RickG, your thoughts on this, please?

[AV1611VET]

Rick, please QV this video @ 0:06:26 and comment -- thank you!
John Ankerberg - Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. Hugh Ross 1 of 3 - YouTube

 

[RickG]

Rick, please QV this video @ 0:06:26 and comment -- thank you!
John Ankerberg - Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. Hugh Ross 1 of 3 - YouTube

It has been a while since I have seen this one. It will be a few days before I have the time to watch it again, but I do intend to do just that. One of the things I remember previously is Hovind getting very upset because Ross was pressing questions that Hovind did not want to answer. Seems Hovind limits what can and cannot be discussed in his public debates or he will not debate.

I don't remember if Ross renders his version of Noah's flood in this video, but if he does, I disagree with him. He talks about a regional flood that covers a good bit of present day Iraq. The reason I disagree with him is that neither the topography nor the evidence support his idea. There have been thousands of boreholes drilled in that region, none of which have provided any evidence of a flood outside the common fluvial floods from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and especially the delta region.

 

[RickG]

Concerning the comment at 6:26 this is Hugh Ross explaining the Big Bang theory, and he does an excellent job doing it. After all, his does hold a PhD in Astrophysics.

Why do you ask?

 

[AV1611VET]

It has been a while since I have seen this one. It will be a few days before I have the time to watch it again, but I do intend to do just that.

I didn't ask you to watch the whole video, I just want you to start at 0:06:26 and watch a few seconds.

Then maybe you'll change your tune about I making up the Romans 8 = entropy interpretation.

If I made it up, what's Dr. Ross doing saying the same thing?

 

[RickG]

I didn't ask you to watch the whole video, I just want you to start at 0:06:26 and watch a few seconds.

Then maybe you'll change your tune about I making up the Romans 8 = entropy interpretation.

If I made it up, what's Dr. Ross doing saying the same thing?

QV post 3, I did comment on it. What Ross said about entropy and what the common interpretation of entropy by the creationists community are completely different. As for the principle of entropy and the expansion of the universe being described in the bible and specifically Romans, I totally disagree with Ross.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[AV1611VET]

QV post 3, I did comment on it. What Ross said about entropy and what the common interpretation of entropy are completely different. As for the principle of entropy and the expansion of the universe being described in the bible and specifically Romans, I totally disagree with Ross.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Do you still think I made it up?

 

[RickG]

Do you still think I made it up?

Previously you gave no reference for your source to use Romans to describe thermodynamics. You presented that statement as if you came up with it yourself. That is why I said you are making up stuff.

Is Hugh Ross your source for that or is there another source? Please provide original source.

 

[RickG]

BTW AV, if you agree with Hugh Ross, then I gather you are now accepting the science of the greater scientific community and have abandoned your embedded age idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

Previously you gave no reference for your source to use Romans to describe thermodynamics. You presented that statement as if you came up with it yourself. That is why I said you are making up stuff.

Is Hugh Ross your source for that or is there another source? Please provide original source.

I told you I got it from the Defender's Study Bible, did I not?

-- I'll see if I can hunt it up.

 

[AV1611VET]

Rick, here it is, with my sincerest apologies.

I had the wrong person.

I'm sorry.

106

ETA: Oops! I spoke too fast. Here it is: 119 .

In any event, I'm going to drop it.

You guys have your fun.

 

[RickG]

Okay, so here's the original source, I gather.

Christianity and Science – The Highly Ordered Universe

The second law of thermodynamics does not just contradict evolutionary theory—it also reinforces the creationist explanation of origins. First, the second law suggests that the universe had a beginning. “If the entire universe,” says Brown, “is an isolated system, then, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy in the universe that is available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the amount of energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition. Therefore, it implies that the universe had a beginning.”3

Second, the second law of thermodynamics suggests that the universe began as a highly ordered system. Wilder-Smith says, “The second law of thermodynamics seems thus to describe the whole situation of our present material world perfectly and the Bible very clearly confirms this description. For example, Romans 8:22-23 teaches us that the whole creation is subjected to ‘vanity’ or to destruction. Everything tends to go downhill to chaos and destruction as things stand today.”4

The creationist position in this regard is far more in harmony with modern science than is evolutionary theory.

Saying the 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts evolutionay theory is completely ridiculous. That's like saying no living creature can give birth. Really, think about it. How can any creature give birth to a new generation if everything is moving toward chaos?

Also, the second law of thermodynamics does not in any way suggest that the universe begin as a highly ordered system. No mainstream science on the planet suggest any such thing.

Scientists are currently observing new galaxies, solar systems and even stars and planets being formed. How can this be if the universe is moving toward chaos?

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

Saying the 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts evolutionay theory is completely ridiculous.

Yes. And it appears to arise from two major creationist myths:

1) As Dr. Ross points out, they misunderstand the definition of ENTROPY, probably because they misunderstand a traditional ANALOGY which explains it----such as the orderly room of a teenager that gets messy after a few days. [I'm serious. I remember hearing that one from the pulpit back in the 1960's.]

2) In more recent years creationists have confused the 2nd Law with INFORMATION THEORY.


But what amazes me most is that anyone with a brain could think that the 2nd LOT could be postponed until AFTER the Fall---and somehow the other LOTs could still function. It's as if they think they are all independent "rules" instead of descriptions of different aspects of the SAME "useful energy behavior" attribute of the universe.

In summary, a critical proof that they don't understand the Laws of Thermodynamics is that they don't understand that everything described before Adam's sin in Genesis required the physical processes described by the LOTs. And that is a LOT of ignorance. (No pun intended.)