Evolution?

[theHiredMansWife]

of course it does. What's your point?

(I repeat: I don't think you've actually read any of my posts. lol)

 

[mp.freelance]

RR, did you even read what I wrote? Please do so, because I'm attempting to debate a point you made about the second law of thermal dynamics. From your reply, it appears that maybe you read only the first sentence or two.

What you're saying is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents extremely complex systems to evolve from simple ones, but that's categorically untrue.

Maybe I read it wrong MP. I thought your semen and egg example didn't actually fit what I was trying to imply. I thought my cellular organism to human was more than semen and egg. Maybe not. I am the first to admit I am not that smart and certainly uneducated. Just a simple little old man who thinks evolution is wrong. I guess if you are saying that the 2nd law of thermodynamics (you don't discuss the first one much) isn't broken by genetic evolution , I'd like your opinion of whether it breaks this second law with the element evolution. How did we get all the elements on the periodic table? Would going from nothing to some of the heavier elements be tending toward order? If not, what would be an example of breaking the 2nd law ?You'll agree I think that it is a law not a general idea??? Talk some if you would about elemental evolution? Or elemental origin within the big bang concept if you please.

I'd advise you to actually read about the 2nd law of thermodynamics before you begin using it as an argument. If you'd read what I wrote (which you obviously didn't) you'd know that entropy within closed systems doesn't prohibit the formation of complex systems. We see it all around us. There is no such thing breaking the law of thermodnamics - it's just a lot more complex than how you present it.

Furthermore, Big Bang is supported by the fact that the galaxies of the universe have been demonstrated to be moving away from each other. Do you believe in star formation and planet formation? Galaxy formation? They have pictures of exploded stars, forming stars, etc. so this isn't just idle speculation. Even though we're in a universe where everything is heading toward disorder (again, not in the usual context of the word) gravity and other forces we're just now starting to discover contribute to the formation of complex systems such as solar systems and galaxies.

I know this won't convince you, but my point is that if the 2nd law of thermodynamics worked as you claim it does, then existence itself would be impossible. If the drive toward disorder was that strong, it would be impossible for us to grow, for diamonds to form, for planets and galaxies to form, for plants to grow, etc. So, when you're arguing against evolution, PLEASE stop using this argument because it's patently illogical and shows that you haven't researched this very much.

 

[theHiredMansWife]

It also isn't scientifically provable unless you can get a written account from the creator himself regarding how he created this universe...oh yea, that is my theory.

:???:
You mean gravity can't be proven unless it's in the Bible?

 

[Red Robin]

I never claimed to be bright mp. just a cowboy discussing something way out of my field. How about creating a universe from nothing? Would that break the 1st law in your mind?

 

[Red Robin]

It also isn't scientifically provable unless you can get a written account from the creator himself regarding how he created this universe...oh yea, that is my theory.

:???:
You mean gravity can't be proven unless it's in the Bible?

Have you been drinking Erin?

 

[Steve]

Did you read my most recent link?

actually yes. . thats where I found the insulting quote:"Part of the problem for this widespread ignorance lies." used towards those who question Darwinism.

and even accepting it's claim,.... I still came up with a 185 million year gap.

My contention is that all species are created. ..I am not even argueing the Day age theories, and basing my beliefs on one word of the bible. in fact I showed several differant interpetations of the day age arguement.


I even Posted pictures of the critters, showing thier well differances, and even discounting them I would have to explain the platypus....which I and scientists can't so I conclude it was like all other critters created....

I can accept the proven small changes, just not gaps that span millions of years and require huge leaps of faith to believe.

but if some one can explain away the 185 million year gap. and how the
little reptile evolved into the little rat, and show fossils and genitic proof to back thier claim, then maybe I could accept darwin's theory. but until then It is to much of a gap for me.

 

[Red Robin]

of course it does. What's your point?

(I repeat: I don't think you've actually read any of my posts. lol)

The point is Erin , if you believe like I do that evolution is a religion then it shouldn't be taxpayer funded and taught in the schools. Correct?

 

[mp.freelance]

I never claimed to be bright mp. just a cowboy discussing something way out of my field. How about creating a universe from nothing? Would that break the 1st law in your mind?

RR, this disproves your argument as well as mine. According to the Bible, the world was CREATED. By inference, this means it was created from NOTHING by God. It's not a Judeo-Christian belief that the universe is eternal: our tradition tells us we were created from zilch. Therefore, creation defies the first law of thermodynamics as much as the Big Bang theory.

Therefore, all we are arguing about is the timespan. You say 5,000 years, I say 15 billion.

You have to realize that the 1st law of thermodynamics is predicated by the existence of time and matter itself. If there was no matter, no time, etc. there was no natural law. It is impossible for us to imagine complete non-existence. However, I think the threshold from utter nothingness to an explosion of matter, time, and energy (Big Bang) and consequently life and then intelligent life (evolution) are where the hand of God is revealed. I honestly believe that God created us from nothing, but the only difference is that I think God used a tiny particle of intense energy that rapidly flowed into disorder (the expansion of the universe). Of course, these are just simplified concepts, and I'm sure that scientists have more complex, logical explanations for my layman's understanding. Even scientists have a faint grasp of reality compared to what we might someday understand.

What bothers me about creationism and ID, in the end, is that it tries to bottle up the enormity of existence into the confines of human understanding. it's easier for us to think about adam and eve and the earth created in 6 days than it is about quantum physics and string theory, but that shouldn't be an excuse to quit trying to understand the world around us.

 

[Red Robin]

Here is more evidence against a old earth. The moon is slowly moving away from the earth at a rate of 2 or a little more inches per year. Calculating backwards in about the quarter of the time evolutionist say the earth has been here the moon would have been in direct catastrophic contact with the earth. That wont work. I don't want to be mooned! :shock:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/heavens.asp

 

[Mike]

Here is more evidence against a old earth. The moon is slowly moving away from the earth at a rate of 2 or a little more inches per year.

Anything moving that slow HAS to be old! :wink:

 

[mp.freelance]

Here is more evidence against a old earth. The moon is slowly moving away from the earth at a rate of 2 or a little more inches per year. Calculating backwards in about the quarter of the time evolutionist say the earth has been here the moon would have been in direct catastrophic contact with the earth. That wont work. I don't want to be mooned! :shock:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/heavens.asp

How do you figure the moon was formed, RR?

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

Didn't R-Calfers evolve from the unholy mating of an ostrich and a hog-they have the head in the sand attitude of an ostrich and the stubborness of a pig.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :clap: :clap: :clap: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :nod:

 

[Red Robin]

Here is more evidence against a old earth. The moon is slowly moving away from the earth at a rate of 2 or a little more inches per year. Calculating backwards in about the quarter of the time evolutionist say the earth has been here the moon would have been in direct catastrophic contact with the earth. That wont work. I don't want to be mooned! :shock:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/heavens.asp

How do you figure the moon was formed, RR?

Both the moon and the earth along with the rest of the universe were created in a literal 6 days around 6000 years ago. You know my position. The difference between your position and mine mp is I admit mine is a religion. I freely admit my creation account is a miracle. It breaks every law of nature and science as we know it. My position isn't the one being taught as a Godless natural process , yours is. Since evolution is a Godless, mindless , selective process guided by the laws of nature (survival of the fittest and such) you'll have to admit you must have a provable natural begining to start that process OR you must admit that there was a creator. It there was a creator involved in your process then it is a religion and shouldn't be taught as a true science in school. It would be open to criticism from a religious front as well, for example how does your account line up with scripture?

 

[theHiredMansWife]

It also isn't scientifically provable unless you can get a written account from the creator himself regarding how he created this universe...oh yea, that is my theory.

:???:
You mean gravity can't be proven unless it's in the Bible?

Have you been drinking Erin?

I asked a logical question of a rather illogical conclusion.

You said something can't be scientifically proven unless you can get a written account from the Creator. Logic says that would apply to *any* scientific principle. Including gravity. I'm certainly not seeing where a logical question deserves such a rude answer. :?

The point is Erin , if you believe like I do that evolution is a religion then it shouldn't be taxpayer funded and taught in the schools. Correct?

I never said anything of the sort. I said I think God is involved in the process. But it's perfectly do-able to teach evolution without putting God in the lesson. As a teacher, I've done precisely that myself.
Kids are smart enough to draw their own conclusions, or talk to their parents and pastors. (Which, btw, is how I came to know that evolution and creation aren't mutually exclusive. In the 8th grade, we were learning origins of the earth while also going through Confirmation. This was a discussion one evening during Confirmation)
Evolution is a science that is measurable and testable. There's a reason it's endured despite all of the conflict for the past 150 years.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't science...

(BTW, you're getting farther from your theory that everything was created in 144 hours...)
------------------------------------------

actually yes. . thats where I found the insulting quote:"Part of the problem for this widespread ignorance lies." used towards those who question Darwinism.

apparently you weren't bothered when he also said: most Christians know little about the scientific details of evolution, either about the enormous amount of evidence already gathered to support evolution or the dominant theory that explains how it happens, natural selection. This is true both of Christians who accept evolution and support teaching it in the public schools of the United States and those who reject it and oppose its teaching.

Though unfortunately, he seems to be right.

I can accept the proven small changes, just not gaps that span millions of years and require huge leaps of faith to believe.

]

You did say that there was "NO proof of her tons of [transitional] fossils.."
Correct? And I did provide a link that gave evidence of several transitional fossils.

I also gave a FAQ link
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/index.html
which I said answered a number of questions, including yours about lack of transitional fossils for that specific example.

Have you read through that one yet?

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

One astute thinker made the following comment - "the Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go . . ."

Trying to discover our beginning has great merit as a teaching/learning exercise, but must be pursued with utmost humility or it degenerates into a hopeless cycle of arrogance.

 

[Steve]

It breaks every law of nature and science as we know it.

unfortunatly I would strongly disagree, GOD broke no laws, he created. thus made the laws. ..in fact there is presented proof that the creating of the universe and all that is in it compliments the biblical discription.

some of it even comes fron young earth creationists. because to discount all science would be to prove your assumptions wrong and discredit oneself..

I also still contend that it is our understanding as man,.. that infers GOD did it by our limited measures. When we accept miracles that defy (un-proven) science and can not be dis-proven we accept GOD's word.

 

[Steve]

Quote:
actually yes. . thats where I found the insulting quote:"Part of the problem for this widespread ignorance lies." used towards those who question Darwinism.


apparently you weren't bothered when he also said: most Christians know little about the scientific details of evolution, either about the enormous amount of evidence already gathered to support evolution or the dominant theory that explains how it happens, natural selection. This is true both of Christians who accept evolution and support teaching it in the public schools of the United States and those who reject it and oppose its teaching.

Though unfortunately, he seems to be right.

I read the entire essay and two others.....I even agree with much of what was said. but when trying to convince others you are right, many resort to calling those who question thier theories belittleing terms......and I find that more so in evolutionism.

 

[kolanuraven]

Robin. I got a question, really 2 for ya.

Ok...God made Adam...then Eve from his-Adam's-- rib. Ok...that means that are of the same genetic material....brother/sister per se. Then, they had kids. Does this not ring of incest?

AND....now you got 4 people on the earth.... the kids,Cane and Able, got married and had kids them selves.....where did their spouses come from if there are only 4 people on the earth to start with?

You also called me an " elite" person. Why? I've not called you any names...I just answered your questions and responded to you the best way I know how. Are you part and parcel to the group that loves to delve into the name calling arena? Am I ' elite' because I choose to read, explore new ideas, theories, and participate in science? How so?

I look forward to your answers. Oh yeah...you were wanting my proof of my " Tons of fossils"....first off go to any Natural History museum...they are full to the rafters with the critters. To see some of my finds.....go to Bozeman, SLC, Laramie, WY....just to name a few places.

 

[Steve]

Quote:
I can accept the proven small changes, just not gaps that span millions of years and require huge leaps of faith to believe.
]

You did say that there was "NO proof of her tons of [transitional] fossils.."
Correct? And I did provide a link that gave evidence of several transitional fossils.

I also gave a FAQ link
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/index.html
which I said answered a number of questions, including yours about lack of transitional fossils for that specific example.

Have you read through that one yet?

yes, I read the pbs, but sorry but after reading alot of comments geared towards an eight year old and little facts I went on to ask the Question....

How can it be transitional if there is an 185 million year gap between two completly seperate species?

It is easy to say yes there is a transition, but offering a reptile, and a hypothosis that it was the is believed to have some mammel traits. is not proof.

And even if it did ,it could still have been created. because to prove evolution you would have to fill the 185 million year gap with fossils of true transitional critters. to believe Creation all I have to do is have Faith...

so now is some one can fill in the 185 million years between the reptile, Theraspid, and the Mamel Condylart, ????

 

[Steve]

You also called me an " elite" person. Why? I've not called you any names...I just answered your questions and responded to you the best way I know how. Are you part and parcel to the group that loves to delve into the name calling arena? Am I ' elite' because I choose to read, explore new ideas, theories, and participate in science? How so?

I look forward to your answers. Oh yeah...you were wanting my proof of my " Tons of fossils"....first off go to any Natural History museum...they are full to the rafters with the critters. To see some of my finds.....go to Bozeman, SLC, Laramie, WY....just to name a few places.

actually I called you a elitist.

and Now biblically illiterate. and an even worse speller then me.......

You have offered nothing to this debate other then insults and condensending remarks......from your first post....so why would you expect differant?



tons of fossils does not prove evolution. it just proves tons of animals died. so what....

Maybe you could explain how sciences best example of a transitional fossil between a reptile and a mammal has a 185 million year gap and thats acceptable for a"well educated person"?

or would you prefer to just trash the Bible.