Heart-ache: Palin wants creationism taught in public schools? Update: Oh noes, Pat Buchanan!

posted at 8:46 pm on August 29, 2008 by Allahpundit

If you read Wired? Yes. If you read LGF and get the full context of what she said? No. That makes twice already today that quotes of hers were bowdlerized to make them more nutroots-friendly.

Lot o’ debunking to do before November 4.

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.

That puts her to Jindal’s left, actually. Here’s a bit more, unquoted by LGF, from the Anchorage Daily News article Charles links to:

Palin said she thought there was value in discussing alternatives.

“It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.”

That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher.

“My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution,” she said. “He would show us fossils and say, ‘How old do you think these are?’”

I don’t know how to parse all that — she’s happy to let it come up in classroom discussion so long as it’s introduced by kids’ questions and not the teacher himself, I guess — but as long as she doesn’t want to add it to the curriculum I can’t believe she’ll have any problem with independents. In any case, creationism’s not what this election’s about. What this election’s about is whether Palin supported a guy nine years ago who’s still — tragically — so mainstream that you can’t turn on MSNBC or Fox News without stumbling across him. Ben Smith cites old press reports indicating that Palin backed Steve Forbes in 1999, but Buchanan, ever eager to slay the neocon dragon even if it means blaming Churchill for World War II, evidently claimed on Hardball tonight that she was one of his. I can’t wait for the “Countdown” segment explaining why anyone who would associate with Pat Buchanan is unfit for office, followed immediately by yet another 20-minute pundit roundtable featuring Pat Buchanan.

Update: A crucial news bulletin: Palin never actually donated to Buchanan but may have been at a fundraiser for him 12 years ago. Ergo, she hates Jews. I literally laughed aloud at the thought of Chris Matthews trying to paint her as a hatemonger with the hatemonger-in-chief sitting right across from him on his own show.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Math_Mage on August 31, 2008 at 11:04 PM
barry norris on August 31, 2008 at 10:27 PM

Lets try using pure logic, no links, no pictures, no reference to articles, just using common knowledge information that I believe everyone would acknowledge as fact.

Fact 1: DNA contains the information to form living things.

Fact 2: Different species have different DNA.

*Assumption for the sake of this argument: Beneficial mutations are as likely to happen as destructive mutations.

Conclusion: Upward macro-evolution cannot happen. If for every beneficial mutation there is a destructive mutation there is only stasis. Good mutations are nullified by bad mutations thus stasis is the best possible outcome and no increase in complexity of a species can be achieved.

*Of course, “beneficial mutations” are unknown, no beneficial mutation has ever been observed over the course of many decades of genetic experimentation. This is also common knowledge, is it not?

Maxx on September 1, 2008 at 3:02 PM

Oooch. Strong words apacalyps!

YiZhangZhe on September 1, 2008 at 12:24 AM

All through the Bible God calls people fools, brutish, simple, perverse, scorners, wicked, etc. For instance in Mathew 12:34, Jesus called the Pharisees, “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Jesus pronounces eight “woes” on the scribes (or lawyers) and Pharisees in this chapter (23:13-16,23,25,27,29). Seven times He calls them “hypocrites” and five times He says that they are “blind”. He calls each a “child of hell” and says that they are like “white sepulchres… full of dead man’s bones, and of all uncleannes” (Matthew 23:27), and “full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (23:28).

Do you think he might have been upset by their sinful behavior?

You have raised some good points but even I, as a person who has also been arguing against evolution and who considers the evolutionary hypothesis to be nonsense, have not found all of your case irresistably persuasive.

I am certainly willing to be corrected by friend or foe. What is it you did not find persuasive?

Even if you happen to think that they are morally depraved and that further debate is pointless, what possible value is there in announcing that fact? It comes across as arrogant and ill-mannered.

What do these Bible passages mean to you?

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness… haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things… And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. ” Romans 1:28-34, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

To be frank, I think you might usefully consider offering an apology.

I’m curious. What would you have said to Jesus after He turned over the tables of the money changers?

apacalyps on September 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM

All through the Bible God calls people fools, brutish, simple, perverse, scorners, wicked, etc.

If the person referred to by the fifth word of your sentence is, in fact, you then I humbly beg your pardon for questioning what is undoubtedly your prerogative. Otherwise you might want to keep in mind that it has oft been advised that we should think others better than ourselves: “Let he who is without sin be the first to live in a glass house” … or something like that.

Do you think he might have been upset by their sinful behavior?

I am sure he was, but being divine and thus in possession of all the bonus powers and energy packs that you get when you reach that level he knew what was what, could read minds, and didn’t have to rely on conjecture arising from a few posts in a blog debate.

I am certainly willing to be corrected by friend or foe. What is it you did not find persuasive?

I have already blotted my own copybook with horrendously long posts in this thread and to give you a full answer would only further darken the pages. I don’t think any of us have gone deep enough to really do the topic justice. Even with my extended posts I don’t expect to persuade anybody; I merely hope to introduce some new thoughts, challenge some preconceptions and provoke people to responding with answers that will give me something to think about.

I’m curious. What would you have said to Jesus after He turned over the tables of the money changers?

There are occasions when even a lippy little pretender like me can recognise when I am out-classed, out-ranked and ought to keep my mouth shut.

I think the evolution hypothesis is 1 part fact, 70 parts twaddle and 29 parts wishful thinking and am aghast that anybody would continue to take it seriously … but they do, and presumably they find my position equally incomprehensible.

If people are willing to debate with me then I am willing to presume that they are debating honestly and that they will be willing to change their minds if given a persuasive case. Consequently a persuasive case is what I will try to give; certainly I don’t expect to advance my viewpoint by insulting or accusing those who disagree with it.

YiZhangZhe on September 2, 2008 at 10:43 AM

If the person referred to by the fifth word of your sentence is, in fact, you (ie, God) then I humbly beg your pardon for questioning what is undoubtedly your prerogative.

A person must be God Amighty Himself before we can criticise, correct, and instruct others according to His Word? That is not logical. I don’t see that being taught anywhere in the Bible. The Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” 2 Timothy 3:16

Otherwise you might want to keep in mind that it has oft been advised that we should think others better than ourselves: “Let he wh

apacalyps on September 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM

testing

Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 12:54 AM

This is the second time I tried to post this message; the first time, I lost the whole thing after getting a “You are not allowed to post” notice.

YiZhangZhe, thank you for the long and thoughtful post. As you noted, some of your points are very general; in those cases I’ll have to ask for further detail, as it’s hard to adequately discuss generalities.

(*) There is no definition of life.

Why does there need to be one? More important is defining the boundaries of evolutionary theory; to determine those, we refer to the requirements of its major components (e.g. natural selection). Evolution only applies to that which imperfectly self-replicates; this set is similar enough to the set of living things that I feel comfortable interchanging the two terms in conversation.

(*) There is no explanation of how non-life can become life.

And rightly so, for that is the province of a far less well-founded and well-backed scientific conjecture known as abiogenesis. It’s not relevant to evolutionary theory, which strictly limits itself to explaining biodiversity.

(*) There is a weak explantion for a mechanism that adequately explains change, but it does not work in all cases and there are good arguments for why it will not be effective.

I THINK you’re referring to natural selection and the improbability argument, but could you be more specific, please? The probability of advantageous mutation referenced here [2] would seem to contradict the improbability argument…

(*) There *is* an explanation of selective pressure, but …
(*) it isn’t adequate. In 99.9999999% (I invented that number) of cases selective pressure cannot explain why a variant should be more reproductively successful and thus no reason why it should propagate.

That’s one reason why the vast majority of mutations are neutral [1]. Besides, I would attribute this problem more to a lack of adequate predictive study in specific cases than a fundamental flaw in the idea of selective pressure; it’s not like scientists have made an exhaustive catalog of all the possible selective pressures and their relative importance/likelihood of affecting survival, so there’s not much to go on in that area.

(*) I find that there are artifacts and system that are irreducably complex.

But irreducible complexity is a fallacy.

The idea, correct me if I’m wrong, is that the building blocks of an “irreducibly complex” organ/organ system aren’t useful by themselves or even when all but one are present, and that therefore they would have all had to come together at once to make evolution plausible.

But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how mutation works. The premise upon which irreducible complexity rests is that the building blocks themselves are unchangeable; once you realize that mutations can change and delete building blocks as well as add them, the whole idea falls apart – for how can the complexity of an organ be irreducible if the complexity of its building blocks is reducible?

(*) The proposed mechanisms often are entirely speculative (i.e. no evidence) and / or contradicted by other evidence.
(*) The proposed mechanisms often depend on other proposed mechanisms which are themselves weakly demonstrated or the subject of major debate even within the same paradigm (i.e. contested even without contentious and often bad theology being dragged in).
(*) There is no explanation at all for incorporeal ‘things’ that now exist, such as consciousness.

Again, more specificity is required. What mechanisms are speculative, externally contradicted, or dependent on mechanisms with those issues? Why is it relevant that evolutionary theory does not explain consciousness, which is ill-understood by all scientific disciplines to begin with?

However, to summarise I find that the evolutionary hypothesis is consistent with (able to rationally explain, not contradicted by), say, 1% of the data. That 1% might be very clever and very persuasive, but since there are alternative hypotheses which are consistent with, say, 75% of the data there is no reason why I should prefer the evolutionary hypothesis.

If evolution is 1% explanatory, there is no theory that explains 75% of the data. Evolution is admittedly the best of the naturalistic explanations, so no other naturalistic explanation rises above 1%. Meanwhile, creationism explains 100%, indeed 1000% of the data. That is the problem. Excluding patently bogus young-earth claims about literal Genesis and Noah’s Flood etc, there is no way to falsify creationism, especially a creationism that postulates an omnipotent omniscient God. Such a premise can accommodate anything, and therefore becomes meaningless in the deductive scientific method, which rests entirely upon the ability to DISPROVE through experimentation. EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE, creationism and God can be easily accommodated – the theory is that slippery. That’s why creationism is unscientific and has no business calling itself a theory, hypothesis, conjecture, or any other scientific term – except “unfalsifiable”.

I’m also sorry for the long post, but thoughtful posts deserve thoughtful responses.

[1] “Towards more biological mutation operators in models of gene regulation.” University of Queensland.
http://www.iscb.org/ismb2003/posters/jwatsonATitee.uq.edu.au_139.html
[2] “Adaptive Mutation in Bacteria: High Rate and Small Effects.” Science Journal.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5839/813

Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 1:27 AM

Maxx:

Lets try using pure logic, no links, no pictures, no reference to articles, just using common knowledge information that I believe everyone would acknowledge as fact.

As far as this thought experiment goes, I’ll agree.

Fact 1: DNA contains the information to form living things.

Fact 2: Different species have different DNA.

*Assumption for the sake of this argument: Beneficial mutations are as likely to happen as destructive mutations.

Accepted.

Conclusion: Upward macro-evolution cannot happen. If for every beneficial mutation there is a destructive mutation there is only stasis. Good mutations are nullified by bad mutations thus stasis is the best possible outcome and no increase in complexity of a species can be achieved.

But this is a complete misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. The theory goes that because harmful mutations reduce one’s ability to survive to breed, individuals with those mutations are less likely to pass them on to the next generation, while those with beneficial mutations are more likely to propagate their genes. Obviously it’s not perfect, but on balance beneficial mutations are favored.

*Of course, “beneficial mutations” are unknown, no beneficial mutation has ever been observed over the course of many decades of genetic experimentation. This is also common knowledge, is it not?

Maxx on September 1, 2008 at 3:02 PM

Since you reject the premise here, I reject the restriction on links, and point you to link #2 in my previous post (‘course, that’s not the only link I could give you). Beneficial mutations are not nearly as uncommon as you might suppose.

Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 1:42 AM

Maxx:
Going through your list of “frauds” with some cursory research, I spot three actual frauds: Haeckel’s embryo drawings, Piltdown Man, and the Archaeoraptor. If that’s the best you can do from 150 years of evolution-related science and research, you might want to lay off the “you can’t trust evolutionists!” line. Below are brief examinations of each “fraud”.

On the Haeckel embryo drawings:
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html
for a take on Haeckel’s fraud that moves beyond “OMG Haeckel lied, evolutionists are frauds” and has some more contemporary drawings and photos. Note that I’ve just been through biology and never encountered the Haeckel drawings; they probably aren’t as widespread as you think. Besides, we’ve a hundred years of embryology to talk about since Haeckel perpetrated his fraud; scientific inquiry in that area didn’t end with his drawings.

On the “lungfish” issue: So scientists made a mistake in over-eagerly identifying a specific creature as the descendant of land animals. So what? Is this what you call fraud, for scientists to determine that other scientists made a mistake?

On Piltdown Man: Scientist debunks scientist with anatomical science. Interesting that the scandal is well-known despite being so insignificant; 1 fossilized cranium, 1 jaw, 1 scientist, and yet there’s a buzz about it even today, because such hoaxes are SO DAMN RARE.

On Archaeoraptor: Scientist debunks Chinese farmer. Not a scientific fraud.

On peppered moths: The pictures of dead moths pinned on trunks were not used in the studies, and the one experiment that involved dead moths glued to trunks was to establish the birds’ foraging habits, not anything to do with the moths themselves. The best you can do with the moths is apply the microevolution/macroevolution dichotomy (never mind that it’s a false one), unless there’s another fraud you’re thinking of.

On Lucy: There’s the piddling debate about the nature of reconstructions (piddling because the accuracy of the reconstructions does not have anything to do with the accuracy of the claim that the bones represent a transitional form), and the more serious claim about the power saw. But I don’t see the incentive for fraud. Given that Lucy has several other traits that indicate transitional status (the knee, the femur, the cranial fragments), there’s no reason for the Leakeys to perpetrate a fraud upon the world just to add one more. Meanwhile, for the Creationist to have a story, he needs to be able to disprove evidence of transitional forms, such as Lucy. Furthermore, there are other specimens of Australopithecus afarensis (though less complete than Lucy); it’s not like their existence rests on Lucy’s hip.

Vestigial organs: too general, so I’ll reply generally by saying that an organ need not be extraneous, useless, to be vestigial. What is the fraud you are trying to illustrate? At worst, I see a mistake.

Java Man – see here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html
The femur is now known to be recent, and some of the teeth are hypothesized to be an orangutan’s. However, the skullcap still does not belong to any known species; the “nearby human skulls” were 65 miles away; and DuBois did not attempt to hide said human skulls. And again, it’s not like Java Man is the only known specimen of Homo erectus.

Peking Man – even creationists don’t call this a fraud. See here:
http://creationwiki.org/Ten_Peking_Man_skeletons_were_suppressed
If you have some other fraud you’d like to discuss related to Peking Man, say so.

Homo habilis – there is scientific debate over whether Homo habilis was a dead-end species or an intermediary between apes and humans. No fraud here, unless you have one you’d like to bring up.

Neanderthal man, Cro-magnon man, Heidelberg man: If scientists now consider them to be human, they consider them to be human. Doesn’t have anything to do with fraud. Furthermore, what’s their best evidence? That Alma tribe that creationwiki mentions? Gimme a break.

Would you agree that if the Earth is not in fact billions of years old and was in fact only 6 to 10 thousand years old that evolution did not happen? Because I believe there is now very succinct and hard hitting evidence that the world is indeed young. What say you?

I say that if you can provide solid evidence that Earth is only 6000 years old, you shouldn’t be talking to me. You should be talking to the Nobel committee to plan the ceremony to celebrate this discovery, which would overturn the work of thousands of scientists in numerous fields. But go ahead and amaze me. I’ll listen.

A point I forgot to make. You ignore the fact that no matter who it was that exposed the fraud that in every case it was an evolutionist that introduced the fraud.

Nice. So now whenever someone who accepts evolution submits a fraud related to evolution, it’s an evolutionist fraud EVEN IF IT’S DEBUNKED BY SCIENTISTS WHO ACCEPT EVOLUTION. Great logic there.

Oh, and a Chinese farmer fraudster isn’t exactly representative of people who accept evolution, whatever your concept of an “evolutionist” is.

Once more, sorry for the long post (and the triple post, but I have a lot of material to reply to since I’ve been out of the loop!). This time, rather than the intelligence of the argument, it was the number of arguments to be refuted that made me take up so much space.

Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 2:37 AM

I’m also sorry for the long post, but …
Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 1:27 AM

Apologies are becoming a theme in this thread. Expect another one shortly.

Math_Mage, thanks for your response. Before I even attempt a post of counter-points perhaps I’d better clarify one or two things and, while I’m at it, try to make it look like I’ve been on-topic all along. :)

For me at least this debate has nothing at all to do with Christianity in particular or religion in general. I’d be quite happy to debate two deityless alternatives and the principle difference between them would be that one posits that nothing violently explodes into things that much later become planets and kangeroos and nuts, while the other posits that planets and kangeroos and nuts suddenly appeared fully formed out of nowhere. Lets call them “BangStart” and “CalmStart”.

The idea of a fully formed plants and animals appearing out of nothing and nowhere is no less expected, no less credible, and no less rational than the idea of an explosion appearing out of nothing and nowhere.

Neither starting point is more “scientific” than the other; they are equally preposterous, equally absurd, equally impenetrable, equally unprovable, equally unrepeatable, equally unfalsifiable.

However, we can explore which of these preposterous scenarios fits best with what we can observe around us and with reason.

When I do this I find that the “CalmStart” hypothesis is not contradicted by any of the data (i.e. what we find around us). Nor is it irrational (no rules of reason need to be breached). Logically therefore there is no reason to reject it, ignore it or ridicule it. It is a perfectly good, working explanation.

However I find that the “BangStart” hypothesis is much harder to reconcile with the data. It requires large speculative leaps into the unknown and the unknowable to bridge gaps. There are many places where the hypothesis is apparently contradicted by the data.

The CalmStart hypotheis joins up all the dots quite neatly, while the BangStart hypothesis struggles to connect more than a few.

If this is the case then why should any education system prefer the BangStart hypothesis over the CalmStart one? A disinterested quest for truth cannot reject the CalmStart hypothesis just because it is associated with unfashionable religious ideas and uncool people.

“I’m also sorry for the long post, but …”

YiZhangZhe on September 3, 2008 at 11:11 AM

For me at least this debate has nothing at all to do with Christianity in particular or religion in general. I’d be quite happy to debate two deityless alternatives … Neither starting point is more “scientific” than the other; they are equally preposterous, equally absurd, equally impenetrable, equally unprovable, equally unrepeatable, equally unfalsifiable.

YiZhangZhe on September 3, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Ah, now I see. You neither believe the Biblical creation account or evolution. Both are apparently absurd to you. Well, at least you’re half way to the truth. A bear did not fall into ocean became a whale. Evolution is indeed a joke! But, I understand now, at least in part, why you attacked me for calling evolutionists reprobates. Yeah, yeah, spare me the part about me being mean. It turns out some of my comments stung your unbelief in God too. Huh. Go figure. Well, actually, this shouldn’t be a surprise “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword” (Hebrews 4:12). So what do you believe YiZhangZhe? Silly me. You were so strongly against evolution, I just assumed… well, anyways…. tell me, what is world-view YiZhangZhe?

apacalyps on September 3, 2008 at 12:32 PM

For me at least this debate has nothing at all to do with Christianity in particular or religion in general. I’d be quite happy to debate two deityless alternatives and the principle difference between them would be that one posits that nothing violently explodes into things that much later become planets and kangeroos and nuts, while the other posits that planets and kangeroos and nuts suddenly appeared fully formed out of nowhere. Lets call them “BangStart” and “CalmStart”.

The idea of a fully formed plants and animals appearing out of nothing and nowhere is no less expected, no less credible, and no less rational than the idea of an explosion appearing out of nothing and nowhere.

So, your position has nothing to do with either religion or evolution. So, why bother to debate either? Your real peeve is with the Big Bang. However, your new hypothesis suffers from the same problem as the religious one, that being that the hypothesis “everything was created as it is now” is untestable.

When I do this I find that the “CalmStart” hypothesis is not contradicted by any of the data (i.e. what we find around us). Nor is it irrational (no rules of reason need to be breached). Logically therefore there is no reason to reject it, ignore it or ridicule it. It is a perfectly good, working explanation.

The CalmStart hypothesis ignores the data. Of course there are no problems with an untestable “theory”; that doesn’t make it any more valid. Even if a Cyclic Universe theory or Big Bang theory were true, the data would still match CalmStart. You can’t circumvent science with atheistic nonscience any better than you can with religious nonscience.

However I find that the “BangStart” hypothesis is much harder to reconcile with the data. It requires large speculative leaps into the unknown and the unknowable to bridge gaps. There are many places where the hypothesis is apparently contradicted by the data.

What gaps are you talking about? Be more specific, it’s impossible to argue about generalities like this.

The CalmStart hypotheis joins up all the dots quite neatly, while the BangStart hypothesis struggles to connect more than a few.

No, the CalmStart hypothesis erases all the dots. That’s not a good way to develop a sound theory. And while the Big Bang theory has significant issues, the fact that it CAN have those issues is part of the reason why it is taught in science classrooms where the CalmStart inhabits church congregations.

apacalyps on September 3, 2008 at 12:32 PM

If you have nothing better to do than comment about how any comment not in line with your views is the result of godless atheism, you don’t need to say it more than once.

Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 8:46 PM

The CalmStart hypothesis ignores the data.
Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 8:46 PM

No, to be consistent with something is not the same as ignoring it. The hypothesis ignores nothing, and nothing needs to be ignored to make it fit. That quality happens to be a hallmark of any “truth” or “correct hypothesis”. The consistency doesn’t “prove” that it is true, but it allows a high level of confidence that it is at least close to the truth.

If we think only of the biology for a moment: The hypothesis posits that all the “species” of plants and animals arrived out of nowhere. Observing the universe shows us that big changes can occur suddenly (asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions …) and that these are harmful to whatever gets in the way. This leads to a testable sub-hypothesis that the number of species should reduce over time, and that is exactly what we find evidence of. We can also reproduce such calamaties on a small scale (real life accidents and lab experiments) and observe the predicted effect. The data is consistent with the hypothesis.

Of course there are no problems with an untestable “theory”; that doesn’t make it any more valid.

As noted above, it is testable and the test outcomes are logically consistent with the hypothesis.

Even if a Cyclic Universe theory or Big Bang theory were true, the data would still match CalmStart.

This is exactly the point of contention. I cannot find a working set of steps that would take us from a huge explosion to what we have today.

… while the Big Bang theory has significant issues, the fact that it CAN have those issues is part of the reason why it is taught in science classrooms.

Having significant issues is not a measure of good science. If it were then a hypothesis that proposed the moon were made of cheese would need to be taught beyond the nursery.

So, why bother to debate either? Your real peeve is with the Big Bang.

No, I am objecting to a perfectly workable and useful hypothesis being rejected merely because it is unfashionable.

However, your new hypothesis suffers from the same problem as the religious one, that being that the hypothesis “everything was created as it is now” is untestable.

The “begining” is untestable no matter what hypothesis you posit; that is the logical nature of a beginning … you cannot get behind it to examine it because if you could then it would no longer be the beginning. The big-bang beginning is equally untestable so if you reject the CalmStart for having an untestable starting point then logically you must reject the BangStart for the same reason.

YiZhangZhe on September 3, 2008 at 9:56 PM

Such a premise can accommodate anything, and therefore becomes meaningless in the deductive scientific method, which rests entirely upon the ability to DISPROVE through experimentation. EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE, creationism and God can be easily accommodated – the theory is that slippery. That’s why creationism is unscientific and has no business calling itself a theory, hypothesis, conjecture, or any other scientific term – except “unfalsifiable”.
Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 1:27 AM

The scientific method does not have unlimited scope.

Some questions can only be answered through the emotions (we cannot scientifically prove that love or hate or fear really exist either in general or in a specific case).

Some questions can only be answered by reasoning. Indeed reasoning is one of the prerequisites of the scientific method since it is the tool by which something is disproven and therefore reason itself could not possibly be subjected to scientific investigation.

We agree that the initial creative act of the creationist model is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable, but the explosive act of the big-bang (with or without repeating cycles) is equally unfalsifiable.

The demand that something should be rejected if it doesn’t admit of the scientific method is where the science community begins to have an irrational dogma, rather like a some “religious” communities, and certain scientists start behaving like “priests”, attempting to control the acceptable “truths”.

YiZhangZhe on September 3, 2008 at 10:31 PM

No, to be consistent with something is not the same as ignoring it. The hypothesis ignores nothing, and nothing needs to be ignored to make it fit. That quality happens to be a hallmark of any “truth” or “correct hypothesis”. The consistency doesn’t “prove” that it is true, but it allows a high level of confidence that it is at least close to the truth.

When you can mould the universe however you wish, consistency is meaningless. You can’t even formulate a method for predicting the age of the universe – how can you, when the universe could be created as it is now? I suppose I misspoke – rather than ignoring the data, your CalmStart idea can fit ANY set of data. Where can we take such an idea? Absolutely nowhere. We can’t attempt to verify it, we can’t attempt to falsify it – nothing!

If we think only of the biology for a moment: The hypothesis posits that all the “species” of plants and animals arrived out of nowhere. Observing the universe shows us that big changes can occur suddenly (asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions …) and that these are harmful to whatever gets in the way. This leads to a testable sub-hypothesis that the number of species should reduce over time, and that is exactly what we find evidence of. We can also reproduce such calamaties on a small scale (real life accidents and lab experiments) and observe the predicted effect. The data is consistent with the hypothesis.

I’m sorry, this is just wrong. Biodiversity has increased over the past few dozen millions of years, even with all the calamities. Graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Biodiversity.png

Furthermore, this is not a “testable” hypothesis arising from the CalmStart idea. After all, the increase of biodiversity over time does not by any means preclude the possibility that the universe was created in the CalmStart fashion – indeed, it can’t even preclude the possibility that the universe was created that way some time in the last few million years! What kind of hypothesis doesn’t have any bearing on the idea it’s supposed to “test”?

This is exactly the point of contention. I cannot find a working set of steps that would take us from a huge explosion to what we have today.

Which steps do you dispute? Evolution only?

Having significant issues is not a measure of good science. If it were then a hypothesis that proposed the moon were made of cheese would need to be taught beyond the nursery.

Way to misread what I wrote. The issue is not whether a theory has significant issues or not. The issue is whether or not a theory CAN HAVE significant issues. Your “theory” cannot; therefore it does not deserve any place in scientific inquiry. The conjecture that the moon is made of cheese is far more scientific than your CalmStart conjecture, for all that it is false.

No, I am objecting to a perfectly workable and useful hypothesis being rejected merely because it is unfashionable.

Look, your contrast is between a Big Bang universe and a CalmStart universe. Either can accommodate evolution; either can reject evolution. So if you’re bothering to dispute the origins of the universe, it has nothing to do with evolution. And fashion? What? Since when did fashion have anything to do with scientific inquiry?

The “begining” is untestable no matter what hypothesis you posit; that is the logical nature of a beginning … you cannot get behind it to examine it because if you could then it would no longer be the beginning. The big-bang beginning is equally untestable so if you reject the CalmStart for having an untestable starting point then logically you must reject the BangStart for the same reason.

One of the predictions of a Big Bang universe: the universe is expanding. Therefore, redshift. Aha! There is a redshift. Therefore, universe is expanding. Prediction, hypothesis, experiment, observation, conclusion. THAT is a testable prediction shown to be correct.

Second prediction: since the beginning didn’t have any planets, the universe is older than the Earth. Prediction so far borne out by evidence; the oldest stuff so far found on Earth is maybe a half-dozen billion years old, while the oldest light observed is over three times that old. Another prediction, experiment, confirmation.

Plainly, you don’t have to get “behind” a beginning to make testable predictions about it. I’ve just explained two tests (of many) that have been done on the Big Bang theory. Can you make even one for your CalmStart idea? No, because you’ve postulated a beginning that can warp itself to suit whatever data you throw at it.

Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 11:31 PM

The scientific method does not have unlimited scope.

Agreed.

Some questions can only be answered through the emotions (we cannot scientifically prove that love or hate or fear really exist either in general or in a specific case).

Agreed.

Some questions can only be answered by reasoning. Indeed reasoning is one of the prerequisites of the scientific method since it is the tool by which something is disproven and therefore reason itself could not possibly be subjected to scientific investigation.

I believe the term you want to use is “logic”, but otherwise I agree.

We agree that the initial creative act of the creationist model is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable, but the explosive act of the big-bang (with or without repeating cycles) is equally unfalsifiable.

Not true. The Big Bang theory would have been falsified by the absence of redshift, or by evidence indicating that the universe was no older than the Earth. I dealt with this above.

The demand that something should be rejected if it doesn’t admit of the scientific method is where the science community begins to have an irrational dogma, rather like a some “religious” communities, and certain scientists start behaving like “priests”, attempting to control the acceptable “truths”.

Nobody claimed that science has a monopoly on truth (except possibly Dawkins-type extremists). Science only has a monopoly on determining what is scientific. Nor was it claimed that we should reject anything that doesn’t fit the scientific method. Rather, the statement is that anything that doesn’t fit the scientific method isn’t scientific *gasp* and therefore shouldn’t be taught as science. You said:

If this is the case then why should any education system prefer the BangStart hypothesis over the CalmStart one? A disinterested quest for truth cannot reject the CalmStart hypothesis just because it is associated with unfashionable religious ideas and uncool people.

Education systems do not prefer the Big Bang theory (or evolution) to creationism in the science classroom because the science priests said creationism was a lie or the “k001 kidz” decreed it unfashionable. Education systems prefer the Big Bang theory to creationism in the science classroom because the Big Bang theory is scientific, whereas creationism (religious or otherwise) is not. It has nothing to do with truth. Science has NEVER been about “truth”. Science has been about modeling the universe with the scientific method, creating an abstraction that agrees with available data and therefore may or may not be “true”. Statements that run counter to the scientific method cannot be modeled, and therefore are not scientific even if true. Your CalmStart is such a statement.

Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 11:44 PM

If you have nothing better to do than comment about how any comment not in line with your views is the result of godless atheism, you don’t need to say it more than once.

Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 8:46 PM

Build your straw man Mage. You seem to delight in tearing it down. However, while we’re on the topic, there is no neutral position. Either you’re serving the Lord or you’re serving satan! Either you’re on your way to heaven or on your way to hell. There are no fence straddlers today and there won’t be any come judgment day. So my prayers are for you Mage, that you commit your life to Christ before it’s too late. I wish you the best. Ciao.

apacalyps on September 4, 2008 at 12:22 AM

Build your straw man Mage. You seem to delight in tearing it down. However, while we’re on the topic, there is no neutral position. Either you’re serving the Lord or you’re serving satan! Either you’re on your way to heaven or on your way to hell. There are no fence straddlers today and there won’t be any come judgment day. So my prayers are for you Mage, that you commit your life to Christ before it’s too late. I wish you the best. Ciao.

apacalyps on September 4, 2008 at 12:22 AM

I don’t see the relevance of my belief (or lack thereof) in God to this discussion. You do know that it’s possible to accept evolutionary theory without rejecting God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Bible…right?

Nonetheless, thanks for the warning.

Math_Mage on September 4, 2008 at 1:31 AM

Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 11:31 PM

Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 11:44 PM

I think we might still be slightly at crossed purposes (big surprise in an online debate huh?) Nonetheless even if we are not quite synchronised in topic and still along way from agreement, you have raised some good challenges which I now need to think about. Thank you, I do like a good challenge.

If this thread dies before I have finished thinking then perhaps we will continue the next time the subject comes up.

(except possibly Dawkins-type extremists).

Hmmm, yes that was more or less what I had in mind … but didn’t like to name names. :)

YiZhangZhe on September 4, 2008 at 5:28 AM

YiZhangZhe on September 4, 2008 at 5:28 AM

And than you for the stimulating discussion, sir. Like most online debates, we never really figured out what we were debating since nobody sat down and hammered out the terms, but it was enjoyable nonetheless. :)

Math_Mage on September 4, 2008 at 9:54 AM

You do know that it’s possible to accept evolutionary theory without rejecting God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Bible … right?

Math_Mage on September 4, 2008 at 1:31 AM

No Mage. A god that has to use suffering, misfits, death, a god that doesn’t know what he wants the first time and can’t make it right in six days like He said, that is a retarded god. I would not worship that one at all. (Such a god) is certainly not the God of the Bible. The Bible makes it very clear God created the world in 6 literal, 24-hour days, and rested on the seventh day:

“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, an

apacalyps on September 4, 2008 at 3:02 PM

No Mage. A god that has to use suffering, misfits, death, a god that doesn’t know what he wants the first time and can’t make it right in six days like He said, that is a retarded god. I would not worship that one at all. (Such a god) is certainly not the God of the Bible. The Bible makes it very clear God created the world in 6 literal, 24-hour days, and rested on the seventh day:

“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, an��@3���at in them is, and rested the seventh day.” Exodus 20:11

And you’re confident in your ability to prove that six days in God’s eyes is equivalent to six days in ours? Where do the terms “literal” and “24-hour” appear in Genesis? Heck, if you postulate a large speed differential between God and Earth, God could easily experience a literal 24-hour day while we experience millions or billions of years. Are you going to prove that God was not doing this?

And we can logically defend “God created the heaven and the earth”, and it fits with what we observe in the present world. That makes sense with real science. Christianity is not a blind faith, y’know. It is the only religion that can prove itself. There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports the Bible.

Even science can’t “prove” itself, or any of its theories. And I can’t say that the current evidence supports a 6000-year-old universe. What evidence are YOU looking at, the billion-year-old rocks or the billions-of-years-old light?

Furthermore, if Christianity is “proven”, why the word “faith”, denoting a belief in an unproven phenomenon? I imagine many Christians would be offended by your claim that their faith is meaningless, that science has superseded their beliefs, just as they are offended when Dawkins claims to be able to prove there is no God.

So no. God did not use evolution. The god that would have to use evolution is cruel. Isn’t it cruel to have animals y’know, partially developed and inferior and going to struggle and die? The whole evolution process of struggle and death is… is … contrary to the Christian God.

So, you know, when God decided that man was too sinful for him and killed everyone in Noah’s Flood, he wasn’t being wasteful and cruel? Oh, right, I forgot. Noah – the “fittest” in God’s eyes – survived. I guess that makes it all ok, right? [/sarc]

By the way, apacalyps, in five pages of posting I have yet to see you “logically defend” the idea that “God created the heavens and earth,” let alone that he did it 6000 years ago. If you can, please do so. Otherwise, please stand aside and let YiZhangZhe do it (if you can tolerate the idea of a Satan-serving atheist defending your approximate world view), as he contributes far more to the conversation than you.

Math_Mage on September 4, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Where do the terms “literal” and “24-hour” appear in Genesis?

Math_Mage on September 4, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Look, Mage. Why don’t we go pick a spot where nobody’s heard of the Bible, give them a copy and ask them to read it. I think if you gave this book to 5000 people and said, read this, tell me what it says — all 5000 would come back and say, this is saying He made it in 6 days. For instance, in Exodus 31 God said “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested,” (Exodus 31:17). And in the Ten Commandments, in Exodus 20 chapter 11, God said, I want you to rest on the Sabbath because I made everything in 6 days. He wasn’t telling them to work 6 million years and then finally take a break! There are so many other references in Scripture too. God unmistakably says that everything was made in 6 normal days. If you have Scriptural evidence that suggests otherwise, then show me. Let me see it.

Furthermore, if Christianity is “proven”, why the word “faith”, denoting a belief in an unproven phenomenon? I imagine many Christians would be offended by your claim that their faith is meaningless…

There is a lot of evidence supporting Christianity. You do not have to have blind faith. Earth evidence supports creation. The universe supports creation. Fossil evidence supports creation. Animal anatomy supports creation. Ocean evidence supports creation. Human evidence supports creation. And so on. You’re comment about me offending Christians is plain silly. I won’t even respond to that.

By the way, apacalyps, in five pages of posting I have yet to see you “logically defend” the idea that “God created the heavens and earth,” let alone that he did it 6000 years ago. If you can, please do so.

You wrote alot of things I think are just foolish. Time after time after time I’ve shown evolution is ridiculous, it did not happen, at the same time shown evidence for creation and a Creator. You just don’t want to see it, that’s all. You’re being willingly ignorant. Not only that, Maxx showed you as well! Everybody knows what the first law of thermodynamics says — that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Evolution says matter is definitely being formed from nothing. That’s just bad science. Can nothing create something?” (Hold nothing in your hand for a while and see what happens.) There’s another example, okay. Um, I have to make a decision here if it’s worth my time carrying on here. I have a strong feeling this a waste of my time, so I’ll ask you this. The Bible says if you seek after God, God will see to Him, that you find Him. If I can show you evidence for a young earth and creation, and that God is the Creator of this world just like the Bible says, will you repent, that is turn from your sins once and for all, and put your faith in Jesus Christ?

apacalyps on September 5, 2008 at 12:32 AM

Look, Mage. Why don’t we go pick a spot where nobody’s heard of the Bible, give them a copy and ask them to read it. I think if you gave this book to 5000 people and said, read this, tell me what it says — all 5000 would come back and say, this is saying He made it in 6 days. For instance, in Exodus 31 God said “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested,” (Exodus 31:17). And in the Ten Commandments, in Exodus 20 chapter 11, God said, I want you to rest on the Sabbath because I made everything in 6 days. He wasn’t telling them to work 6 million years and then finally take a break! There are so many other references in Scripture too. God unmistakably says that everything was made in 6 normal days. If you have Scriptural evidence that suggests otherwise, then show me. Let me see it.

I’m not sure what’s more amusing – that I’m even arguing about the interpretation of the Bible, or that you utterly failed to refute even my facetious argument about relativistic time dilation maybe causing God’s 24-hour day to appear much longer from our position. Since there isn’t even a sun or given period of rotation for the Earth, how do you even know the days were 24 hours long in the Genesis account?

There is a lot of evidence supporting Christianity. You do not have to have blind faith. Earth evidence supports creation. The universe supports creation. Fossil evidence supports creation. Animal anatomy supports creation. Ocean evidence supports creation. Human evidence supports creation. And so on. You’re comment about me offending Christians is plain silly. I won’t even respond to that.

Ok, provide some evidence instead of wasting your time telling me how all the evidence points to YEC.

As for my “silly” comment, that was the very reaction of the one Christian friend of mine who’s seen your post. ‘Course, I can’t prove that my friend actually said that, so take that however you like.

You wrote alot of things I think are just foolish. Time after time after time I’ve shown evolution is ridiculous, it did not happen, at the same time shown evidence for creation and a Creator.

Here is the result of my comprehensive analysis of your comments:
Page 1: 2 posts, 2 lines, no evidence.

Page 2: Several posts. 1 request for evidence, no evidence of your own. One ridiculous claim about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics negating evolution that I’ll handle (together with your claim about the 1st Law) later in this post. Multiple posts about the “wasteful” god of evolution. One post about how 8 people could become 6 billion in 4400 years, which is irrelevant as you provide no evidence that this is in fact what happened. Several posts about how you’re always telling people about the evolutionary hoax.

Page 3: One ridiculous claim that oil comes from the bodies of dead plants/animals from Noah’s Flood. More demands for evidence of a specific missing link from “evolutionists.” One ridiculous claim of fraud because scientists’ postulations about the age of the Earth got older and older (gee, I wonder why that is?). You neglect to actually deal with substantive arguments regarding the whole Pakicetids-to-whales thing (though that’s forgivable as nobody else did either, except YiZhangZhe). NO EVIDENCE.

Page 4: More claims about the ridiculousness of the pakicetid hypothesis without actually saying anything about the hypothesis. No mention of ambulocetus or rodhocetus, two of the three hypothesized links for which fossils have been found. You question the nature of the basilosaurus, and manage only to show that it is the least significant link in the proposed chain. Then you claim to have refuted any possibility of pakicetus being the common ancestor of cetaceans via the old bogus-probability argument. You make the classic mistake of raising geological questions while claiming to question evolution. You like to quote other people’s opinions (the “argument from authority” fallacy), but fail to provide real evidence.

Page 5: You can check yourself to see that you posted no evidence, I don’t feel that I need to do that for you.

So for all your claims about how the evidence supports creationism and how you’ve shown this time and again, you haven’t actually provided evidence for your claims. I feel like I’m on the “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” blog again.

As for the arguments Maxx presented, I debunked the arguments that related to “evolutionist fraud” and haven’t gotten to the rest. I just entered this debate on page 4, you know; it’s not like I’ve read every post (just all of yours, because it’s easy to read posts that have no content).

Everybody knows what the first law of thermodynamics says — that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Evolution says matter is definitely being formed from nothing. That’s just bad science. Can nothing create something?” (Hold nothing in your hand for a while and see what happens.) There’s another example, okay.

Your comments on this subject betray a profound ignorance of both evolutionary theory and the laws of thermodynamics. First of all, your claims about the first law seem to be related to the origin of life, which is a question for the abiogenesis conjecture, not evolutionary theory. Second, your application of the first law is incorrect even as it applies to the origin of life, as the claim of abiogenesis is not that matter appeared from nothing but rather that matter became more organized over time. Read up on basic biology. Third, your earlier claims about the second law being violated are totally inapplicable to the Earth, as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems and Earth is demonstrably an open system. Third, that is not an example, but an argument; not evidence, but an unsubstantiated claim. You show not only an ignorance of science, but also an ignorance of the fundamentals of reasoned debate.

Um, I have to make a decision here if it’s worth my time carrying on here. I have a strong feeling this a waste of my time, so I’ll ask you this. The Bible says if you seek after God, God will see to Him, that you find Him. If I can show you evidence for a young earth and creation, and that God is the Creator of this world just like the Bible says, will you repent, that is turn from your sins once and for all, and put your faith in Jesus Christ?

I have to say, merely seeing you present evidence for once would be good evidence to me that there is a God who answers my prayers for coherent discussion. However, I wouldn’t want to cheat you on the challenge, so before I take it up I will warn you that it is logically impossible to provide evidence that God created the Earth and the universe (I explained this in my discussion with YiZhangZhe, see especially the last paragraph of my post at 1:27 AM on September 3, 2008). Meanwhile, it IS possible to test the possibility that the universe is only 6000 years old, but you need first to explain away the evidence that points to the Earth being older by six orders of magnitude, and the universe far older than that…With those stipulations, I’ll take on your challenge.

Math_Mage on September 9, 2008 at 12:18 AM

I have to say, merely seeing you present evidence for once would be good evidence to me that there is a God who answers my prayers for coherent discussion.

Math_Mage on September 9, 2008 at 12:18 AM

Mage, I really don’t see how you can say with a straight-face “for once,” I’d like to see some evidence for creation. If you’re honest with yourself for a change, you’d admit you’ve already been given several examples for creation. Truth is, you just don’t want to see it, that’s all. Let me ask you a question. Suppose creation were true. Just suppose. Suppose this Book is absolutely correct. Suppose God made the world like He said He did, and He’s the Boss, and He’s gonna come judge the world. Would that effect your lifestyle any? I mean, the Book indicates right here, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no adultery, no pre-marital sex, no pornography, uh, would that effect your lifestyle? I don’t know anything about you. I’m just asking a question. Now, you don’t need to answer. Just think about it.

However, I wouldn’t want to cheat you on the challenge, so before I take it up I will warn you that it is logically impossible to provide evidence that God created the Earth and the universe… Meanwhile, it IS possible to test the possibility that the universe is only 6000 years old…

What I have said is that I can logically defend “God created the heaven and the earth”, because it fits with what we observe in the present world. That makes sense with real science. Christianity is not a blind faith, okay. That is a myth. There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports the Bible. So if you’re a Christian, there’s nothing to be ashamed of. Christianity can prove itself. It’s the only religion that can. And let me clarify something else for you, okay. I’m not challenging you to anything. This debate is not a challenge. Now, listen to me carefully. I’m responding here, for one reason, and one reason only. If somebody’s not saved, I wanna help get them converted. I am consumed with trying to get other people converted. That’s my goal in life. And I think that ought to be every Christians goal. The Bible says, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11). Now what does that mean “the terror of the Lord?” We like to talk about the love of the Lord, but the truth is the Bible says “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31). I’m here to try and persuade you to “get right with God” Mage, because on judgment day you’ll have to give an account of your sins and you don’t wanna come up short of God’s righteousness. I don’t want you to go to hell, okay. And that there just about sums it up.

apacalyps on September 10, 2008 at 8:05 PM

You utterly failed to refute (that) maybe causing God’s 24-hour day to appear much longer from our position.

Math_Mage on September 9, 2008 at 12:18 AM

That’s false, Mage. I provided scripture showing the creation days were literal 24-hour days. They weren’t six long periods of time. You didn’t offer any scripture to back up your claim the days were millions or billions of years long. All you gave was your opinion. Look, I think God is capable of writing a Book that we can all understand, okay. I mean, when somebody teaches something like “the creation days were millions and billions of years long” and we have to have a guru to explain it. Now you have a cult. And that’s what this six long days theory is, okay. You need a guru to explain it. That’s what makes me very nervous. Like I said before, if you gave this book to 5000 people and said, read this, tell me what it says — all 5000 would come back and say, this is saying He made it in 6 days. Anybody with average intelligence can see on day number 1 God created the heaven and the Earth, and then He made light. And He chose 6 days to do this and then a day of rest to establish a 7 day week for us. It’s just 6 regular days, just like we have today, there’s no difference at all. And Exodus 20:11, the Ten Commandments, God said, “For in SIX DAYS the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and ALL that in them is” (Exodus 20:11). What do you suppose he meant by that? He said I made everything in 6 days. To me that means He made everything in 6 days. Now, would that include Lucifer? Would that include the angels? That would include everything wouldn’t it. Everything in heaven and in earth. The angels, heaven, earth, and mankind — everything. The question is not “What does it say?” The question is “Do you believe what it says? Exodus 20:11 continues to say, He rested on “the SEVENTH DAY”. I don’t know how much plainer God can make it? He unmistakably says that everything was made in six days and He rested on the 7th. Just read the first chapter, and you’ll see God made the plants, the grass, and the trees on day 3. Now, if these days are millions or billions of years long, how long can the plants to live without the sun? God made the sun on day 4. Think about that. And the insects are made on day 5, and they pollinate the plants. The animals, they are made on day 6, and they breathe oxygen and give off carbon dioxide, and plants do the opposite. These are all symbiotic relationships, okay. Each day cannot be millions or billions of years old. It just doesn’t work. They are literal 24-hour days. Romans 5 tells us, “by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and DEATH BY SIN; and so DEATH PASSED UPON ALL MEN, for that all have sinned:” (Romans 5:12). The Bible’s real clear “by man came DEATH,” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22 ). That means there was NO DEATH OR SIN in the world before God made Adam (remember, man was created on day 6). Now, if each day is supposed to be millions or billions of years long (that is, evolution happened and animals and people died) you now have death and sin before man. A clear heresy. Not at all what the Bible teaches. So, no. There was nobody here before Adam, okay. God did not use evolution to get us here. The Bible clearly tells us man brought death into the world. What does evolution say? Death brought man into the world. These are exact opposite to each other. So the idea of these days being long periods of time is really ridiculous. I think these passages undeniably teach that the first sin came by Adam and that there was no death before sin. Therefore, it is incompatible to teach that long days of evolution existed before Adam, because it would place death before sin — a direct contradiction to Scripture. The Bible’s simplest interpretation is for a young earth creation account. These are literal 24-hour days. I hope that helps.

apacalyps on September 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM

I just proved that the Bible teaches literal 24-hour days. They were not six long periods of time allowing evolution to take place. One of the reasons is death and sin cannot come before Adam. See Romans 5:12. To say otherwise is a direct contradiction to Scripture and clear heresy.

apacalyps on September 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM

apacalyps:

Mage, I really don’t see how you can say with a straight-face “for once,” I’d like to see some evidence for creation. If you’re honest with yourself for a change, you’d admit you’ve already been given several examples for creation. Truth is, you just don’t want to see it, that’s all.

No, I was quite eager to see it. I even looked through every single one of your posts in search of some. The results, you see in my previous post – not one piece of evidence from you. Now, maybe you’re talking about someone else’s post, some other person who contributed a nugget of priceless evidence for creationism. If so, could you link? You obviously seem to know where it is, and I’ve already hunted through 4+ pages of posts once. Or, if I missed some evidence that you presented, link to that, and I’ll read it gladly.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose creation were true. Just suppose. Suppose this Book is absolutely correct. Suppose God made the world like He said He did, and He’s the Boss, and He’s gonna come judge the world. Would that effect your lifestyle any? I mean, the Book indicates right here, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no adultery, no pre-marital sex, no pornography, uh, would that effect your lifestyle? I don’t know anything about you. I’m just asking a question. Now, you don’t need to answer. Just think about it.

Well, my values wouldn’t change, and my ability to fulfill them wouldn’t change. I think that’s a no.

apacalyps on September 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM

Amusing again that you won’t bother to simply quote me in full. But congratulations, you seem to be able to provide evidence for your points when the argument in question is over literal interpretation of the Bible. Now if only you would apply that ability to something besides the Bible, we might have something here. I’ll concede that Biblical literalism does not allow for evolution.

What I have said is that I can logically defend “God created the heaven and the earth”, because it fits with what we observe in the present world. That makes sense with real science. Christianity is not a blind faith, okay. That is a myth. There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports the Bible. So if you’re a Christian, there’s nothing to be ashamed of. Christianity can prove itself. It’s the only religion that can.

Once again you talk about how there’s all this evidence out there, but you haven’t provided any or linked to any. And you certainly haven’t done anything to contradict the evidence of a much older Earth and even older universe.

And let me clarify something else for you, okay. I’m not challenging you to anything. This debate is not a challenge. Now, listen to me carefully. I’m responding here, for one reason, and one reason only. If somebody’s not saved, I wanna help get them converted. I am consumed with trying to get other people converted. That’s my goal in life. And I think that ought to be every Christians goal. The Bible says, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11). Now what does that mean “the terror of the Lord?” We like to talk about the love of the Lord, but the truth is the Bible says “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31). I’m here to try and persuade you to “get right with God” Mage, because on judgment day you’ll have to give an account of your sins and you don’t wanna come up short of God’s righteousness. I don’t want you to go to hell, okay. And that there just about sums it up.

I don’t see what an intellectual debate has to do with a spiritual one, but you’d get further with both if you presented evidence regarding the intellectual part rather than handwave about how the evidence is all there.

Math_Mage on September 11, 2008 at 2:20 AM

But congratulations, you seem to be able to provide evidence for your points when the argument in question is over literal interpretation of the Bible.

Math_Mage on September 11, 2008 at 2:20 AM

In all fairness Mage you asked me, “Where do the terms “literal” and “24-hour” appear in Genesis?” You suggested also that “God’s 24-hour days” might be long periods of time. And you said, “You do know that it’s possible to accept evolutionary theory without rejecting God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Bible … right?” In all fairness Mage, I had to respond to that first to show that the Bible is real clear God made everything in six literal 24-hour days and rested on the 7th day (Exodus 20:11). It’s the same as our week. They were not long periods of time with billions of years between them. The Bible says that “by man came death” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) and “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Romans 5:12). That is, that death and sin cannot come before Adam. To say otherwise is a direct contradiction to Scripture and clear heresy. Those people who think god used evolution they have a different god than me, okay. Evolution has to use suffering, misfits, death, because it doesn’t know what it wants the first time and can’t make it right the first time. If death is natural, then Jesus’ death had no meaning or purpose. This evolution theory is in complete contradiction to what the Bible teaches. So yes, I had to provide evidence for this.

I’ll concede that Biblical literalism does not allow for evolution.

Very good. Your humbleness is a very good quality. I must say, I like that about you. I’m not trying to be arrogant either.

Now if only you would apply that ability to something besides the Bible, we might have something here.

Okay let’s get to some evidence. You want evidence. I don’t mind evidence. I like evidence, I like laws too. Like the Second Law of Thermodynamics which tells us everything tends toward disorder. So let’s talk about it. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states: there’s numerous different ways it can be stated, but everything tends toward disorder. You leave things alone, they get worse. They don’t get better. The Bible teaches that, “The heavens are the works of the hands: They perish: they wax old as doth a garment” (Hebrews 1:10-11). Left alone things fall apart. Nothing organizes itself. Look, …well, picture this in your head. There’s Sue at 20 (a photo of young and beautiful women). Here’s Sue at 90 (photo of grandma). And there she is at 3000 (holding dust in your hands). Uh, the 2nd law states basically everything collapses, breaks down, wears out, deteriorates, it’s falling apart, okay. Everything is degrading. The buildings you see when walking or driving are degrading. If you don’t have people constantly maintaining those buildings they will fall apart. The entire highway system in America will fall completely apart if we don’t keep maintaining it. Leave your car sitting out in the sun for a few years and watch it ruin your paint job. The sun destroys or breaks down everything, (your house, your driveway, your clothes, etc.) except one thing-Chlorophyll, it’s the only thing that the sun helps. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ie, entropy) okay. Nothing gets better without work — input — energy — input. The 2nd law is not a theory — it is a LAW — which tells us everything tends toward disorder. Ah, but the evolutionist says, “Folks, we are getting better. Humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than three billion years ago.” Now let’s reason together, okay. Think about this carefully. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics means that things are not getting better, but worse. How could a bunch of chemicals (pools of matter) make us if the “pools of matter” are tending to disorder??? Are we from disorder? It’s stupid. Anyways, all systems in the observable universe are undergoing similar entropy. The universe is winding down okay, it’s not getting better. That’s the 2nd law. So if you think that evolution can overcome that 2nd law, I would like to understand how, okay. The 2nd law tells us everything is falling apart therefore obviously there must have been a beginning. I can answer that in 10 words. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” That’s the logical answer for me. Thank you.

apacalyps on September 12, 2008 at 4:25 PM

Like the Second Law of Thermodynamics which tells us everything tends toward disorder. So let’s talk about it. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states: there’s numerous different ways it can be stated, but everything tends toward disorder. You leave things alone, they get worse. They don’t get better.

Have you ever read the full text of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Here’s one good definition:

“The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.”

Key phrase there: “isolated system.” That means that there’s no energy entering or exiting the system. In that case, yes, everything tends towards disorder.

But look at the Earth. Is the Earth an isolated (or closed) system? No. The Earth receives massive amounts of energy: electromagnetic radiation from the Sun and the rest of the universe. The name for this kind of system is “open system,” one that is NOT energetically isolated from the rest of the universe. And since the Earth is an open system, the 2nd Law does not apply; order can arise from disorder given energy input. I already dealt with this argument in my post at 12:18 on September 9.

Math_Mage on September 13, 2008 at 1:31 AM

Apacalyps and Math_Mage, regarding your discussion of entropy and thermodynamics, could I ask each of you, should you have the time and inclination, to define what you mean by “order”.

As far as I am aware order is an entirely subjective concept. In other words, order is not a quality of the perceived object but a quality of the perception. Order, in that case, only exists inside a mind as a function of consciousness (and possibly of rationality, but I am still thinking about that).

If the universe did not contain consciousness (a mind of some sort) there could still be mass and energy, but I cannot see how there could possibly be any ‘order’.

YiZhangZhe on September 13, 2008 at 7:44 AM

I think these passages undeniably teach that the first sin came by Adam and that there was no death before sin. Therefore, it is incompatible to teach that long days of evolution existed before Adam, because it would place death before sin — a direct contradiction to Scripture. The Bible’s simplest interpretation is for a young earth creation account. These are literal 24-hour days. I hope that helps.

apacalyps on September 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM

I don’t think it can be quite as simple as your explanation.

(1) The garden contained both the tree of knowledge and the tree of life and Adam and Eve were banished from the garden to prevent them eating from the tree of life and thus living for ever. The possibility of death therefore existed before sin.

(2) If one rejects evolution then the interactions between the living things on the planet on day seven must have been similar to what they are today: In particular, things must have devoured other things or stepped on them, presumably killing them in the process. Even if you posit a vegetarian world (I don’t because I find the idea to be just as ridiculous as evolution, and for similar reasons) then some of the bacteria within the vegetables might have died when the vegetables were consumed.

(3) If there was reproduction without death then … well, places would get crowded mighty quick.

So I would conclude that biological death had to be part of the world from its very inception and the “death” in the passages you mentioned must therefore refer to something other than biological death.

YiZhangZhe on September 13, 2008 at 8:11 AM

Apacalyps and Math_Mage, regarding your discussion of entropy and thermodynamics, could I ask each of you, should you have the time and inclination, to define what you mean by “order”.

As far as I am aware order is an entirely subjective concept. In other words, order is not a quality of the perceived object but a quality of the perception. Order, in that case, only exists inside a mind as a function of consciousness (and possibly of rationality, but I am still thinking about that).

If the universe did not contain consciousness (a mind of some sort) there could still be mass and energy, but I cannot see how there could possibly be any ‘order’.

YiZhangZhe on September 13, 2008 at 7:44 AM

Before consciousness, heat was still a more disorganized form of energy than that found in chemical bonds, and patterns existed before there were consciousnesses to interpret them. Order, to me, is simply the degree of organization in the arrangement of energy and matter. Another definition, and an equivalent one, is the capacity of the energy/matter to do work in the state that it’s in. So I don’t see why order presupposes consciousness. It’s like the old “if a tree falls in a forest and nobody’s around, does it make a sound?” question.

Math_Mage on September 13, 2008 at 9:18 PM

Math_Mage on September 13, 2008 at 9:18 PM

Thank you for that reply.

Your two definitions don’t seem to me to be equivalent, as you suggested they were.

Your first definition is circular since, in this context, “organization” and “pattern” are just other words for “order”. These words all refer to the subjective, not to the objective and hence there could be no order without consciousness.

If we limit the definition of “work” to being, say, “a change in the objective state” then, according to your second definition, it would be possible to have “order” without first having consciousness. Within the entirety of the universe each change in state must lead to less order and so this definition would be consistent with what I understand the 2nd law to mean. However we might then need to find another word to use to refer to the “order” that is found subjectively by a conscious mind.

As for the sound made by the falling tree, I think the answer depends on the definition of “sound”. If the definition of “sound” consists wholly of objective things such as the transfer of mass and energy then, yes, it does make a sound. However if the definition of “sound” requires the conscious (i.e. subjective) interpretation of the objective things then, no, it doesn’t … yet neither would it be silent because silence (being defined as the absence of sound) would also be equally subjective.

YiZhangZhe on September 13, 2008 at 10:53 PM

Apacalyps and Math_Mage, regarding your discussion of entropy and thermodynamics, could I ask each of you, should you have the time and inclination, to define what you mean by “order”.

YiZhangZhe on September 13, 2008 at 7:44 AM

Pardon me, but, you ignored this question earlier. You went silent when asked:

(If) you neither believe the Biblical creation account or evolution (then) what is world-view YiZhangZhe?

apacalyps on September 3, 2008 at 12:32 PM

So you should answer that question first before you go “butting in” on somebody else’s debate. Thank you.

apacalyps on September 14, 2008 at 12:54 PM

And I apologize for the slight delay Mage. I’ll post a reply a little later on. The weekend is getting in the way, that’s all. In the meantime, don’t let me interrupt you two Krishna’s and your new age hippie ideas. Maybe you could hold hands next, y’know, form a Yoga circle and chant, “ohm… ohm… ohmmm…” for greater cosmic consciousness.

Order, in that case, only exists inside a mind as a function of consciousness (and possibly of rationality, but I am still thinking about that).

YiZhangZhe on September 13, 2008 at 7:44 AM

Before consciousness, heat was still a more disorganized form of energy than that found in chemical bonds, and patterns existed before there were consciousnesses to interpret them.

Math_Mage on September 13, 2008 at 9:18 PM

apacalyps on September 14, 2008 at 1:12 PM

YiZhangZhe:

Your two definitions don’t seem to me to be equivalent, as you suggested they were.

Both definitions are reflections of the technical one, which is a measure of the entropy (or randomness) in a system. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disordered_state

Your first definition is circular since, in this context, “organization” and “pattern” are just other words for “order”. These words all refer to the subjective, not to the objective and hence there could be no order without consciousness.

Order can be objectively defined mathematically, so I don’t see why subjectivity is implied. But point taken about the circularity.

Math_Mage on September 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Have you ever read the full text of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

Math_Mage on September 13, 2008 at 1:31 AM

Yes, I have.

Here’s one good definition:

“The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.”

Key phrase there: “isolated system.” That means that there’s no energy entering or exiting the system. In that case, yes, everything tends towards disorder.

Correct. The universe is a closed system.

But look at the Earth. Is the Earth an isolated (or closed) system? No. The Earth receives massive amounts of energy: electromagnetic radiation from the Sun and the rest of the universe. The name for this kind of system is “open system,” one that is NOT energetically isolated from the rest of the universe. And since the Earth is an open system, the 2nd Law does not apply; order can arise from disorder given energy input. I already dealt with this argument in my post at 12:18 on September 9.

This is where you’re wrong. The open systems argument does not help evolution, Maxx. We know the 2nd law states basically everything collapses, breaks down, wears out, deteriorates, it’s falling apart, okay. Now, your argument the 2nd law can be overcome by adding energy is absolutely FATALLY FLAWED. You say the earth is an open system which is what you just said, “it receives energy from the sun”. Well, the universe is a closed system number one, okay. So there’s no new energy being added by definition. Secondly, adding energy is destructive unless there’s something to use the energy. See, the Japanese added a whole bunch of energy to Pearl Harbour. They didn’t organize nothin’ for us. A couple years later we returned the favour, added energy to a few of there cities and didn’t organize a thing. See, adding energy to overcome the 2nd law is LUDICROUS. You’ll probably say, “Well, you can walk into a room and straighten it up.” Yeah, I know Maxx, but now you got intelligence involved. What you want to do is just add raw energy and think that’s somehow gonna do it??? That’s simply flawed logic, okay. The sun adds energy to your house, but it’s gonna destroy the roof on your house. The sun’s energy will destroy your entire house. If you don’t keep fixing things it’s gonna completely crumble to dust, okay. The sun’s energy will destroy the roof on your car, NOT BUILD IT. It will destroy the paint job on your car! There’s only one thing that can actually use the sun’s energy, and that’s chlorophyll. And each little plant cell is more complex than a space shuttle. So to say adding energy to a primitive earth is gonna create life on earth is just ludicrous. Not gonna happen. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex. You need machinery (intelligence) already in place to harness that energy. Has to be a Designer involved. Thank you.

apacalyps on September 14, 2008 at 5:50 PM

This is where you’re wrong. The open systems argument does not help evolution, Maxx. We know the 2nd law states basically everything collapses, breaks down, wears out, deteriorates, it’s falling apart, okay.

Stated generally, yes, the randomness of the universe tends to increase over time.

Now, your argument the 2nd law can be overcome by adding energy is absolutely FATALLY FLAWED. You say the earth is an open system which is what you just said, “it receives energy from the sun”. Well, the universe is a closed system number one, okay. So there’s no new energy being added by definition.

No new energy is being added to the universe. But energy shifts to the Earth system from the rest of the universe (meaning energy is being ADDED to the Earth system), which can cause a local decrease in entropy for the Earth system even as the universe’s entropy increases.

Secondly, adding energy is destructive unless there’s something to use the energy. See, the Japanese added a whole bunch of energy to Pearl Harbour. They didn’t organize nothin’ for us. A couple years later we returned the favour, added energy to a few of there cities and didn’t organize a thing.

Intelligently guiding the use of energy to cause destruction says nothing about the capacity of adding energy to cause construction without intelligence. Completely unrelated.

See, adding energy to overcome the 2nd law is LUDICROUS. You’ll probably say, “Well, you can walk into a room and straighten it up.” Yeah, I know Maxx, but now you got intelligence involved. What you want to do is just add raw energy and think that’s somehow gonna do it??? That’s simply flawed logic, okay. The sun adds energy to your house, but it’s gonna destroy the roof on your house. The sun’s energy will destroy your entire house. If you don’t keep fixing things it’s gonna completely crumble to dust, okay. The sun’s energy will destroy the roof on your car, NOT BUILD IT. It will destroy the paint job on your car! There’s only one thing that can actually use the sun’s energy, and that’s chlorophyll. And each little plant cell is more complex than a space shuttle. So to say adding energy to a primitive earth is gonna create life on earth is just ludicrous. Not gonna happen. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex. You need machinery (intelligence) already in place to harness that energy. Has to be a Designer involved. Thank you.

apacalyps on September 14, 2008 at 5:50 PM

Here’s the argument of someone who’s never taken chemistry seriously. Even molecules can use energy to change their configuration – how do you think chlorophyll WORKS, for pete’s sake? The configuration is not NECESSARILY one with lower entropy (hence the destruction achieved by bombs, as you noted), but it CAN be (and often is). Your argument is like saying “well, excess heat makes fire, which burns stuff down, so heat can’t do ANYTHING constructive without intelligent guidance!” How absurd.

Math_Mage on September 15, 2008 at 12:30 AM

I like this quote by Dr. Bolton Davidheiser (who used to teach evolution in his John Hopkins University biology courses, but later became an staunch creationist) he said:

“The evolutionists say (bluffing, I believe) that there is no problem about evolution in regard to the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the energy requirements are satisfied. This seems like saying there is no problem about building a skyscraper if only there is available mechanical equipment, a source of fuel for the equipment, and enough healthy people selected at random. (The people do not have to know anything about building skyscrapers; the only requirements being that they are healthy and vigorous.) “In the case of living things there is needed BESIDES a source of energy, one or more of the following: a genetic code, an instinct, intelligence.”

apacalyps on September 15, 2008 at 2:03 PM

But energy shifts to the Earth system from the rest of the universe (meaning energy is being ADDED to the Earth system)

Math_Mage on September 15, 2008 at 12:30 AM

What energy is being added to earth and how does it create life from non-living matter?

Here’s the argument of someone who’s never taken chemistry seriously. Even molecules can use energy to change their configuration – how do you think chlorophyll WORKS, for pete’s sake?

Talk about absurd. You say molecules and chlorophyll can use energy to grow which is what you just said, “Even molecules can use energy to change, how do you think chlorophyll WORKS…”. Well duh! Nobody disputes that, Mage. What you’re ignoring is that they already contain the information (DNA) in them which determines how they are to grow. Chlorophyll is a very complex molecule, y’know. Each one of those plant cell is more complex than a space shuttle. Pick your statistics on this: The odds of even one simple molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10113, and a single cell is made of millions of these molecules. In fact, the idea of such a simple molecule forming by chance — to say undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information — to put that number in perspective — it’s like saying a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book! Not gonna happen. You still have to have intelligence, okay. I mean for a baby to grow y’know 7-8 pounds to a 200 pounds adult, it takes alot of input of food and it’s not just anything. You just don’t pour sand and water in there. It has to be a COMPLEX DESIGN FOOD, and has to be used by an extremely COMPLEX DIGESTIVE SYSTEM, and it’s all following a COMPLEX CODE called DNA. This is all a matter of intelligence. This… these things just don’t happen automatically. It’s true you can put gasoline in your car and drive down the street and get a very complex machine to work by putting in fuel. Put the fuel in the front seat and toss in a match, see if it does the same thing, kay!! You have to have a COMPLEX MECHANISM to use the energy in the gasoline called a DRIVE TRAIN, and an IGNITION SYSTEM, and all kinds of other things. To say that the sun can shine on the earth and turn a rock to a human in 4.6 billion years is ludicrous! Adding energy it is destructive without a complex mechanism to harness the energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states everything tends toward disorder. Everything is falling apart. Nothing gets better by itself. Nothing gets better automatically. You leave things alone for a while and they rot, rust, break down, die, they fall apart. Clearly, the Second law of Thermodynamics doesn’t permit evolution.

apacalyps on September 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM

I like this quote by Dr. Bolton Davidheiser (who used to teach evolution in his John Hopkins University biology courses, but later became an staunch creationist) he said:

“The evolutionists say (bluffing, I believe) that there is no problem about evolution in regard to the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the energy requirements are satisfied. This seems like saying there is no problem about building a skyscraper if only there is available mechanical equipment, a source of fuel for the equipment, and enough healthy people selected at random. (The people do not have to know anything about building skyscrapers; the only requirements being that they are healthy and vigorous.) “In the case of living things there is needed BESIDES a source of energy, one or more of the following: a genetic code, an instinct, intelligence.”

apacalyps on September 15, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Flawed analogy, apacalyps. Dr. Davidheiser’s skyscraper is a predetermined result – evolution does not have predetermined results. Furthermore, evolution does not deal with the origin of life, so please tell me why this is relevant at all.

What energy is being added to earth and how does it create life from non-living matter?

Energy from the Sun, in the form of electromagnetic radiation in the visible, UV, and infrared spectra, which are converted into various other kinds of energy (especially heat) upon contact with various elements of Earth’s atmosphere and Earth. As for creating life from non-life, since when was that the question? I thought the current question was about whether or not the Second Law of Thermodynamics applied, preventing any increase in organization over time. I think I’ve just demonstrated that the 2nd Law does NOT apply. Invent a new law if you wish, but don’t use that one.

Talk about absurd. You say molecules and chlorophyll can use energy to grow which is what you just said, “Even molecules can use energy to change, how do you think chlorophyll WORKS…”. Well duh! Nobody disputes that, Mage. What you’re ignoring is that they already contain the information (DNA) in them which determines how they are to grow.

Chlorophyll does not contain any DNA. Make your point more clearly or don’t bother. As for chlorophyll being a complex molecule, the principle that heat can produce organization applies to extremely simple molecules as well; take, for example, the heat energy required to assemble a glucose molecule from its component atoms, or the heat energy required to connect two glucose molecules at the hydroxide bonding points with a dehydration reaction.

Chlorophyll is a very complex molecule, y’know. Each one of those plant cell is more complex than a space shuttle.

These two sentences are completely unrelated, as chlorophyll is not a cell and it’s not more complex than a space shuttle. The actual plant cell may be compared to a space shuttle, but that has no relevance to the argument being made.

Pick your statistics on this: The odds of even one simple molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10113, and a single cell is made of millions of these molecules.

Do you mean 10,000, or 10^113? In either case I’d have to ask where you get these numbers from. In the latter, I’d have to ask why the numbers are so obviously bogus.

In fact, the idea of such a simple molecule forming by chance — to say undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information — to put that number in perspective — it’s like saying a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book! Not gonna happen.

Without citations for your numbers, this argument is meaningless. The bogus probability statistic is a favorite tactic of creationists, but that doesn’t make it valid.

You still have to have intelligence, okay. I mean for a baby to grow y’know 7-8 pounds to a 200 pounds adult, it takes alot of input of food and it’s not just anything. You just don’t pour sand and water in there. It has to be a COMPLEX DESIGN FOOD, and has to be used by an extremely COMPLEX DIGESTIVE SYSTEM, and it’s all following a COMPLEX CODE called DNA. This is all a matter of intelligence. This… these things just don’t happen automatically.

The complexity of the system proves nothing about evolution unless you assume that the bogus probability argument is correct, which you have only asserted rather than demonstrated. When you attempt to demonstrate it, I’ll provide the experimental evidence against the idea.

It’s true you can put gasoline in your car and drive down the street and get a very complex machine to work by putting in fuel. Put the fuel in the front seat and toss in a match, see if it does the same thing, kay!! You have to have a COMPLEX MECHANISM to use the energy in the gasoline called a DRIVE TRAIN, and an IGNITION SYSTEM, and all kinds of other things.

Same as the previous section, only one step further removed because you’re not even talking about a living thing anymore. The complexity of a designed object does NOT imply that any other complex object is designed.

To say that the sun can shine on the earth and turn a rock to a human in 4.6 billion years is ludicrous! Adding energy it is destructive without a complex mechanism to harness the energy.

I’ve already talked about how a complex mechanism is not required. A very simple one will do the job just as well. It’s called chemistry. Look up the chapters on thermodynamics, heat transfer, chemical equilibria, and so on.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states everything tends toward disorder.

…in a closed system. Since the Earth is an open system, the 2nd Law is irrelevant. As I’ve said before, if you want to try to continue this argument, you’ll have to make up another law.

Everything is falling apart. Nothing gets better by itself. Nothing gets better automatically. You leave things alone for a while and they rot, rust, break down, die, they fall apart. Clearly, the Second law of Thermodynamics doesn’t permit evolution.

apacalyps on September 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM

I’m curious. Taking the simplest example you used: describe to me the process of rusting. Then tell me how that is representative of chemical reactions with a constant source of energy input. If you can’t do this, either you lack an understanding of basic chemical principles or it’s impossible to do so because the rusting process is NOT representative of chemical reactions with energy input. Furthermore, explain why the oxidation-reduction reaction being undergone is in all cases detrimental to localized order. I mean, if rusting is disorderly, then oxidation can’t ever do anything orderly, right?

Math_Mage on September 16, 2008 at 3:03 AM

I just feel like pointing this out again:

Talk about absurd. You say molecules and chlorophyll can use energy to grow which is what you just said, “Even molecules can use energy to change, how do you think chlorophyll WORKS…”. Well duh! Nobody disputes that, Mage. What you’re ignoring is that they already contain the information (DNA) in them which determines how they are to grow.

First, you agree that molecules can use energy to change their conformation (this energy is called the activation energy for a chemical reaction, by the way. Look it up), which would seem to agree with my earlier assertion (and leads to the conclusion that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply, since this means entropy can be reduced for the Earth system simply by providing the activation energy to any reaction with a positive change in enthalpy). Then you say that chlorophyll contains DNA (???) and thus is different from other molecules – as if a molecule’s structure is dependent on whether or not its information came from DNA. When it looks like I have to teach basic science in order to make my arguments, I give up. Think whatever the heck you want about creationism, evolution and abiogenesis, apacalyps, just leave me out of it.

Math_Mage on September 16, 2008 at 3:13 AM

Flawed analogy, apacalyps. Dr. Davidheiser’s skyscraper is a predetermined result – evolution does not have predetermined results.

Math_Mage on September 16, 2008 at 3:03 AM

Give your head a shake. You say that there is no problem about evolution in regard to the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the earth receives energy from the sun. Talk about a flawed analogy. You still have to have intelligence. The sun’s energy bathing a bunch of bricks and lumber at a construction site won’t erect a building by itself! Your argument the Second Law can be overcome by adding energy from the sun is absolutely fatally flawed! You need a genetic code first, an instinct, intelligence, to use that energy. Dr. Davidheiser explains it another way. Concerning the requirement for a code, Dr. Bolton Davidheiser said:

“Human beings can accomplish great feats of building structures, and there is no problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. BUT intelligence is required. A bunch of morons could play with bricks, sand, etc. and expend more energy than the contractor’s workmen, but they would not make a building. Something MORE than the satisfaction of energy requirements is needed.

Furthermore, evolution does not deal with the origin of life, so please tell me why this is relevant at all.

I knew this canard was coming. It was only a matter of time. Evolutionists can’t defend the idea we evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago, so they have to change their own theory to avoid explaining it. Mage, evolution deals with the origin of life. Just saying it doesn’t to avoid losing a debate doesn’t change this fact. Oh, and before I say anything more about this, please tell me when do you think evolution began? Thank you.

(Earth receives) energy from the Sun.

Adding sunlight to the earth is no help at all unless machines are present that can harness the energy. We’ve already gone over this. Raw energy cannot make very specific complex information in living things. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. Let it lose and see what it organizes? Think about what you’re saying, Mage. Are you that deluded? Seriously. Think about it. You think that adding raw energy from the sun to a barren, primitive earth, is somehow gonna create life?? That’s simply flawed logic, okay. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. There must be a mechanism in place first to harness the energy. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. The suns energy is harmful. It will destroy your entire house. If you don’t keep fixing things it’s gonna completely crumble to dust, okay. That is an example of the Second Law! The sun’s energy will destroy the roof on your car, NOT BUILD IT. That’s the Second Law! It will destroy the paint job on your car. That’s the Second Law! If you lie out in the sun for too long you’ll find out it’s not good for you. You’ll get terrible sunburns, and skin cancer. So they tell you don’t do that. Clearly, the sun’s energy does not overcome the Second Law. The missing ingredient is an energy-conversion mechanism! You need INTELLIGENCE to harness the energy!

Since the Earth is an open system, the 2nd Law is irrelevant.

Denial is a river in Africa. Open systems argument does not help evolution, Magic Man. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that everything is running down, going from order to disorder. To say adding energy to a primitive earth is gonna create life on earth is just ludicrous! Evolution contradicts scientific laws. Not gonna happen. Has to be a Designer involved.

You agree that molecules can use energy to change their conformation

Math_Mage on September 16, 2008 at 3:13 AM

Don’t twist my words. I wasn’t saying “change” as in evolution occurs. Re-read what I said. I specifically used the word “grow”. A child grows to be an adult. A seed grows into a tree. The Bible says “they will bring forth after there kind,” and that’s that we have observed. Of course, there are variations within kinds of animals, but there are definite limits to the variations. A dog will always be a dog. It will never turn into a cat! You will never get a hamster, or a tomato or a whale to grow on that cornstalk. It won’t happen.

I think I’ve just demonstrated that the 2nd Law does NOT apply.

LOL. You’ve done NOTHING of the sort! The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out, and you expect me to believe that evolved from a nothing?! You can’t even get your own theory straight, okay. Always refining the idea of evolution, always being revised, re-written, re-thought, that’s the way scams generally work, keep the carrot dangling in front of a donkey and what’s the common word for donkey? You scoundrals peddling this fairytale here are conmen of the highest order.

When it looks like I have to teach basic science in order to make my arguments, I give up. Think whatever the heck you want about creationism, evolution and abiogenesis, apacalyps, just leave me out of it.

I feel sorry for those whom the Devil has deceived into believing his lies. It is interesting to watch how people like you will spend much time and effort scrutinizing a subject like my choice of words, yet won’t spend 2 seconds scrutinizing how stupid it is to believe you evolved from a rock! I see no reason for this cowardice except maybe Proverbs 28:1, “The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.” You evolutionists strain so hard at the gnats and then turn around and swallow the camel of evolution (Matthew 23:24). I never said I was perfect, and never have, but I serve a God who is and love His Bible, which is perfect. I think it’s obvious to anyone reading that I am saying intelligence is needed to harness raw solar energy. It is pure fantasy to think that undirected energy could generate complex life forms. To say that the sun can shine on a primitive earth and turn a rock to a human in 4.6 billion years is ludicrous! Now, if you wanna believe the earth is billions of years old, and your ancestors swung by their tails go ahead, but don’t call it science. That is your religion. You have to believe it happened. There is no evidence this occured. Besides, you can’t even get you’re own theory straight!! Just remember though. You will have no excuse when you stand before God. Can’t use the excuse I was misled by evolution. Just like an Arab thinks he will go to heaven and get 72 wives if he blows up some Israelis, he has been misled, okay. Well, you’ve been misled, Mage:

“For the invisible things of him (GOD) from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the things THAT ARE MADE, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (meaning people) are WITHOUT EXCUSE:” Romans 1:20

The answer to the source of the code is obvious:

“In the beginning God created. . . ” (Genesis 1:1)

I will be praying you realize that one day.

apacalyps on September 16, 2008 at 3:41 PM

Give your head a shake. You say that there is no problem about evolution in regard to the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the earth receives energy from the sun. Talk about a flawed analogy. You still have to have intelligence. The sun’s energy bathing a bunch of bricks and lumber at a construction site won’t erect a building by itself! Your argument the Second Law can be overcome by adding energy from the sun is absolutely fatally flawed! You need a genetic code first, an instinct, intelligence, to use that energy.

So you want to argue that increasing organization over time requires intelligence as well as an energy source? Fine, then argue that. But don’t try to bring the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics into play, because BY DEFINITION it does not apply.

Oh, and as for intelligence being required to increase organization over time? You’d better try again. These people show that complexity is theoretically forced to increase over time in an environment with an energy source (but otherwise fixed) because of evolutionary principles:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463

Note: It’s a published and peer-reviewed scientific paper, so don’t go dismissing it as “evolutionist crap” or “fraud” or some such nonsense. And I have loads more from my time arguing on Ben Stein’s movie’s blog. If you’re bringing nothing but arguments from authority and bad science to the table, you’re a bit out of your league evidence-wise.

Dr. Davidheiser explains it another way. Concerning the requirement for a code, Dr. Bolton Davidheiser said:

“Human beings can accomplish great feats of building structures, and there is no problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. BUT intelligence is required. A bunch of morons could play with bricks, sand, etc. and expend more energy than the contractor’s workmen, but they would not make a building. Something MORE than the satisfaction of energy requirements is needed.”

Do you realize that he admits, right off, that the energy requirements are satisfied? That takes the 2nd Law right out of play, immediately. Now, one could argue that one must both satisfy the 2nd Law and postulate intelligence to conclude that constructive use of energy is possible, but that doesn’t involve a dispute over the 2nd Law.

I knew this canard was coming. It was only a matter of time. Evolutionists can’t defend the idea we evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago, so they have to change their own theory to avoid explaining it. Mage, evolution deals with the origin of life. Just saying it doesn’t to avoid losing a debate doesn’t change this fact. Oh, and before I say anything more about this, please tell me when do you think evolution began? Thank you.

“Evolutionists” had to CHANGE the theory of evolution to avoid losing a debate? Fine, then tell me when evolution EVER dealt with the origin of life. It’d be nice for you if Darwin had mentioned it, but he didn’t. There’s a reason his paper is titled “The Origin of SPECIES” and not “The Origin of LIFE.” If you can’t manage that, then tell me which evolutionary mechanisms are SUPPOSED to deal with the origin of life. Natural selection? Genetic drift? Gene flow? I’m quite curious to hear which of these you think evolutionists claim is responsible for life on Earth.

And no, evolutionists can’t use evolutionary theory to defend naturalistic ideas about the origin of life, because evolutionary mechanisms simply do not apply to nonliving objects, which do not imperfectly self-replicate and inherit variation. Evolutionists have nothing to say about the origin of life; but then, neither do creationists, at least where science is concerned.

Finally, no, I have no explanation for the origin of life. Abiogenesis is a conjecture, but it lacks sufficient evidence and cannot be experimentally verified (only the POSSIBILITY of abiogenesis can be experimentally verified). The difference between you and me is that I say “I don’t know,” while you say “Aha! God must have done it!” The content of those two statements is exactly the same from a scientific viewpoint, because neither statement explains anything about the universe we live in.

Don’t twist my words. I wasn’t saying “change” as in evolution occurs. Re-read what I said. I specifically used the word “grow”. A child grows to be an adult. A seed grows into a tree. The Bible says “they will bring forth after there kind,” and that’s that we have observed. Of course, there are variations within kinds of animals, but there are definite limits to the variations. A dog will always be a dog. It will never turn into a cat! You will never get a hamster, or a tomato or a whale to grow on that cornstalk. It won’t happen.

Um…I wasn’t talking about evolution, either. Here’s the statement I made originally:

Here’s the argument of someone who’s never taken chemistry seriously. Even molecules can use energy to change their configuration – how do you think chlorophyll WORKS, for pete’s sake?

Obviously, a reference to molecules changing configuration after energy is introduced.

Your reply:

Talk about absurd. You say molecules and chlorophyll can use energy to grow which is what you just said, “Even molecules can use energy to change, how do you think chlorophyll WORKS…”. Well duh! Nobody disputes that, Mage. What you’re ignoring is that they already contain the information (DNA) in them which determines how they are to grow.

Either you’re twisting my statement to talk specifically about growth as in maturity (when that is plainly not what I said), or you’re agreeing with me about the invalidity of the 2nd Law when you say “Well duh! Nobody disputes that, Mage.”

And, of course, since chlorophyll exists independently of the DNA that created it, to say that chlorophyll contains DNA (as you did) is absurd. Further, to say that any reaction involving the chlorophyll that reduces the local entropy is a result of the DNA’s actions is foolish. It’s a result of well-defined chemical laws, which act on simple molecules in inanimate objects as well as chlorophyll in plants.

LOL. You’ve done NOTHING of the sort! The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out, and you expect me to believe that evolved from a nothing?! You can’t even get your own theory straight, okay. Always refining the idea of evolution, always being revised, re-written, re-thought, that’s the way scams generally work, keep the carrot dangling in front of a donkey and what’s the common word for donkey? You scoundrals peddling this fairytale here are conmen of the highest order.

You post this and then expect me to believe that I’m the victim of the Devil’s con? From your perspective, I’m obviously the con man. Anyway, I’d like you to point out any point in this entire thread where I’ve revised, rewritten, rethought, or made up any of the ideas I’ve presented. Obviously, if I’m such a con man, you should be able to do this. Right?

Furthermore, there’s a fairly obvious hole in your argument, EVEN IF YOU’RE CORRECT (though you’re not). (NOW I’m going to talk about evolution.) You say that living things can reduce their local entropy (though you argue that the only reason this is so is because they were created able to do so by their DNA). So why in heck do you argue that diversification of living things is falsified by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, when also arguing that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to living things like plant cells?

I feel sorry for those whom the Devil has deceived into believing his lies. It is interesting to watch how people like you will spend much time and effort scrutinizing a subject like my choice of words, yet won’t spend 2 seconds scrutinizing how stupid it is to believe you evolved from a rock!

Point 1: Nobody said you evolved from a rock. At best, it has been postulated that the rock gave rise to life some other way, and then evolution led from that first life to you. Your blatant misunderstanding of evolution basically disqualifies you from the whole debate – I have to wonder why I bother to keep arguing with someone who doesn’t even understand what we’re arguing about.

Point 2: If anything, it’s the exact opposite. I’ve spent maybe a few minutes in my life scrutinizing your words, while I’ve spent hours learning about evolutionary theory and its holes to find the most efficient way to refute your arguments. And if you add in the time I’ve spent scrutinizing evolution independent of your ridiculous arguments, it’s been months or years – a d*mn long time for one not yet 20. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t imply that my viewpoint results from my ignorance while so obviously displaying your own ignorance of the subjects under discussion.

Math_Mage on September 16, 2008 at 11:41 PM

So you want to argue that increasing organization over time requires intelligence as well as an energy source? Fine, then argue that.

Math_Mage on September 16, 2008 at 11:41 PM

No. I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying if you have a barren, primitive Earth, a lifeless rock with NO LIFE on it. NONE. ZILCH. NADA. NOTHING. NO LIFE AT ALL. The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t permit evolution. It won’t even allow it to GET STARTED. That’s what I’m saying. You’ve ignored huge steps of the evolution fairytale. Where did the initial organization and intelligence come from? Hmm? What you wanna do is start with life already there. Really, I can’t blame you. I wouldn’t want to have to defend spontaneous generation either (the idea that life evolved from non-living matter).

But don’t try to bring the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics into play, because BY DEFINITION it does not apply.

Like I said, there are several ways to define the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There’s all kinds of um… basically they all boil down to the same thing: MATTER — EVERYTHING TENDS TO DISORDER. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Everything is degrading. Your building or house is degrading. If you don’t have people constantly maintaining it, it will fall apart. The entire highway system in America will fall completely apart if we don’t keep maintaining it. Every building on this planet will fall down into a pile of rubble if somebody doesn’t keep fixing it. And even then, if they try desperately to keep fixing it, at some point it’s still gonna fall down. It’s inevitable. That’s the 2nd Law. Now, this idea that by adding raw energy to a lifeless rock, it’s somehow gonna create life…uh, …I have to say that is an exceedingly naive argument and it indicates the desperate state of evolutionary theory. Energy from the sun does not overcome the 2nd Law. It completely contradicts it! The 2nd Law says that we are NOT getting better, but worse. Evolution says that we ARE getting better, and that humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than three billion years ago. THOSE ARE EXACT OPPOSITES!! As for the sun’s energy Magic Man overcoming the 2nd Law, just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex Magic Man. If you lie out in the sun for too long you’ll find out it’s not good for you. You’ll get terrible sunburns, and skin cancer. So they tell you don’t do that. The sun is always destructive unless there is a mechanism already in place to use it’s energy. Undirected energy from the sun produces DISORDER, just like the 2nd Law states, not order. Throw a little hydrocloric acid, water, salt, or any other combination of chemicals on the ground and let the sun bathe them for millions of years. Those chemicals will NEVER, EVER, turn into live bacteria or any other self replicating organism. NEVER!! You have to have intelligence. Got to be a Designer involved who got things started. And if you can’t see the logic in this, I see no reason trying to explain it anymore.

Oh, and as for intelligence being required to increase organization over time?

You keep using phrases like “increase organization over time,” and “molecules change”. This is where I gotta make sure I understand what you’re really saying. I try to explain things as simple as possible so people can understand me. You wanna explain what “increase organization over time” means to you? Are these other words for one organism/animal evolving into a completely different organism/animal?

Do you realize that he admits, right off, that the energy requirements are satisfied? That takes the 2nd Law right out of play, immediately.

Wrong. What Dr. Davidheiser said was, “Human beings can accomplish great feats of building structures, and there is no problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. BUT intelligence is required.” Which is what I’ve have said all along. You can add all the energy you want, but unless you have intelligence to use the energy, it will be futile as the 2nd Law states it will tend to disorder. Here’s another quote from Dr. Davidheiser:

“In the development of an egg, there is increasing complexity. The entropy requirements are satisfied, BUT a genetic code is required. Without the genetic code the egg ,would not develop regardless of energy or entropy. The question is, what was the source of the genetic code?”

Fine, then tell me when evolution EVER dealt with the origin of life. It’d be nice for you if Darwin had mentioned it, but he didn’t.

Darwin himself made a famous contribution to the field in a 1871 letter:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”

There’s a reason his paper is titled “The Origin of SPECIES” and not “The Origin of LIFE.”

They call his book, The Origin of Species. That’s not correct. Here is the whole title of the book, “The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life.” Favored races? Think on that for a while. Charlie was a racist.

Evolutionists have nothing to say about the origin of life;

Wrong again.

“As the Earth formed the surface was hot and there were large pools of bubbling lava….Millions of years of torrential rains created oceans. Swirling in the oceans was a bubbling broth of complex chemicals, and from this primordial soup came the first life on Earth…progress from a complex chemical soup to a living organism is very slow.” — Holt, Earth Science, 1994 p. 280-282

“Humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than 4 billion years ago.” — HBJ Earth Science, 1989 p. 356

“The first self replicating systems must have emerged in this organic soup.” — Biology, the unity and diversity of life, Wadsworth, 1992 p. 301

“The Big Bang theory tells us how the Universe began and is evolving.” BBC Science & Nature Homepage

I’m tired. These are only a few. I could provided other examples. Evolutionists definitely say alot about origin of life.

The difference between you and me is that I say “I don’t know,” while you say “Aha! God must have done it!”

I agree with you. I’m glad to read this. It me tells me you still have an open mind. Magic Man, I think the 2nd Law demonstrates there must have been a beginning. Since everything is winding down, everything is falling apart. There had to be a beginning. There has to be something that wound it up. So yes, I think the 2nd Law is proof positive there was a beginning. Even the evolutionists will admit that. They say, “Oh, yeah, got 20 billion years ago”…well, now what was before that? Was there any time or space before there was matter? And where did this matter come from? They have a totally illogical theory. Uh, yes, I think it’s logical to say, “In the beginning God,” instead of, “In the beginning nothing or in the beginning nothing dirt, or in the beginning matter.” Y’know, evolutionists worship matter like the Christian worships God. There’s no difference. They’re both religious. I think ours is much more logical and scientifically defensible, but, they’re both ultimately in the final analysis simply religious theories.

And, of course, since chlorophyll exists independently of the DNA that created it, to say that chlorophyll contains DNA (as you did)

That’s not what I meant. I could have worded it differently, but I meant the cell’s instructions are coded in the DNA. That’s why I went on to say that each one of those plant cell is more complex than a space shuttle and it was literally impossible for a cell to create itself without a Designer.

Nobody said you evolved from a rock.

Magic Man, Magic Man…. *sigh* … do you believe the earth cooled down from a hot fiery mass about 4.6 billion years ago?

You post this and then expect me to believe that I’m the victim of the Devil’s con?

YES, I really do. And we haven’t even got into all the other evidences against evolution. Satan is using this evolution theory to destroy humanity. You’ve been thoroughly duped by Satan into into believing a huge lie. You’ve lost the capacity to think rationally. Evolution has got to be the biggest lie .. lol.. the dumbest lie EVER.

apacalyps on September 17, 2008 at 8:07 PM

No. I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying if you have a barren, primitive Earth, a lifeless rock with NO LIFE on it. NONE. ZILCH. NADA. NOTHING. NO LIFE AT ALL. The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t permit evolution. It won’t even allow it to GET STARTED. That’s what I’m saying.

So you’re saying that the 2nd Law doesn’t permit abiogenesis? I mean, it’s obvious that evolution doesn’t occur on a lifeless planet, since evolution only occurs in living things, so you can’t be saying that the 2nd Law prevents evolution in lifeless environments. And if you’re saying that the 2nd Law doesn’t permit abiogenesis, I’ve already shown that to be false, since the 2nd Law doesn’t apply at all. I’ll get to this in more detail later.

You’ve ignored huge steps of the evolution fairytale. Where did the initial organization and intelligence come from? Hmm? What you wanna do is start with life already there. Really, I can’t blame you. I wouldn’t want to have to defend spontaneous generation either (the idea that life evolved from non-living matter).

Evolution doesn’t say anything about the origin of life. If you want to argue about abiogenesis, we can have that argument, but evolutionary theory presumes that there is life to act on, ergo it can’t say anything about how life came to be. Also, spontaneous generation is a different theory, and one debunked by Louis Pasteur a while back. Don’t conflate the two. Finally, when you use the term “evolve” in that paranthetical, it can’t be in reference to evolutionary theory, since life never evolved from nonliving matter even if life came from nonlife.

Like I said, there are several ways to define the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

However, none of those definitions apply to an open system. You can’t define away the boundaries of a scientific law. So I don’t see why you’re even bothering to make this argument.

There’s all kinds of um… basically they all boil down to the same thing: MATTER — EVERYTHING TENDS TO DISORDER. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Everything is degrading. Your building or house is degrading. If you don’t have people constantly maintaining it, it will fall apart. The entire highway system in America will fall completely apart if we don’t keep maintaining it. Every building on this planet will fall down into a pile of rubble if somebody doesn’t keep fixing it. And even then, if they try desperately to keep fixing it, at some point it’s still gonna fall down. It’s inevitable. That’s the 2nd Law.

That’s because the structures built by humans already have an extremely low degree of entropy. Nowhere to go but up. If you knew anything about thermodynamics, you wouldn’t be expecting a probabilistic statement about extremely organized solids to apply to, for example, an aqueous solution.

Now, this idea that by adding raw energy to a lifeless rock, it’s somehow gonna create life…uh, …I have to say that is an exceedingly naive argument and it indicates the desperate state of evolutionary theory.

I never said that adding energy to a rock would create life from non-life. I only said that the presence of an energy source means that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t apply to the situation. My position on life coming from non-life has been a consistent “I don’t know.”

Energy from the sun does not overcome the 2nd Law. It completely contradicts it!

Energy from the sun contradicts the 2nd Law? I’m guessing you simply miswrote.

The 2nd Law says that we are NOT getting better, but worse. Evolution says that we ARE getting better, and that humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than three billion years ago. THOSE ARE EXACT OPPOSITES!!

The 2nd Law states that the UNIVERSE, AS A WHOLE, is getting worse. Evolution states that the EARTH is getting better. A very small portion of the Earth, at that. No contradiction.

As for the sun’s energy Magic Man overcoming the 2nd Law, just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex Magic Man. If you lie out in the sun for too long you’ll find out it’s not good for you. You’ll get terrible sunburns, and skin cancer. So they tell you don’t do that.

Once again you expect a statement about an extremely organized object to apply to all objects. However, there’s another huge flaw in your logic, one which I hadn’t noticed till now. It’s true that UV radiation can be carcinogenic. But heat from the sun is what keeps everything on this planet alive in the first place. This is because the heat from the sun is the energy required to sustain the reactions taking place inside your body, many of which reduce entropy. And the same applies to many reactions that take place independent of life, some of which also reduce entropy locally. Therefore, in none of these circumstances can you say that the 2nd Law applies.

The sun is always destructive unless there is a mechanism already in place to use it’s energy. Undirected energy from the sun produces DISORDER, just like the 2nd Law states, not order. Throw a little hydrocloric acid, water, salt, or any other combination of chemicals on the ground and let the sun bathe them for millions of years. Those chemicals will NEVER, EVER, turn into live bacteria or any other self replicating organism. NEVER!! You have to have intelligence. Got to be a Designer involved who got things started. And if you can’t see the logic in this, I see no reason trying to explain it anymore.

I can’t see the logic in that. When scientists have gotten as far as phospholipid bilayers and ribozymes (spontaneously) in the past 50 years, one can only imagine what they could produce given millions of years.

You keep using phrases like “increase organization over time,” and “molecules change”. This is where I gotta make sure I understand what you’re really saying. I try to explain things as simple as possible so people can understand me. You wanna explain what “increase organization over time” means to you? Are these other words for one organism/animal evolving into a completely different organism/animal?

First you talk about the 2nd Law regarding abiogenesis while saying that only living things can reduce their own entropy, then you start talking about the 2nd Law regarding living things. Make up your mind.

As for what I mean by “increase organization over time,” it’s equivalent to saying “decrease entropy over time.” If you don’t understand that statement, I don’t see any point in continuing to argue with you.

Darwin himself made a famous contribution to the field in a 1871 letter:

Yeah, and do you know what I find when I look up that statement? ABIOGENESIS. NOT EVOLUTION. They are related fields of study, but they are not one and the same, no more than biochemistry and astrophysics are the same. Darwin wasn’t writing about evolution when he made that statement, no matter how you quote him.

They call his book, The Origin of Species. That’s not correct. Here is the whole title of the book, “The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life.” Favored races? Think on that for a while. Charlie was a racist.

Which has no bearing on the validity of his theory, since evolution does not occur by the usual mechanisms once intelligence comes about, meaning Darwin couldn’t inject any racist bs into his theory even if he wanted to. And he did try (witness “The Descent of Man”), but he failed because he applied his own theory incorrectly. Since the premise of your whole idea is that millions of established scientists and peer-reviewed publications are wrong, surely you can believe that one scientist might have been wrong once.

Wrong again.

…I’m tired. These are only a few. I could provided other examples. Evolutionists definitely say alot about origin of life.

Ah, yes. You caught me in a miswording. Sorry. What I should have said was, “Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life.” Obviously “evolutionists” can talk about fields of study other than evolutionary theory, but that doesn’t make abiogenesis an evolutionary theory any more than Einstein’s statements about the Holocaust make that tragedy a phenomenon of physics.

Meanwhile, notice that the 1989 Earth Science article doesn’t deal with the origins of life (merely stating the origins of biodiversification, which is completely different), and the only other article to use the word “evolve” is the BBC article, because the BBC is the only group listed there that doesn’t know enough about science to know that if the word “evolve” applies, it is DEFINITELY not in the scientific sense. So we can see that your articles do not support the conclusion that evolutionary theory says anything about the origin of life, though they do indeed support the conclusion that evolutionists have ideas about the origin of life independent of evolutionary theory.

I agree with you. I’m glad to read this. It me tells me you still have an open mind. Magic Man, I think the 2nd Law demonstrates there must have been a beginning. Since everything is winding down, everything is falling apart. There had to be a beginning. There has to be something that wound it up. So yes, I think the 2nd Law is proof positive there was a beginning. Even the evolutionists will admit that. They say, “Oh, yeah, got 20 billion years ago”…well, now what was before that? Was there any time or space before there was matter? And where did this matter come from? They have a totally illogical theory.

Dishonestly using the word “evolutionists” when what you mean in this case is “physicists.” And while the Big Bang is far from a perfect theory, it’s far more scientific (and logical!) than “Godidit.”

Uh, yes, I think it’s logical to say, “In the beginning God,” instead of, “In the beginning nothing or in the beginning nothing dirt, or in the beginning matter.” Y’know, evolutionists worship matter like the Christian worships God. There’s no difference. They’re both religious. I think ours is much more logical and scientifically defensible, but, they’re both ultimately in the final analysis simply religious theories.

Worship? What nonsense. And your position is entirely indefensible from a scientific and logical standpoint, because logically it’s unfalsifiable and scientifically…well, it’s not science, because it’s unfalsifiable, ergo science doesn’t have anything to say about it, ergo science cannot defend it.

That’s not what I meant. I could have worded it differently, but I meant the cell’s instructions are coded in the DNA. That’s why I went on to say that each one of those plant cell is more complex than a space shuttle and it was literally impossible for a cell to create itself without a Designer.

The chlorophyll functions independent of the DNA’s instructions. Another chlorophyll in a nonliving environment would do exactly the same thing. More to the point, any other molecule with certain points of similarity to chlorophyll would do the same basic thing. And finally, light isn’t the only kind of energy the Sun provides.

Magic Man, Magic Man…. *sigh* … do you believe the earth cooled down from a hot fiery mass about 4.6 billion years ago?

1. What does that have to do with evolution?
2. Yes.

YES, I really do. And we haven’t even got into all the other evidences against evolution. Satan is using this evolution theory to destroy humanity. You’ve been thoroughly duped by Satan into into believing a huge lie. You’ve lost the capacity to think rationally. Evolution has got to be the biggest lie .. lol.. the dumbest lie EVER.

Yes, Satan must have destroyed my capacity to think rationally, otherwise I wouldn’t be wasting my time arguing with someone who’s never going to even understand, let alone accept, what I have to say about the argument.

(By the by, you haven’t gotten into ANY evidence against evolution, since you’ve pointed out that the 2nd Law argument doesn’t apply to living things. The next piece of evidence you bring against evolution will be the first.)

Math_Mage on September 17, 2008 at 11:37 PM

Mage, I’m not trying to be rude, but you’re a blathering fool. You talk in circles and you play stupid word games. Now you’re starting to lie to make your point. You’re not an honest debater. I was waiting for it to happen. It was only a matter of time. When evolutionists get backed into a corner they start to lie. So I’ll respond to some of your comments and then say goodbye. Because this is now a waste of my time. I’d rather go talk to people who wanna hear the truth. You may be a reprobate. I said that earlier. There’s a very good chance you are a reprobate. And to debate a reprobate, is like banging your head against a wall. Reprobate is not calling somebody a name. It is a name of a curse that falls upon people who continually reject God, and would rather believe a lie over truth.

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” 2 Thessalonians 2:11

Here’s how it works: The problem starts with them, with the person. The person doesn’t want to believe and then God sends them delusion. When they refuse to turn to truth, God gives them up to be reprobates (a morally depraved person, preferring lies over truth). This is why some evolutionists are impossible to debate. God has already given them up to be reprobates for believing a known lie.

So you’re saying that the 2nd Law doesn’t permit abiogenesis?

Math_Mage on September 17, 2008 at 11:37 PM

First of all, abiogenesis is the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter, and there is NO EVIDENCE for that ever happening. NONE. Life does not come from non-living-matter, okay. It is a fact of nature that abiogenesis is impossible. That you even use this shows how desperate the ideas of evolutionists are to try and get their silly theory to work. You said, “So you’re saying that the 2nd Law doesn’t permit abiogenesis?” I mean, this is uh,… this is… it’s just so stupid. Second, what I actually said was if you had a primitive Earth, a barren, lifeless rock with no life on it. The Second Law of Thermodynamics wouldn’t allow evolution to even GET STARTED, because the 2nd Law states that everything is falling apart, nothing gets better by itself. Look at your hair-do when you wake up in the morning, okay. Everything becomes chaos after a while. Take a look at your bedroom when you get home. Everything tends toward disorder. So you have with abiogenesis the open the problem of how or why the ordering process even began. Why the first life form progressed up through all of these stages. It’s an impossible hurdle and I’ll tell you why. I didn’t happen!

Evolution doesn’t say anything about the origin of life.

You’re either a liar or you’re ignorant. Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space and matter into existence. Big Bang.
2. Organized that matter into galaxies, stars and planets.
3. Created life from inanimate matter.
4. Caused the living creatures to be interested in reproducing
5. Caused the first life form to diversify into all plants and animals today

The Prentice Hall General Science Book states:

“How was the universe born and how will it end? Most astronomers believe that almost 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded. This explosion is called the big bang.” Prentice Hall General Science 1992 p 61

Then the earth formed:

“Earth has changed much since its formation 4.5 billion years ago.” — First Grade, Merrill Science – 1989, p. 46

Then earth cooled down into a rock:

“As the Earth formed the surface was hot and there were large pools of bubbling lava….Millions of years of torrential rains created oceans. Swirling in the oceans was a bubbling broth of complex chemicals, and from this primordial soup came the first life on Earth…progress from a complex chemical soup to a living organism is very slow.” — Holt, Earth Science, 1994 p. 280-282

“Earth is thought to have formed 4.6 billion years ago. it was very different from todays earth.” Glenco Biology 1995, p.398

Blah, blah, blah….

“Humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than 4 billion years ago.” — HBJ Earth Science – 1989, p. 356

That’s EXACTLY what they teach! Not to mention all the TV shows like Carl Pagan’s (I mean Segan’s) show that used to be on, Cosmos. And National Geographic, etc. “Billions of years ago…” We are bombarded with it.

Spontaneous generation (life from non-living matter) is a different theory (than evolution theory), and one debunked by Louis Pasteur a while back. Don’t conflate the two.emphasis added

See some of the examples above. The exclusion of abiogenesis from evolutionary theory is blatently dishonest.

Finally, when you use the term “evolve” … it can’t be in reference to evolutionary theory, since life never evolved from nonliving matter even if life came from nonlife.

Again, you are being intellectually dishonest. You have no viable explanation for the origin of the first cell, so you dismiss abiogenesis as irrelevant saying it has nothing to do with evolution theory. Like I said, always refining the idea of evolution, always being revised, re-written, re-thought, that’s the way scams generally work. You’re a lying scoundral.

It’s true that UV radiation can be carcinogenic. But heat from the sun is what keeps everything on this planet alive in the first place…. Therefore, in none of these circumstances can you say that the 2nd Law applies.

That’s absolutely fatally flawed. The sun does add energy to the earth. I agree. But, it’s destructive. The sun’s energy will destroy the roof on your house. If you don’t fix it it will destroy your entire house. If nobody was allowed to touch the highway system in California. Nobody touch it. For two hundered years. Much of it you would not be able to find. And most of it you wouldn’t be able to drive on in less than a hundred years. It’s all falling apart. The sun’s energy will destroy the roof on your car. The sun’s energy will destroy the paint job on your car. It’ll destroy everything. As I pointed out, there is only one thing that can actually use the sun’s energy and that is chlorophyll. Only a very complex molecule called chlorophyll can harness the sun’s energy. If it weren’t for chlorophyll and plants, the sun’s energy would make the earth like the moon. And YES, one plant cell is more complex than an entire city. And there are zillions of plant cells out there. There had to be a Designer to get things started, because clearly, the sun’s energy does not overcome the 2nd law.

When scientists have gotten as far as phospholipid bilayers and ribozymes (spontaneously) in the past 50 years, one can only imagine what they could produce given millions of years.

They haven’t even come close to producing life in the lab. Your comparison is about as rational as saying that you’ve almost built an 747 airplane with it’s 6 million parts because you’ve assembled a pile of scrap metal.

As for what I mean by “increase organization over time,” it’s equivalent to saying “decrease entropy over time.” If you don’t understand that statement, I don’t see any point in continuing to argue with you.

What a moron. …lol … you try your best to use highly technical terms in effect speaking an unknown language to the common man. But, you do it for deceptive reasons and that is so the average person is unable to discern or test whether what you’re saying is really the truth. As long as you can keep them in the dark you hide your badly flawed assumptions. You’re motive is to dupe them into believing what you’re saying is valid. And this is exactly how evolution has been prospered.

Darwin wasn’t writing about evolution when he made that statement, no matter how you quote him.

That’s another lie! You originally asked me, “Tell me when evolution EVER dealt with the origin of life. It’d be nice for you if Darwin had mentioned it, but he didn’t.” In which I responded by providing you with an 1871 letter Darwin wrote about PREBIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION!! Speculation about prebiological evolution began to appear as soon as The Origin of Species had made it’s impact, with Darwin’s “German Bulldog” Ernst Haeckel taking the leading role at first. The record shows that Darwin’s proposed prebiological evolution letter had everything to do with evolution! Robert Shapiro who is a professor of chemistry at New York University said that Darwin’s speculation “is remarkably current today, which is a tribute either to his foresight or our lack of progress.” Then, and now, Darwinists are trying to keep the Creator out of the picture with a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

Darwin couldn’t inject any racist bs into his theory even if he wanted to.

Another lie. Charlie Darwin’s racism is well known and undoubtedly influenced his evolution ideas. The Holocaust was influenced by Darwin’s argument for eugenics. I won’t post his his racist quotes brevity sake.

Ah, yes. You caught me in a miswording. Sorry. What I should have said was, “Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life.” Obviously “evolutionists” can talk about fields of study other than evolutionary theory, but that doesn’t make abiogenesis an evolutionary theory

Again, this is just being deceitful. All you need to do is read your local school textbook and see that all 6 meanings (Cosmic, Chemical, Stellar, Organic, Macro, Micro) are part of what is taught as evolution theory. And physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists that teach the Big Bang describe it as the evolution of the universe.

Meanwhile, notice that the 1989 Earth Science article doesn’t deal with the origins of life … and the only other article to use the word “evolve” is the BBC article

If you require the term evolution to verify school texbooks are taking about the origin of life, I suggest you go somewhere else to play online word games. The textbooks teach we started off as an amoeba, and we have progressed up through fish, amphibian, reptile, and finally up to modern man.

“The first organisms to appear on the planet were bacteria. These early bacteria are the ancestors of modern bacteria and of all the many kinds of organisms living today, including you.” — Biology – Visualizing Life – Holt, Rinehart and Winston – 1998, ch. 11, p. 195

The Bible says: “In the beginning God …”

Evolution says: “In the beginning Goo …”

Do you believe the earth cooled down from a hot fiery mass about 4.6 billion years ago? Math_Mage answers: Yes.

You wanna believe you came from a rock… lol ..go ahead and enjoy yourself, but it’s not true.

Yes, Satan must have destroyed my capacity to think rationally

People are gonna sit in hell forever thinking how could I have possibly believed such a dumb idea that we all came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. The evidence for creation was all around me… it was overwhelming… and I just didn’t want to look at it. The Bible says they don’t want to retain God in their knowledge. So God gives them up:

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;” Romans 1:28

By the by, you haven’t gotten into ANY evidence against evolution, since you’ve pointed out that the 2nd Law argument doesn’t apply to living things. The next piece of evidence you bring against evolution will be the first.

There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that the sun can shine on the earth and turn a rock to a human in 4.6 billion years. If you wanna believe that, go ahead, but don’t call it science. Evolution contradicts scientific laws. I’ve clearly shown that even in open systems, you need machinery (intelligence) already being in place. The sunlight flooding the earth is no help at all unless machines are present which can use the energy. What you need is a genetic code. Has to be a Designer involved. The 2nd law tells us everything is falling apart therefore obviously there must have been a beginning. I can answer that in 10 words. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). If you have a theory, I have not see any evidence of it, and at this point considering your deception don’t care to see it. The evolution theory as taught in our schools is one of the dumbest and dangerous religions in the history of planet earth. And with that, I rest my case. I will be praying for you because YOU need LIGHT. That’s what YOU need. You’re blind in your sins.. your dead in your sins.. I can’t convince you, you gotta do it yourself.. and you don’t wanna cuz you love your sin…. but, I will be praying for you. May the LORD look on you with favor and give you peace. Ciao.

apacalyps on September 18, 2008 at 10:28 PM

Ignoring the bit about me being a liar and a reprobate…

First of all, abiogenesis is the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter, and there is NO EVIDENCE for that ever happening. NONE. Life does not come from non-living-matter, okay. It is a fact of nature that abiogenesis is impossible. That you even use this shows how desperate the ideas of evolutionists are to try and get their silly theory to work. You said, “So you’re saying that the 2nd Law doesn’t permit abiogenesis?” I mean, this is uh,… this is… it’s just so stupid.

And you’re very articulate.

Look at the bit you quoted again. It doesn’t say “abiogenesis is true.” It says “So you’re saying the 2nd Law doesn’t permit abiogenesis?” I am arguing against your assertion that it is impossible for abiogenesis to be correct; I’m not arguing that abiogenesis IS correct (how could I, given how scientifically shaky the whole idea is?). Meanwhile, you assert that “life does not come from non-living matter, okay,” without providing any evidence to back up your assertion. Because you say it, it is true? I don’t think so. Finally, you don’t even address the point I try to make, which is that the 2nd Law does not apply to this question. This has NOTHING to do with whether or not abiogenesis is correct, only with whether or not the 2nd Law is relevant to the discussion. Who’s arguing dishonestly again? You’re changing the goalposts faster than antiwar Democrats.

Second, what I actually said was if you had a primitive Earth, a barren, lifeless rock with no life on it. The Second Law of Thermodynamics wouldn’t allow evolution to even GET STARTED, because the 2nd Law states that everything is falling apart, nothing gets better by itself. Look at your hair-do when you wake up in the morning, okay. Everything becomes chaos after a while. Take a look at your bedroom when you get home. Everything tends toward disorder. So you have with abiogenesis the open the problem of how or why the ordering process even began. Why the first life form progressed up through all of these stages. It’s an impossible hurdle and I’ll tell you why. I didn’t happen!

What do you mean by “get started”? Do you mean that it is impossible for life to have begun, or that it is impossible for life to change?

And what the heck does the 2nd Law have to do with either of those things, when BY DEFINITION it does not apply to an open system? The proper definition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is NOT “everything is falling apart.” Rather, it is “In an isolated system, entropy increases over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.” You tell me what that has to do with the demonstrably NOT isolated Earth system.

You’re either a liar or you’re ignorant. Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space and matter into existence. Big Bang.
2. Organized that matter into galaxies, stars and planets.
3. Created life from inanimate matter.
4. Caused the living creatures to be interested in reproducing
5. Caused the first life form to diversify into all plants and animals today

I’ll go point by point and look at your “evidence” for each point.

1. The Big Bang theory is not, and never has been, an evolutionary theory. You are sadly deluded if you believe this has anything to do with evolution. Your evidence:

“How was the universe born and how will it end? Most astronomers believe that almost 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded. This explosion is called the big bang.” Prentice Hall General Science 1992 p 61

Yep, standard Big Bang fare. However, do you see the word “evolution” there at all? Do you see ANY evolutionary mechanisms that would apply to the Big Bang? How the hell is the Big Bang connected to evolution at all, except that they allegedly happened in the same universe???

2. Another physical theory and the consequence of the Four Forces, not any evolutionary mechanism. Your evidence:

“Earth has changed much since its formation 4.5 billion years ago.” — First Grade, Merrill Science – 1989, p. 46

“Earth is thought to have formed 4.6 billion years ago. it was very different from todays earth.” Glenco Biology 1995, p.398

You present descriptions of the theories in textbooks as evidence that they’re taught as evolution. This is simply ridiculous. It’s like pointing to a Bible, quoting some Scripture about the creation of the universe, and then saying, “Since the Bible also mentions the Devil, the Devil must have created the universe!” Utterly absurd.

3. Abiogenesis is not evolution, and the textbook you quote does not mention either name here.

“As the Earth formed the surface was hot and there were large pools of bubbling lava….Millions of years of torrential rains created oceans. Swirling in the oceans was a bubbling broth of complex chemicals, and from this primordial soup came the first life on Earth…progress from a complex chemical soup to a living organism is very slow.” — Holt, Earth Science, 1994 p. 280-282

Why the hell are you even providing this useless evidence, which doesn’t make any point at all?

4. You have no evidence for this point, so I’m going to assume you can’t even provide the pathetic level of backing you gave the other points.

5. Finally, we get to evolution. Your evidence:

“Humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than 4 billion years ago.” — HBJ Earth Science – 1989, p. 356

Notice! This is the ONLY quotation that mentions the word “evolve.” If you proved anything with your little textbook quotation extravaganza, it’s that textbooks only teach evolution as being part of evolution. Yet you say that this constitutes evidence of an overreaching on the part of schools? And you call ME dishonest?

Again, you are being intellectually dishonest. You have no viable explanation for the origin of the first cell, so you dismiss abiogenesis as irrelevant saying it has nothing to do with evolution theory. Like I said, always refining the idea of evolution, always being revised, re-written, re-thought, that’s the way scams generally work. You’re a lying scoundral.

Round and round we go, where we’ll stop…I already said that abiogenesis was never part of evolutionary theory, and challenged you to bring some evidence to the table. You have brought none, instead dishonestly claiming that random textbook quotations make your point when they don’t. And on the point of abiogenesis, I’ve already said that my position on the subject is “I don’t know.” Evolution doesn’t care if the first cell life arose spontaneously or was created by God – it only specifies the rules by which life diversified after that initial formation.

That’s absolutely fatally flawed. The sun does add energy to the earth. I agree. But, it’s destructive. The sun’s energy will destroy the roof on your house. If you don’t fix it it will destroy your entire house. If nobody was allowed to touch the highway system in California. Nobody touch it. For two hundered years. Much of it you would not be able to find. And most of it you wouldn’t be able to drive on in less than a hundred years. It’s all falling apart. The sun’s energy will destroy the roof on your car. The sun’s energy will destroy the paint job on your car. It’ll destroy everything. As I pointed out, there is only one thing that can actually use the sun’s energy and that is chlorophyll. Only a very complex molecule called chlorophyll can harness the sun’s energy. If it weren’t for chlorophyll and plants, the sun’s energy would make the earth like the moon. And YES, one plant cell is more complex than an entire city. And there are zillions of plant cells out there. There had to be a Designer to get things started, because clearly, the sun’s energy does not overcome the 2nd law.

Mindlessly repeating the same points again and again and again…

Regarding the “chlorophyll is the only thing that can use the sun’s energy” argument: your body is using heat energy from the Sun (indirectly) right now. If chlorophyll were the only thing that could use heat energy, you’d be dead, I’d be dead, and there’d be no life on Earth. I’d LOVE to see you try to claim that only chlorophyll can use heat energy, or that heat energy doesn’t actually come from the Sun…except then I’d have to waste more time debunking bogus arguments.

Regarding the “the Sun’s energy will destroy everything” argument, if you accept the argument about heat conveniently provided above, then you accept that this is false.

Regarding the “a plant cell is more complex than a space shuttle” argument: Irrelevant. Complexity does not imply design.

Regarding the “The sun’s energy cannot overcome the 2nd Law” argument: What idiocy. The sun’s energy overcomes the 2nd Law BY DEFINITION, and makes it possible for entropy to decrease in the Earth system.

They haven’t even come close to producing life in the lab. Your comparison is about as rational as saying that you’ve almost built an 747 airplane with it’s 6 million parts because you’ve assembled a pile of scrap metal.

Do you even know what ribozymes and phospholipid bilayers are and what roles they could play in a cell? If you don’t, don’t go making inapplicable comparisons.

What a moron. …lol … you try your best to use highly technical terms in effect speaking an unknown language to the common man. But, you do it for deceptive reasons and that is so the average person is unable to discern or test whether what you’re saying is really the truth. As long as you can keep them in the dark you hide your badly flawed assumptions. You’re motive is to dupe them into believing what you’re saying is valid. And this is exactly how evolution has been prospered.

The term “entropy” is hardly a technical term. It’s a measure of the randomness in a given system; or conversely, it’s a measure of organization in that system. How can you even talk about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and not understand concepts taught to middle schoolers?

That’s another lie! You originally asked me, “Tell me when evolution EVER dealt with the origin of life. It’d be nice for you if Darwin had mentioned it, but he didn’t.” In which I responded by providing you with an 1871 letter Darwin wrote about PREBIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION!! Speculation about prebiological evolution began to appear as soon as The Origin of Species had made it’s impact, with Darwin’s “German Bulldog” Ernst Haeckel taking the leading role at first. The record shows that Darwin’s proposed prebiological evolution letter had everything to do with evolution! Robert Shapiro who is a professor of chemistry at New York University said that Darwin’s speculation “is remarkably current today, which is a tribute either to his foresight or our lack of progress.” Then, and now, Darwinists are trying to keep the Creator out of the picture with a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

Your cut-and-paste argument has no quotations linking the statement you quoted above to evolution. I presume, then, that you can’t link the statement to evolutionary theory.

Another lie. Charlie Darwin’s racism is well known and undoubtedly influenced his evolution ideas. The Holocaust was influenced by Darwin’s argument for eugenics. I won’t post his his racist quotes brevity sake.

“undoubtedly”? Then provide evidence. “Influenced”? In the sense that the atomic bomb was influenced by Newton’s Laws of Motion, perhaps, but not in any other significant sense.

Again, this is just being deceitful. All you need to do is read your local school textbook and see that all 6 meanings (Cosmic, Chemical, Stellar, Organic, Macro, Micro) are part of what is taught as evolution theory. And physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists that teach the Big Bang describe it as the evolution of the universe.

Cosmic “evolution” bears no relation to Darwin’s theories, as the two employ completely different mechanisms in talking about completely different objects. This is also true for Chemical, Stellar, and Organic “evolution”. Why, then, do you act as if they’re related? Because they’re all taught in textbooks (albeit on DIFFERENT SUBJECTS)? False association = fail.

If you require the term evolution to verify school texbooks are taking about the origin of life, I suggest you go somewhere else to play online word games. The textbooks teach we started off as an amoeba, and we have progressed up through fish, amphibian, reptile, and finally up to modern man.

So first you talk about the origin of life, then you talk about amoebae, which have nothing to do with the origin of life. Figure out what you’re talking about already.

You wanna believe you came from a rock… lol ..go ahead and enjoy yourself, but it’s not true.

You quote-mine my comments in the very same comment thread? That has to set a new standard for stupid dishonesty. You haven’t explained what the hell my belief that Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago has to do with your allegation that I believe I came from a rock.

People are gonna sit in hell forever thinking how could I have possibly believed such a dumb idea that we all came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. The evidence for creation was all around me… it was overwhelming… and I just didn’t want to look at it.

And yet you provide no evidence for creationism, preferring instead to attempt to tear down evolutionary theory in the vain hope that this will validate creationism somehow. What a joke.

There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that the sun can shine on the earth and turn a rock to a human in 4.6 billion years. If you wanna believe that, go ahead, but don’t call it science.

I’ve provided evidence for various bits of this point of view, which is more than you’ve done.

Evolution contradicts scientific laws.

Which ones? You obviously don’t mean any thermodynamic laws…so which ones are you talking about?

I’ve clearly shown that even in open systems, you need machinery (intelligence) already being in place.

So first of all, you concede that Earth is an open system, meaning that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply BY DEFINITION. Then you make the unsubstantiated assertion that intelligence is required to decrease entropy, when any chemist can show you it isn’t. WATER FREEZING is an example of entropy decreasing, for heaven’s sake!

The sunlight flooding the earth is no help at all unless machines are present which can use the energy.

What you fail to comprehend is that sunlight is converted into many other forms of energy by contact with the Earth’s surface, some of which are usable by just about anything. Take heat as an example.

What you need is a genetic code. Has to be a Designer involved. The 2nd law tells us everything is falling apart therefore obviously there must have been a beginning. I can answer that in 10 words. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). If you have a theory, I have not see any evidence of it, and at this point considering your deception don’t care to see it. The evolution theory as taught in our schools is one of the dumbest and dangerous religions in the history of planet earth. And with that, I rest my case. I will be praying for you because YOU need LIGHT. That’s what YOU need. You’re blind in your sins.. your dead in your sins.. I can’t convince you, you gotta do it yourself.. and you don’t wanna cuz you love your sin…. but, I will be praying for you. May the LORD look on you with favor and give you peace. Ciao.

Auf Wiedersehn. Don’t let the door hit you on your sanctimonious rear end on the way out.

Math_Mage on September 20, 2008 at 1:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5