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.

“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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

“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.”

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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’.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.