Human Evolution

[PsychoSarah]

The universe doesn't lose energy, it just transfers and spreads out.

 

[Dizredux]

Anya,


Perhaps I can address the pushback you have gotten here.

Imagine if you would someone coming to Christian Forums and asserting that Christianity is false because there is no proof that Jesus and the 14 disciples were beheaded in Rome.

Again imagine this person refusing to listen to any of your attempts to explain what the Bible really says. No matter what you say, the person continues to demand that you show proof that Jesus and his disciples were taken to Rome and beheaded and if you cannot do this, then Christianity is false.

What would be your reaction to that person, how would you handle it?

Just something to think on.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

First law states that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, nothing new has been created, only at creation week.

Evolution doesn't require the creation or destruction of energy or matter. So where is the problem?

Second law states that energy is decaying or running down to a state of heat death. Usable energy.

When applying the second law, you have to include all of the changes in entropy through the entire system. For evolution, that system includes all life on Earth and all energy coming into the Earth. As it turns out, the total entropy of the system is increasing when you include the entropy gained by the Sun.

If you can't get something as simple as this right, why should we trust anything you say as it relates to the rest of science, the Bible, or faith?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Anya,


Perhaps I can address the pushback you have gotten here.

Imagine if you would someone coming to Christian Forums and asserting that Christianity is false because there is no proof that Jesus and the 14 disciples were beheaded in Rome.

Again imagine this person refusing to listen to any of your attempts to explain what the Bible really says. No matter what you say, the person continues to demand that you show proof that Jesus and his disciples were taken to Rome and beheaded and if you cannot do this, then Christianity is false.

What would be your reaction to that person, how would you handle it?

Just something to think on.

Dizredux

I listen, and try to be respectful and even be of help, but if she doesn't accept when people who don't share her beliefs try to debate her respectfully there isn't much that can be done. I try to be nice, but sometimes people need to see the flaws in their arguments.

For all I know creationism could be correct, I don't personally feel that way about it, but you can't hold your own in a debate using biased sources and arguments that have already been refuted.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In short, she doesn't seem to want or accept help from anyone on here.

 

[bhsmte]

I listen, and try to be respectful and even be of help, but if she doesn't accept when people who don't share her beliefs try to debate her respectfully there isn't much that can be done. I try to be nice, but sometimes people need to see the flaws in their arguments.

For all I know creationism could be correct, I don't personally feel that way about it, but you can't hold your own in a debate using biased sources and arguments that have already been refuted.

That is because she is refuting the evidence against creation and for evolution based on a psychological need to do so and not on the evidence.

YEC's must reject science to have their belief, there is no way to avoid this and they will look silly doing so and there is no way around that either.

 

[USincognito]

"Alfred Kroeber is remembered as one of the major figures in the history of American anthropology. A principal proponent of Boasian Anthropology, Kroeber (who was Franz Boas' first student) was also the second American to earn a PhD in Anthropology. Kroeber taught at U.C. Berkeley from 1901 to 1946, and served as both director of the university's Anthropological Museum as well as curator of Anthropology at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco"
Alfred Kroeber

Yeah, I read all that on his Wikipedia entry. My question still stands:

A quote mine from 1961 of someone who died in 1960 and had retired from academia in 1946?

 

[USincognito]

We are talking about Genesis chapter 1 here. It's clear in saying that everything was made in 6 days seperatly from one another, humans apart from animals.

Taken literally, that would be wrong. Of course Genesis 1 is meant to teach a theological lesson, not one about history, so that's not an issue.

Then you have "reality" with "emperical" evidence to say we Evolved from animals and the animals Evolved from cells.

The scare quotes don't help your case nor to they make reality and emperical evidence go away. Further, we didn't just evolve from animals, we are animals.

 

[USincognito]

Are they reviewed by qualified CREATIONIST scientists or not? And if not, then why not?

No. What usually happens is intellectual dishonesty like this.

Are Humans as Close to Chickens as They Are to Chimps?
Are Humans as Close to Chickens as They Are to Chimps?
by Brian Thomas, M.S.

 

[USincognito]

Ok (remember the evidence is the same as far as fossils and geology go)

Just the INTERPRETATION is different

I love the inconsistency.

Genesis cannot ever be interpreted. But one can "interpret" a mountain to be 4,000 years old and the result of the Flood and that's no different than "interpreting" it to fit the standard model.

 

[VirOptimus]

We are talking about Genesis chapter 1 here. It's clear in saying that everything was made in 6 days seperatly from one another, humans apart from animals.

Then you have "reality" with "emperical" evidence to say we Evolved from animals and the animals Evolved from cells.

Sure, religion and science don't operate on the same level, but it certianly conflicts greatly. Believe it or not the 2 should go together, and not be seperate.

Or Evolution is a huge danger to the Christian faith and the inerrant words of God. IT IS a religion in itself to gain as many followers as possible. It contradicts the very first chapter of Genesis, the words of God as the Creator of this Universe.

I think that the problem is that you think there is only one kind of truth, a very modern way of thinking. Although Im not a beliver or really a bible scholar I can recognise that the bible is not written like a factual science book. It is not meant to be a description of physical reality, its more meant as a guide to a metaphysical truth. The (very modern) idea to use the bible as a written history book will therefore cause all kinds of trouble (as evidenced by the debates here) and is also something that I think is detrimental to the christian faith.

As you yourserlf is saying, christianity wants to grow and get as many followers as possible, is it then reasonable that you debate physical science instead of the spiritual message from the gospels? Especially as your views on physical science evidently drives people away from what you belive?

I personaly dont think there need to be a conflict between science and religion.

 

[anyathesword]

I have no idea where you get that from, I am simply stating what is obvious and everyone sees it, so why play games?

If she wants to learn, it is up to her. She has been deluged with information about evolution and she hand waves it all away saying it is all a lie, but she doesn't have time to study it and she also said she doesn't understand it.

Give me a break, she has chosen her path and if she does learn, it is clear it won't be here, it will need to be on her own time and in her own place, if that ever occurs.

Can you stop talking about me and trying to analyze me with your "psychologist" abilities? You are not my doctor, so stop.

This is about evolution and creationism. Not about me, not about my kids, not about face palms and whatever other nonsense you all put on here.

Debate the list I posted and leave it at that. If I sound know it all, then let it be, if I sound unwilling to learn (to you ony) then let it be. Just get on with the debate.

There is only loudmouth who continues normally, the rest of you just love to analyze people here.

If I don't help athiest to see the creation perspective, then that is my problem. If you all don't want to learn; its not my problem.

Now stop criticizing me and focus on the debate.

Like mature people.

 

[anyathesword]

I would be shocked if she could even tell you what the laws of thermodynamics are. All that is nothing more than a parroting of something she's been told, not something she understands.

Did you ever win a FULL RIDE scholarship for 5 YEARS of college that payed for ALL classes, and books?

The amount won consists of more than $35,000??

Before you say more, it's best to keep thy mouth shut, thanks.

 

[USincognito]

Did you ever win a FULL RIDE scholarship for 5 YEARS of college that payed for ALL classes, and books?

The only people who get 5 year scholarships are football players. Full scholarship general population students are expected to graduate in 4 years.

 

[lasthero]

if I sound unwilling to learn (to you ony) then let it be.

It's not only to him - most everyone here has come to this conclusion, and it's because you've flat out stated that absolutely nothing will change your mind about evolution. It's a bit hard to learn about a subject that you've already decided you know enough to say it's completely wrong.

One of the key steps to learning about anything is to admit that you don't know everything about the subject at hand -that what you know about the subject might be wrong. If you can't even do that, you can't learn.

If you all don't want to learn; its not my problem.

I love learning. You haven't presented anything to teach.

By the by, I cant help but notice that, when selfinflicted said you didn't know the laws of thermodynamics, you tried to correct him...by only listing two, and giving grade school definitions of them, at that. I asked you before and I'll ask again - do you even know what the other laws of thermodynamics are? Did you even know there were more than two?

Did you ever win a FULL RIDE scholarship for 5 YEARS of college that payed for ALL classes, and books?

The amount won consists of more than $35,000??

Before you say more, it's best to keep thy mouth shut, thanks

Education is a useless thing if you refuse to actually use it.

 

[anyathesword]

Sorry, but you are flat out wrong. Let's take the first one. How is evolution contradicted by thermodynamics? Show us.

I already did! Look at this photo:
Creation Science Today - Physical Scientific Evidence for Creation: Universal Decay

"Evolution maintains that high levels of organized complexity suddenly appeared out of nothingness, and that somehow cosmos (universe and heavens) was produced by some primordial explosion referred to as the Big Bang. The process of evolution requires that “atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements9… thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.”

This idea is completely contradicted by the Second Law, which stipulates that all real “systems and processes” including all biological and physical processes, naturally diminish to lower levels of organization and complexity—regardless of whether the system is open or closed. According to Dr. R. B. Lindsay, Ph.D. in physics, the Second Law reveals that the “natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.” In summary, there is an irreversible downward trend at work throughout the universe.
Creation Science Today - Physical Scientific Evidence for Creation: De-Evolution


In my words, according to the picture posted above, evolution started from very simple systems and over millions of years became more and more complex: invertebrates, vertebrates, humans.

However the Second Law says that all systems are decaying or running down and this is OBSERVABLE in nature, in humans, etc. Everything is getting older and breaking down. COSMOS to CHAOS (organization to disorganization), not CHAOS to COSMOS (disorganization to organization), all by itself, according to evolution.

Entropy is a mathematical formula for useless energy in a system. As usable energy is used, it is lost in the form of unusable energy.

Creation week started with creation and a constant amount of usable energy. As time goes by the energy is used and the rest is lost to unusable energy.

The First Law says that matter can't be created or destroyed. So all matter and energy was created in the first week and nothing else has been created after this week. The QUANTITY of matter and energy stays the same, but the QUALITY of matter and energy détériorâtes.

Every energy transformation reduces the amount of usable energy. Evolutionists say the energy is rising to higher levels of complexity and organization.

"Evolutionists have attempted to harmonize entropy and evolution, but this is not possible because one is the antithesis of the other. Many scientists believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the theory of evolution and is one of the important reasons why many esteemed research scientists have abandoned evolutionary doctrine in favor of creationism."
Creation Science Today - Physical Scientific Evidence for Creation: De-Evolution

 

[anyathesword]

It's not only to him - most everyone here has come to this conclusion, and it's because you've flat out stated that absolutely nothing will change your mind about evolution. It's a bit hard to learn about a subject that you've already decided you know enough to say it's completely wrong.

One of the key steps to learning about anything is to admit that you don't know everything about the subject at hand -that what you know about the subject might be wrong. If you can't even do that, you can't learn.



I love learning. You haven't presented anything to teach.

By the by, I cant help but notice that, when selfinflicted said you didn't know the laws of thermodynamics, you tried to correct him...by only listing two, and giving grade school definitions of them, at that. I asked you before and I'll ask again - do you even know what the other laws of thermodynamics are? Did you even know there were more than two?



Education is a useless thing if you refuse to actually use it.

Zeroth law: If two systems are both in thermal equilibrium with a third then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other

Third Law: The entropy of a perfect crystal of any pure substance approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero



Just take two moments and take a deep breath. Ok finished?

Now STOP focusing on ME and start focusing on the debate!! What are you trying to prove? That I can't learn because I am set on my belief?

Leave it be, please!

I don't need to admit anything, until the moment passes that I would need to.

I don't believe it's hard to learn about evolution when I know it's wrong. The point is leave me alone and debate the list I posted. Ok, it's not too much to ask?

 

[anyathesword]

The only people who get 5 year scholarships are football players. Full scholarship general population students are expected to graduate in 4 years.

For the road I was going for, it would take me 5 years.

 

[Sayre]

I already did! Look at this photo:
Creation Science Today - Physical Scientific Evidence for Creation: Universal Decay

"Evolution maintains that high levels of organized complexity suddenly appeared out of nothingness, and that somehow cosmos (universe and heavens) was produced by some primordial explosion referred to as the Big Bang. The process of evolution requires that “atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements9… thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.”

This idea is completely contradicted by the Second Law, which stipulates that all real “systems and processes” including all biological and physical processes, naturally diminish to lower levels of organization and complexity—regardless of whether the system is open or closed. According to Dr. R. B. Lindsay, Ph.D. in physics, the Second Law reveals that the “natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.” In summary, there is an irreversible downward trend at work throughout the universe.
Creation Science Today - Physical Scientific Evidence for Creation: De-Evolution


In my words, according to the picture posted above, evolution started from very simple systems and over millions of years became more and more complex: invertebrates, vertebrates, humans.

However the Second Law says that all systems are decaying or running down and this is OBSERVABLE in nature, in humans, etc. Everything is getting older and breaking down. COSMOS to CHAOS (organization to disorganization), not CHAOS to COSMOS (disorganization to organization), all by itself, according to evolution.

Entropy is a mathematical formula for useless energy in a system. As usable energy is used, it is lost in the form of unusable energy.

Creation week started with creation and a constant amount of usable energy. As time goes by the energy is used and the rest is lost to unusable energy.

The First Law says that matter can't be created or destroyed. So all matter and energy was created in the first week and nothing else has been created after this week. The QUANTITY of matter and energy stays the same, but the QUALITY of matter and energy détériorâtes.

Every energy transformation reduces the amount of usable energy. Evolutionists say the energy is rising to higher levels of complexity and organization.

"Evolutionists have attempted to harmonize entropy and evolution, but this is not possible because one is the antithesis of the other. Many scientists believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the theory of evolution and is one of the important reasons why many esteemed research scientists have abandoned evolutionary doctrine in favor of creationism."
Creation Science Today - Physical Scientific Evidence for Creation: De-Evolution

Anya you've been lied to, again. That isn't the definition of evolution or of the big bang. Hint - the big bang wasn't an explosion. It was an expansion. Evolution doesn't believe that complex life forms come from nothing. Evolution is not abiogenesis.

I know you have faith - and I don't believe you are intentionally lying or deceiving etc, but I have to suggest at this point in time that God is not impressed with misrepresentation, even if it appears in favour of "creationism".

There is nothing to fear at all from engaging in what evolutionists are actually saying. If your view is right, your God will protect your understanding... and if your view is not right, then you have nothing but truth to gain.

 

[anyathesword]

I think that the problem is that you think there is only one kind of truth, a very modern way of thinking. Although Im not a beliver or really a bible scholar I can recognise that the bible is not written like a factual science book. It is not meant to be a description of physical reality, its more meant as a guide to a metaphysical truth. The (very modern) idea to use the bible as a written history book will therefore cause all kinds of trouble (as evidenced by the debates here) and is also something that I think is detrimental to the christian faith.

As you yourserlf is saying, christianity wants to grow and get as many followers as possible, is it then reasonable that you debate physical science instead of the spiritual message from the gospels? Especially as your views on physical science evidently drives people away from what you belive?

I personaly dont think there need to be a conflict between science and religion.

I know it's not a science book. It is an account (Genesis) of how our life began. HOW is not mentioned scientifically. That's why science needs to harmonize with this first chapter and just try to see that all forms were created seperately.

Whether you want or not, their is a huge conflict between Genesis and evolution.