Creationism vs. Evolution

[dthmstr254]

here is a full description of why evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics. i might not have been here for a while, but this source fully backs up my standing that evolution is impossible:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ed...odynamics.html

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 here is a full description of why evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics. i might not have been here for a while, but this source fully backs up my standing that evolution is impossible: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ed...odynamics.html

There are several major problems with the article that you link. First, it is an argument against a straw man. It invents some unheard of idea, asserts that it is the theory of evolution, and then attempts to knock it down. If you wish to argue against the theory of evolution, you would be more successful if you at least knew what evolution is and how it works. This article is the twisted creationist version because creationists can't actually offer any arguments against the actual theory of evolution.

Second, this is an invented version of thermodynamics. Very little of the arguments are actually part of the laws of thermodynamics. It is terribly confused and mixes discussions of classical thermodynamics and statistical thermodynamics, sometimes in the same sentence. Moreover, it invents principles that have nothing to do with thermodynamics.

The article also mentions closed systems several times, as if anything on earth or the earth itself were a closed system. Certainly no living organism is a closed system. Such discussions make sense only to those who don't understand what they are talking about.

And finally, the article, that relies on creationist sources to make misinterpretation of thermodynamics sound scientific, claims that a decrease in entropy can only be accomplished by some sort if intelligent design. Absolute bunk. Consider a tornado or a hurricane. Both are examples of the spontaneous decrease in entropy. Neither is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

I asked you a couple of times before to demonstrate your understanding of thermodynamics so that we can know that you are actually qualified to make statements about thermo. You ran away without even making an attempt to answer these questions the last time I asked. It makes you look like a foolish dupe, especially when you return with trash like this. It is a pretty good indication that you are ignorant of the topic when you allow yourself to be taken in by the likes of the nonsense that "backs up" your ignorance. Here's the Thermo Test. Please don't run away with your tail tucked between your legs again. Show us that you actually do have some basic knowledge of thermodynamics.

By the way, if evolution is impossible why is it the we frequently observe it to take place? Doesn't it seem a bit funny to you that events that are impossible happen all the time?

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: gallo And finally, the article, that relies on creationist sources to make misinterpretation of thermodynamics sound scientific, claims that a decrease in entropy can only be accomplished by some sort if intelligent design. Absolute bunk. Consider a tornado or a hurricane. Both are examples of the spontaneous decrease in entropy. Neither is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. By the way, if evolution is impossible why is it the we frequently observe it to take place? Doesn't it seem a bit funny to you that events that are impossible happen all the time?

I do agree with you that the second law of thermodynamics is not applicable to evolution, because the Earth is not a closed system. We have a continual input of energy from the sun. However, how does a tornado or hurricane decrease entropy? As I understood the law a decrease was impossible. Unless of course you just mean locally, and not universally.

When we observe evolution, it is generally not of the sort that creationists have a contention with. Many classify it as "micro" vs "macro" which may be incorrect terms. Could you provide some examples of modern day evolution taking place?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: ilkpzza hah you aren't making sense. How can we experience happiness if we don't know what sadness is like? If you cannot open a door then it is not closed for it cannot be opened the exact opposite. Can we have good without evil? No because evil is what we use to define good.

So sadness and evil are required, then, so we can be happy and good? Since sadness and evil and such make up sin, does that make sin good? Does that make the devil required?

If yes, then why did Jesus die to save us from something that can't be saved? Our sins can't go away. We're human and will always make them, always. In fact, according to you, the evil is necessary so we can further be good and happy.

You are the one not making sense.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 So sadness and evil are required, then, so we can be happy and good? Since sadness and evil and such make up sin, does that make sin good? Does that make the devil required? If yes, then why did Jesus die to save us from something that can't be saved? Our sins can't go away. We're human and will always make them, always. In fact, according to you, the evil is necessary so we can further be good and happy. You are the one not making sense.

Again, the key word is potential. Potential is all that is needed to define, not the actual entity. A door that is unable to open ceases to be a door, it is a wall. A door does not have to have been open at some point, it just needs to be able to open.

In order for a human to be truly perfect we need the opportunity to do wrong. We needed the potential to do bad. We did not actually have to sin for free will to exist. We just needed the chance.

Christianity teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus attoned our sins, past present and future. It was a one time sacrifice for all sins. So we belong to Him now. If we do as He desires, He can choose to let us into His kingdom. That is what most Christianity teaches.

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: LetThereBe Again, the key word is potential. Potential is all that is needed to define, not the actual entity. A door that is unable to open ceases to be a door, it is a wall. A door does not have to have been open at some point, it just needs to be able to open. In order for a human to be truly perfect we need the opportunity to do wrong. We needed the potential to do bad. We did not actually have to sin for free will to exist. We just needed the chance. Christianity teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus attoned our sins, past present and future. It was a one time sacrifice for all sins. So we belong to Him now. If we do as He desires, He can choose to let us into His kingdom. That is what most Christianity teaches.

Wait. God is so great that he gave us sin and evil so we can have free will, 'cos he's a great guy. We need sadness and sorrow to have happiness and peace. So, in Heaven we'll always be happy, hence there will be no sadness, hence no free will.

Heaven sounds like a fascist dictatorship, huh? How can you say we need evil, but then we're going to a place where we won't need evil?

[sergeant]

Quote by: Son of Belial Wait. God is so great that he gave us sin and evil so we can have free will, 'cos he's a great guy. We need sadness and sorrow to have happiness and peace. So, in Heaven we'll always be happy, hence there will be no sadness, hence no free will. Heaven sounds like a fascist dictatorship, huh? How can you say we need evil, but then we're going to a place where we won't need evil?

uh no! Once you are in Heaven you have already fully and completely became a child of God. We have been given free will here on Earth and Heaven is our reward for accepting Christ...our choice has already been made...free will to chose sin is no longer required..we have satisfied all that is necessary. Pizza here gotta go!

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: sergeant uh no! Once you are in Heaven you have already fully and completely became a child of God. We have been given free will here on Earth and Heaven is our reward for accepting Christ...our choice has already been made...free will to chose sin is no longer required..we have satisfied all that is necessary. Pizza here gotta go!

So what about babies?

[sergeant]

Crap I gotta go! But there is an age of accountability....cannot explain now pizza here!
And some others who are Christian may not share my views...but babies are accepted by the Lord. If you want I'll get you a biblical reference...some believe your child has to be Baptized first and if you don't they will go to hell. NOT ME! Accepting Christ is a personal decision and a parent cannot make it for a child! Christ says he knows us in the womb and to love God doesn't require ceremonies...I'll get back with you later. I wouldn't love a God who threw away a baby even the unborn child is loved by God. At least my God!

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe Again, the key word is potential. Potential is all that is needed to define, not the actual entity. A door that is unable to open ceases to be a door, it is a wall. A door does not have to have been open at some point, it just needs to be able to open. In order for a human to be truly perfect we need the opportunity to do wrong. We needed the potential to do bad. We did not actually have to sin for free will to exist. We just needed the chance. Christianity teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus attoned our sins, past present and future. It was a one time sacrifice for all sins. So we belong to Him now. If we do as He desires, He can choose to let us into His kingdom. That is what most Christianity teaches.

Potential is a creation, is it not? Potential is capability. I do not have the capability to fly. Man was not "created" that way, according to you. Yet man has the capability to sin, he was "created" with capability to sin.

You have not answered my question as to why Jesus must have died in order for the atonement of sins.

You also haven't responded to my claim that sins were never atoned, since we sin more than we do back then. There is more to sin for, these days. His death meant nothing besides widespread belief in a morally deprived world.
You talk as if human perfection is possible. If it were possible, according to your omnipotence of a God, then we would be perfect and so would God. That just doesn't make sense.

Are you so sure that perfection has free will? Or, really, that negative action allows perfection and is necessary, such as sinning? I feel it does not. Something that is perfect does not need to know what there is wrong to do. If it knows what it can do wrong, it can choose whether or not to do the "right" or the "wrong." In this knowledge, nothing stops the "wrong" situation from occuring, and therefore imperfection. It doesn't matter what is right and wrong as long as the concepts exist. For in perfection, everything done is right. Notice also that it's impossible to apply this concept of perfection to the human world, because we have no right and no wrong, we make them up. They are concepts. Concepts are human developments, that change, or can change.

[sergeant]

In stead of giving you just the link I quoted what I personally believe

"The reality is this: personal accountability before God is predicated upon one's personal capacity to discern good from evil and right from wrong, and to appreciate the fact that one's choices in these areas are acts of willful rebellion against God and His purpose for one's life. Infants, for example, are incapable of such depth of awareness. The same holds true for many who have severe mental disabilities. A 35-year-old with Downs Syndrome may never reach that point of true accountability to God, as defined above. Are such persons saved? Yes, I believe they are. God does not hold accountable those who are incapable of appropriate response. To demand of one, upon penalty of eternal destruction, that which one cannot possibly produce, would portray our loving, merciful, gracious Father as a cold, heartless abuser of His children. Such a depiction of deity would be blasphemous."

the link is http://www.inplainsite.org/html/age_...ntability.html if you are interested.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Son of Belial Wait. God is so great that he gave us sin and evil so we can have free will, 'cos he's a great guy. We need sadness and sorrow to have happiness and peace. So, in Heaven we'll always be happy, hence there will be no sadness, hence no free will. Heaven sounds like a fascist dictatorship, huh? How can you say we need evil, but then we're going to a place where we won't need evil?

The kingdom will be for those who have chosen not to be evil. The potential for evil sorted out everyone else.

[sergeant]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 it's impossible to apply this concept of perfection to the human world, because we have no right and no wrong, we make them up. They are concepts. Concepts are human developments, that change, or can change.

I save the other part for your friend...but I disagree with we have no right and no wrong....I feel there is a natural universal order....I'll only give one example but there are many....for instance...I feel we can all agree that killing another is wrong when it is for sport, greed or simple enjoyment ....I hope this comparison is as clear to you as it is to me....it is the natural order of things and is reflected in nature that killing is wrong...animals do not tend to kill for sport, greed or enjoyment...they only kill to provide for their young and protect them....an animal who kills for no apparent reason is usually sick with rabies or something....and a person who kills is usually sick with greed, rage, or a disorder.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Potential is a creation, is it not? Potential is capability. I do not have the capability to fly. Man was not "created" that way, according to you. Yet man has the capability to sin, he was "created" with capability to sin. You have not answered my question as to why Jesus must have died in order for the atonement of sins. You also haven't responded to my claim that sins were never atoned, since we sin more than we do back then. There is more to sin for, these days. His death meant nothing besides widespread belief in a morally deprived world. You talk as if human perfection is possible. If it were possible, according to your omnipotence of a God, then we would be perfect and so would God. That just doesn't make sense. Are you so sure that perfection has free will? Or, really, that negative action allows perfection and is necessary, such as sinning? I feel it does not. Something that is perfect does not need to know what there is wrong to do. If it knows what it can do wrong, it can choose whether or not to do the "right" or the "wrong." In this knowledge, nothing stops the "wrong" situation from occuring, and therefore imperfection. It doesn't matter what is right and wrong as long as the concepts exist. For in perfection, everything done is right. Notice also that it's impossible to apply this concept of perfection to the human world, because we have no right and no wrong, we make them up. They are concepts. Concepts are human developments, that change, or can change.

Yes, God did create the capability of sin. But He did not create sin. That is seperate. Sin is not itself an entity.. it is more the absence of good. Just as cold does not exist, it is instead just the lack of heat. Man just chose not to be good.
The whole answer to your question about the necessity of Jesus: Man sinned. The wages of sin is death. The only sacrifice presentable before the Lord was an unblemished lamb. Thus, one who was perfect (without blemish) had to pay the wages of sin (death) to satisfy God's wrath. Jesus also fulfilled the requirement of being the "kinsman redeemer" mentioned in scripture. That is why He had to be man, and an animal sacrifice would not completely suffice.
Atoning of sin does not equate with prevention. Or curing. It is forgiveness. That includes sin past, present, and future. Jesus was the one time sacrifice for ALL time. However, that does not mean that we can do whatever we want. Because of this, we must live by the new covenant (which is stricter than the old in many respects)
I don't understand your "perfection doesn't have free will" argument at all.

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe Yes, God did create the capability of sin. But He did not create sin. That is seperate. Sin is not itself an entity.. it is more the absence of good. Just as cold does not exist, it is instead just the lack of heat.

Nahhh, heat does not exist, it is an absence of cold. Thus good does not exist, it is an absence of evil. So god did not create everything. Fine then, where did sin come from?

Starboy

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Starboy Nahhh, heat does not exist, it is an absence of cold. Thus good does not exist, it is an absence of evil. So god did not create everything. Fine then, where did sin come from? Starboy

Why would God need to create an absence? God created good, and man decided not to be good. Sin is the absence of good, hence we have sin.

[gallo]

Quote by: LetThereBe I do agree with you that the second law of thermodynamics is not applicable to evolution, because the Earth is not a closed system. We have a continual input of energy from the sun.

Bingo!

Quote by: LetThereBe However, how does a tornado or hurricane decrease entropy?

Certainly. Just as a snowflake, ice cubes in your freezer, and a growing embryo are examples of decreases of entropy.

Quote by: LetThereBe As I understood the law a decrease was impossible. Unless of course you just mean locally, and not universally.

Correct. One consequence of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is that any decrease in entropy, there is a corresponding increase in entropy that is equal to or greater than the decrease, either elsewhere within the system or in the surroundings.

Quote by: LetThereBe When we observe evolution, it is generally not of the sort that creationists have a contention with. Many classify it as "micro" vs "macro" which may be incorrect terms. Could you provide some examples of modern day evolution taking place?

Sure. Fruit flies are used for genetic studies around the globe. The first strains were caught in California and then propagated in captivity. Researchers and teachers have only to order them from biological supply houses. However, recently it was discovered that there are now several different strains in captivity - they no longer interbreed when mixed. They are descended from the same parent population. Moreover, none of the captive strains can interbreed with California fruit flies from the original area of their capture.

Apples are not native to North America. For some years they had the advantage that there were no known pests since they were left behind in Europe. Well, in the early 1800s, John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed) planted apples up and down the Ohio Valley (for cider, by the way - not to eat). Around 1850 worms began appearing in the apples. Investigation showed that the culprit was a fly exactly like the hawthorn maggot fly. Further investigation showed that the hawthorn maggot fly and the apple maggot fly did not interbreed - they breed only when the respective plants are setting fruit and they set fruit weeks apart. The same phenomena has been repeated with the cherry maggot fly and the pear maggot fly. All three shown to be speciation events from the hawthorn maggot fly.

Herring gulls in northern Europe share range with the lesser black-backed gull (now called the Baltic gull). Herring gulls range to the west where the population is continuous with the American herring gull. That population meets and interbreeds with the Vega herring gull in Siberia, which interbreeds with Birula's gull, which interbreeds with Heuglin's gull, which interbreeds with the Siberian lesser black-backed gull, which interbreeds with the lesser black-backed gull. Herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls do not interbreed. They are at the extremes of a single population that encircles the globe and they have become separate species.

More?

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe Why would God need to create an absence? God created good, and man decided not to be good. Sin is the absence of good, hence we have sin.

God must have created an absense if man has the absense and god created man.

Starboy

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo Consider a tornado or a hurricane. Both are examples of the spontaneous decrease in entropy.

yea right. the entropy does not get lower. the hurricane affects everything around it, destroying everything within its power. go down to New Orleans, how high would you say the level of disorder is there? hurricane Katrina might have been a highly ordered storm, but that storm's low entropy had to affect something. the entropy in the areas around or affected by Katrina had a steep entropy rise. you are now saying that hurricanes don't affect anything. I would like to hear you say that to someone from New Orleans. that is not an example of entropy decrease over all. here is a comparison: if you take a refrigerator out of its slot in your kitchen and make it to where you can walk around it, you find a bunch of coils on the back. the reason that it is so cold in the fridge is because in order for the inner temperature to lower, the entropy inside has to drop, and that entropy goes into the coils in the back, as evidenced by the heat now in the coils. this system is a perfect example of energy conservation in progress. no matter what happens, the energy in the universe can never increase, nor decrease. no natural process can create or destroy energy. evolution and the Big Bang break that law. evolution itself cannot fully explain all the highly complex processes that our bodies do. here is a doozie: the process used to exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide in our lungs is so complex, it is easier for a man, shot out of a cannon, to carve the Lord's Prayer onto the head of a pin while he is passing by. i liked this article, thanks to the google ads on this, we can get quite a lot of information.

What about Evolution? What are the basic concepts of the theory of evolution? Is there evidence for intelligent design? by Duncan Moore The Theory of Evolution can be divided into two parts, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution deals with small changes within a species which adapt that species to be better suited to its environment. This process is well supported with scientific evidence and doesn't conflict with a Christian understanding of reality. Macro-evolution claims that through major genetic mutations one species can evolve into another, so over a long period of time fish could evolve into insects, birds and mammals. From this concept it's suggested that all life could have evolved from simple chemical structures, thus life could have resulted from natural processes without the need for a creator. Macro-evolution is highly contentious and its more extreme interpretations challenge conventional Christian thinking. It's sometimes suggested that God chose to create life through evolution, however, there's now a weighty and growing body of both scientific and philosophical evidence that discredits macro-evolution. This article very briefly surveys that evidence. Creation vs. evolution - Origin of Life Firstly, there's the question of how life itself originally got started. The theory of macro-evolution suggests how to develop from one species to another, but it can't explain how to jump from no life to life or from unconscious to conscious. There are two questions in this area that macro-evolution can't answer. Firstly, the DNA molecules which store the genetic code for living beings are extremely complex even for the most basic forms of life. Where did the original injection of the genetic information for life come from? The second question centres around an issue termed irreducible complexity. Even in the simplest life forms there are a number of different and complex components which must all be in place for life to occur. Take any of the components away and you no longer have life. The building blocks of living beings are complex and are not independent. How can these components have been assembled separately apart from pre-existent life? Creation vs. evolution - The Missing Link A second serious challenge to macro-evolution comes in the forms of fossils. The theory suggests that through genetic mutations over a long period of time, species gradually evolve into new species. If this were the case, you'd expect to find a whole spectrum of species within the fossil record at different stages of evolution. However, the fossil records do not show life evolving from one species to another. On the contrary, there's a notable absence of any fossils of species at intermediate stages of evolution. Further, there aren't obvious intermediate species around today. The problem of the lack of evidence for transition between species is known as the Missing Link. Creation vs. evolution - Geology and the history of Earth Macro-evolution is understood to be a very slow process, random mutations taking place and becoming established over long periods of time. From developments in Geology and Earth Sciences, the window of history where conditions suitable for evolution have existed has become shorter and shorter. Many interpretations of macro-evolution have been abandoned as the time available for species to evolve was not long enough to account for the diversity of life we see. Creation vs. evolution - Conclusion Whilst there is widespread acceptance of the theory of micro-evolution, the question of macro-evolution continues to be hotly debated. Over the last fifteen years the tide of scientific opinion has been turning against the evolutionists. The complexity and apparent design of life has defied a purely naturalistic explanation and the problem of how life started remains unanswered by the scientific community. In addition to the huge practical and theoretical difficulties associated with macro-evolution, the physical evidence presented by DNA code and the fossil record has not supported the theory. The available evidence seems to be pointing to the separateness of different species. As the case for all life evolving from simple cell structures is looking less and less convincing, alternative explanations are needed. Science rests heavily on the principle of cause and effect. To account for the diversity of life on Earth, an adequate cause is required. Many in the scientific world are beginning to seriously consider the case for intelligent design in the universe. The consistent Christian claim of history is that the intelligent designer and sustainer of the universe is the God of the Bible.

thanks to http://everystudent.com/wires/evolution.html

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: gallo Apples are not native to North America. For some years they had the advantage that there were no known pests since they were left behind in Europe. Well, in the early 1800s, John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed) planted apples up and down the Ohio Valley (for cider, by the way - not to eat). Around 1850 worms began appearing in the apples. Investigation showed that the culprit was a fly exactly like the hawthorn maggot fly. Further investigation showed that the hawthorn maggot fly and the apple maggot fly did not interbreed - they breed only when the respective plants are setting fruit and they set fruit weeks apart. The same phenomena has been repeated with the cherry maggot fly and the pear maggot fly. All three shown to be speciation events from the hawthorn maggot fly. Herring gulls in northern Europe share range with the lesser black-backed gull (now called the Baltic gull). Herring gulls range to the west where the population is continuous with the American herring gull. That population meets and interbreeds with the Vega herring gull in Siberia, which interbreeds with Birula's gull, which interbreeds with Heuglin's gull, which interbreeds with the Siberian lesser black-backed gull, which interbreeds with the lesser black-backed gull. Herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls do not interbreed. They are at the extremes of a single population that encircles the globe and they have become separate species. More?

Yes, I have heard such examples, and better ones. None of those contradict a true creationists view because they do not become different "kinds". The idea of biological species is sketchy. Just because creatures are reproductively isolated they are a new "species". However, the idea of a creature going from one subphyla (reptilia) to another (aves) is a different story. Or that man came from simians little different than the modern ape.