Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Jimmy D]

Genesis 1:8 shows that God the Trinity made the FIRST firmament, which He called "Heaven" on the 2nd Day. Gen 2:4 shows that Lord God/Jesus made other HeavenS (plural) on the 3rd Day. That makes at least 3 Heavens.

• Science does not agree that Earth existed before stars existed.

Adam's Earth, made in the first heaven DID. Gen 1:8

• Science does not agree that water existed before stars existed.

Science is ignorant of the Earth where Humanity began. You should tell them.

• Science has no "firmament or alternate universe extricating into this universe" proposition, so this proposition doesn't agree with science.

Tell them to go to Lake Van, Turkey and they will find Adam's firmament on the bottom of the Lake covered in 11k years of volcanic sediment.

• Science has not confirmed the existence of grass before Dinosaurs existed. Even if you are right and Science is ignorant of some firmament or alternative universe extricating into this universe that did have grass before Dinosaurs, the fact remains that Science still has not confirmed the existence of grass before Dinosaurs, so this still fails.

Adam's Earth was made billions of years BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos. Each of God's Days/Ages is some 4.5 billion years, in man's time. Today is the 6th Day.

• Science shows Humans having evolved over time from an ape ancestor shared with Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and other great apes, with emergent intelligence resulting from our evolution. Science does NOT show any evidence of an introduced "Human Race" from another universe/firmament.

Science cannot show the process nor can it be repeated which changes Apes into Humans (descendants of Adam). It's because Apes are NOT the Human kind. One must believe in Magic and have great Faith in the ToE.

• Science shows no evidence of Intelligent Humans existing for billions of years before this Universe began. Instead, it shows Humans are an emergent species of Ape that have come about in the last couple of hundred thousand years or so.

Science falsely ASSUMES that Humans MUST have evolved from Apes since they are "willingly ignorant" of what God told us in Genesis.

• Science shows Whales coming from Land Mammals and did not exist before land animals existed.

Doesn't matter since "every living creature that moveth" came from L.U.C.A. whose origin was in WATER exactly as Gen 1:21 clearly states. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life..

• Science shows Birds also coming from Land animals, so they too couldn't have existed before land animals existed.

ALL animals had their origin in Water according to Science. So far, you're batting zero. Try again?

You are free to reject any science that doesn't agree with your twisted interpretation, when you do so though you are no longer able to claim that "science agrees 100%", it's that simple.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are free to reject any science that doesn't agree with your twisted interpretation, when you do so though you are no longer able to claim that "science agrees 100%", it's that simple.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

 

[Jimmy D]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

Thanks AV!

 

[Divide]

This thread still going? Ok I got a question for you naysayers and evolutionists...

Is the scientific second law of thermodynamics true?

 

[Jimmy D]

This thread still going? Ok I got a question for you naysayers and evolutionists...

Is the scientific second law of thermodynamics true?

I'm going to say yes, it is "true", why do you ask?

 

[Skreeper]

This thread still going? Ok I got a question for you naysayers and evolutionists...

Is the scientific second law of thermodynamics true?

Oh boy I cant wait to spring this trap so I'll bite. The second law of thermodynamics describes an observed phenomenon so in that sense yes it is "true".

 

[Divide]

I'm going to say yes, it is "true", why do you ask?

Well I was thinking about it, and it occured to me that...if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is true (I'm not refuting that, I do believe it), then...how do you scientificologists (Lol) reconcile this with your beliefs?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything moves from order to disorder. So how could evolution be true? How could the big bang be true? and so forth...

How do you reconcile that within yourselves?

 

[Divide]

Oh boy I cant wait to spring this trap so I'll bite. The second law of thermodynamics describes an observed phenomenon so in that sense yes it is "true".

Lol, ok. You answer too.

Spring it on me. I don't understand.

 

[Skreeper]

Lol, ok. You answer too.

Spring it on me. I don't understand.

It's obvious that you do not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Read the following if you want to know why:

CF001: Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

[Jimmy D]

Well I was thinking about it, and it occured to me that...if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is true (I'm not refuting that, I do believe it), then...how do you scientificologists (Lol) reconcile this with your beliefs?

Considering it's such a tired old creationist PRATT and relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics it quite surprising to hear that it's a question that "occurred" to you.

I'd suggest having a read of Skreeper's link there, here's the pertinent bit (bolded)....

The second law of thermodynamics says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.

The earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well I was thinking about it, and it occured to me that...if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is true (I'm not refuting that, I do believe it), then...how do you scientificologists (Lol) reconcile this with your beliefs?

What about our "scientificologist beliefs" (what the....) needs any reconciliation with thermo dynamics?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything moves from order to disorder.

That's not really accurate, but because of the risk of derailment I'll go along with it.
There is, however, one extremely important thing missing from that sentence: it relates to a closed system.

So how could evolution be true?

Go out during the day, look up. See that giant ball of nuclear infernus? We call it the sun.
It feeds the earth with workable energy 24/7.

The earth is not a closed system.

How do you reconcile that within yourselves?

There's nothing there that requires any reconciliation.

 

[sfs]

How do you reconcile that within yourselves?

We learn some physics.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This thread still going? Ok I got a question for you naysayers and evolutionists...

Is the scientific second law of thermodynamics true?

The second law of thermodynamics is a limiting factor in a CLOSED system. Our planet is not in a closed system, as we are constantly receiving energy from the sun.

The second law of thermodynamics is true, but acting as if it is a limiting factor for life on this planet is an exceedingly old and flawed creationist argument.

Basically, anyone that seriously uses it is unknowingly showing the world that they have no idea how thermodynamics work.

 

[AV1611VET]

Go out during the day, look up. See that giant ball of nuclear infernus? We call it the sun.
It feeds the earth with workable energy 24/7.

Then why don't Mercury & Venus have more advanced life on them?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then why don't Mercury & Venus have more advanced life on them?

Mercury is too small to hold a proper atmosphere. Venus, however, is an interesting case. If its atmosphere wasn't so thick with greenhouse gases, it's possible that it would be cool enough for heat loving organisms, such as archaea that live in hot springs, to exist there. I wish I knew more about the planet so I could go into more detail.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then why don't Mercury & Venus have more advanced life on them?

Perhaps because day-time surface tempuratures are high enough to melt lead?

 

[AV1611VET]

Mercury is too small to hold a proper atmosphere.

Proper atmosphere for what?

Creatures that live two planets farther out?

You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps because day-time surface tempuratures are high enough to melt lead?

So?

Day-time surface temperatures here are high enough to melt ice!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Proper atmosphere for what?

Creatures that live two planets farther out?

You're comparing apples to oranges.

I guess, though, if anything could live on Mercury, it'd be very alien indeed.

 

[sfs]

Then why don't Mercury & Venus have more advanced life on them?

The 2nd Law permits life to exist and evolve. It doesn't require life to exist and evolve anywhere.