Creationist Lies
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- TheTick0
See JazX - I can and do recognize science of value as well as theology of value. I am one versatile Tick...
The Oklo reactor thing was interesting...
We really do need to consolidate this entire thread somewhere and print it up or put it online somewhere...
- Kes0
no but discipler, that website you posted doesn't at all account for the fossil evidence of human evolution... i dont get it?
- JazX0
yep, that's time table supports evolutionary theory. I had to know that sh*t up and down when in school. The most interesting thing on that grpahic is the K-T boundary (AKA, 'K-T Impact') which is a distinct deposit found all over the world which coincides with the paleo-extinction of Dinosaur life. The paleo deposits that are found around the world aren't disputed by Creationists, however, the dates in which these extinctions occurred, obviously, are disputed.
- TheTick0
Well, Mimio I ould say the world was a lot smaller place and the human frame of referance was different. I think the flood story was allegorical, but also "factual" given the context when it was written.
Look the bible was written in an era when magic and miracles were REAL, in the human mind, so to try and place modern counciousness into a older stage of human thinking is dangerous without certain caveats - just like trying to place stone age thinking into a modern context.
- JazX0
I'd actually like to go and work on an offshore oil/natural gas platform doing geophysical well-logging.
Idealy off the West Coast of Africa (Angola/Gabon). Nice deposits sit there.
Depends though, hard gigs to find. Shell, Elf, BP jobs aren't easy to grab.
Learn the software that's used in modern drilling. I'd probably have to learn Portuguese or French.
- mrdobolina0
anarchitect is right, you never take a side, then you bash the thread for existing, then say t-minus whatever...
- TheTick0
You know what. You are not god's special little snowflake.
Having spent lots of time overseas with non-christian peoples with millenias of history I always find thw who;le Bible as the Word and Truth of god such hubris and arrogance.
The holiestthing I ever encountered was spending a few nights in a buddhist temple and being allowed to listen to the morning ritual. I imagined at that moment all around the world monks of different religions were chanting and this pure blind love of creation regardless of religious affiliation was the song of man that holds the world together.
That was deep...that the dinosaurs are somehow the levitahans of the old testaent is just plain so lightweight...
Discipler you can't even see that you're BELIEF and CONVICTION that the bible is rigt is what clouds your arguments..it's faith bro, not science. Whatever..
I know I'm the fool and will burn in hell..yippee for me..
- bk_shankz0
I found the answer in booze.
- MX_OnD0
might have known this was started by Kes... ahahahahahahhaa 1st time I even bother to look at the leviathin.
- JazX0
yeah no problem, you might be taking me wrong. I'm just hunting for answers too, it's interesting and I don't think either side has it completely correct.
http://www.creationevidence.org/…
Not sure if this Dr. Gentry is an independent scientists or not, but his findings are interesting from a purely non-biased scientific viewpoint.
- discipler0
Kuz, how does that in any way explain that fact that the second law communicates a universal loss in usable energy over time and the impact this truth has on Macroevolution???
The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process:
1. by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and
2. by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)
Entropy is a measure of :
1. the amount of energy unavailable for work within a system or process, and/or 2. the probability of distribution or randomness [disorder] within a system.
"The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”
The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.
Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.
The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.
But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist)]So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?
The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
1. A “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. A mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.
Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).
While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.
In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe. "
- TheTick0
It is illogical and downright absurd to suggest that something came from nothing.
discipler
(Jun 15 05, 10:53)ehhh... which is exactly what you did:
an infinite uncaused being doesn't require a creator, by definition
discipler
(Jun 15 05, 10:47)
trainer
(Jun 15 05, 10:56)
------------------Good catch trainer...a wee bit of a gotcha there...but of course we'll just go off into semantics now...
- TheTick0
I have absolutely no problem with anyone believing that the Bible is the literal word of god. Cool. Good for you.
The great thing about the US is we are supposed to have the freedom to worship and have no religious influence in the government. Well, we're supposed to anyway. I get my feathers ruffkled when you get your creationism in my democracy.
The government gaurantees you the space to worship anything you want anyway you want. And it's pretty good at that. So why do you all want to tell the rest of us to live? Mighty unfair of you.
You don't like what's on TV (and neoither do I) DO what I do - don't freakin' watch it.
Don't like what's playing in the movies? Don't go.
Don't like what the FREE public schools are teaching, home school 'em. Or send 'em to christian schools.
Teach your kids creation science at home. Be a freakin' parent.
- discipler0
Some believe that the geological deposits in your chart were formed considerably quicker, JazX. As the result of a world wide deluge. ;)
- discipler0
Some believe there is evidence that the earth is younger than 10,000 years. There is great conjecture regarding dating methods.
- mrdobolina0
from that article:
"Yes, one can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from God's Word from Genesis 12 onwards. But once you have told people to accept man's dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bible's authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America. "
oh brother!
- Kes0
Quincy... wrong!
- TheTick0
Just came across this. Not really related to our discussion, but I thought it was cool in a related kind of way
- JazX0
yeah yeah of course we dump sh*t into the atmosphere. I was just going off on the fact that it's been higher. Don't mean it's good for us now or was good for it then, but plenty of organisms lived through it. Obviously, we are alive. The politics surrounding the entire, 'SAVE THE PLANET' crusade pisses me off sometimes. I don't dig someone using falsified data for their own agenda. They say that since CFC's were banned in commerical products, the ozone sits just fine. At least, I heard that not too long ago.
- subflux0
(just as a side not: it's a bit weird being a Buddhist some days....)