + 2H+
3. Calvin Cycle:
   
   6CO 2 + 12NADPH + 18ATP + 12H 2 O -> C 6 H 12 O 6

===================In summary -
PII - Photosystem II:
PI - Photosystem I:

12 PII + 12PI(non-cyclic) + 6PI(cyclic) + Calvin Cycle

give us

6CO 2 + 24H 2 O + 60γ -> C 6 H 12 O 6 + 6O 2 + 18H 2 O.

"We can of course see now how the biome functions thermodynamically. It requires a great deal of energy input in the form of light, and the cumulative generation of entropy, first during the photosynthesis of glucose, and then through the respiration of glucose back into carbon dioxide and water (not to mention all of the other processes of life which go into circulating glucose through the biome) guarantees that the entropy always increases. This relentless increase in entropy, along with the conservation of energy (in terms of heat, internal energy and work) make up the two "laws" of thermodynamics."

A "decrease in entropy" for what? the reaction AND its immediate environment?

That answer that is always - "no".

That is demonstrably incorrect. We can measure the energy of the surroundings, and control for it, demonstrating how much is needed for photosynthesis. Not only is there sufficient energy in full daylight, but the excess is so great that plants have to adapt when exposed to too much of it like human tanning.

You seem to have missed the point entirely.


ΔStotal = ΔSsys + ΔSsurr


The increase in entropy - is specific to energy transfer to the plant based on the energy immediately available at the point of the skin of the plant. Chlorophyll reflects green light - none of that light is used by the plant. So you have energy applied to "push" the non-spontaneous Endergonic reaction sequence needed to make glucose. AT each stage as the effort is made to "roll uphill" a lot of energy is applied and some of it not used at all because the state of the system itself requires it.

Endergonic reactions can be achieved if they are either pulled or pushed by an exergonic (stability increasing, negative change in free energy) process. Of course, in all cases the net reaction of the total system (the reaction under study plus the puller or pusher reaction) is exergonic.

Exergonic means that ΔG is negative - the total system has lost energy because you "never get something for nothing"..
ΔG = ΔH – TΔS

 

[The Barbarian]

So for the past few billion years, entropy has been decreasing on Earth, because it's increasing on the Sun. How does that cause a problem for evolution?

Are you ready to brace yourself, and tell us what phenomenon required for evolution, is ruled out by thermodynamics?

I'm guessing not. For reasons we all understand by now.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I assume that is supposed to make sense.

You should add -- "There is always gravity -- so why aren't you a pancake by now".

Is it because "gravity reverses" when you grow a bit taller or when you get out of bed each morning??

I'm waiting for you to show how you understand entropy by explaining that little mystery. Of course, real scientists know the real answer. I don't think you do. That little mystery of why you remain alive after years and years of steadily creating, increasing entropy. Explain in terms of why all that increased entropy you know you have created hasn't killed you yet. By the way, entropy isn't the same thing as energy and energy isn't the same thing as entropy. You seem to be confusing the two in your post just above this one.

 

[SharkOfTheCovenant]

BobRyan your whole entropy argument only applies to closed systems, Earth is an open system (it receives energy from the sun for example). Your whole argument is based on a false premise. And besides, the theory of evolution does not care about thermo dynamics. Evolution describes a pattern in nature, not specific quantum mechanical interactions.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The "rest of us" will "just laugh" when you pretend that the sun is sitting next to the solar powered devices or the plant life.

Photons power those systems - regardless of their source.

And (now think about this one for a second) where do those photons come from?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's what I'm doing. Showing the evolutionists indoctrinated
into their false religion, or philosophy.

Once again, creationists try to disprove evolution by making it look more like their own beliefs. Hilarious.