Do you know much about Creation Science?

Post your questions. I'm sure you will get some good answers from both points of view.

 

Riley,

You might want to check out this stie, it might help you out.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

 

Hey Riley!

I am a Christian with a science background.
One of the bedrock laws of science is the Three Laws of Thermodynamics.
No scientist questions them as they are not scientific theory - they are "law", settled and established.

One of those laws as I interpret it is that all systems (living or not) tend to become more complex as time passes.
This is because entropy (the loss of energy that is slowly using up all energy in the universe) favors those systems (creatures or machines) that use less energy.
New cars are more complex than old cars - new computers are more complex than old computers - frogs are more complex than bacteria - and these are better because each uses energy more efficiently to survive and function.

No complex creature ever evolves into a less complex one - it NEVER happens - they always evolve into something more complex.

Systems that are less energy efficient become extinct as entropy uses up available energy.

So the longer a system is around the more complex it becomes - if God was here before everyone else then he is more evolved and complex than any other system.

Look up the Three Laws of Thermodynamics and try to understand them.

Now if someone pops up with an objection that the Three Laws say things don't become more complex, they "tend toward randomness" - just ask them to define randomness.

If they say "randomness is a lack of any order" ask them to explain the orderliness of a bag of seeds - thousands of them that are all alike - or people, billions of whom share the same basic features.

Then watch them scratch their heads.

If you're scratching your head over what I just said look up the Three Laws and ask someone to help you understand them.

Enjoy the debate brother.

God bless

 

oops my bad

I use their argument against them Riley
if evolution is correct, then God evolves too - and would be 12 billion years ahead of us

it makes them think like they didn't before

whenever you deal with science remember this;

a medical doctor is a scientist (one who uses science)

500 years ago doctors killed more patients than they saved, and killed many who would have lived had they been left alone

- whenever science types get puffy remind them of that

God bless sister

 

Riley, with all due respect, you are essentially asking someone to do your homework for you. While this may not be actual homework, it amounts to the same thing. We here are more than happy to share our beliefs and ideas with you, but you entered this debate...not us. If you need to find material to support your side of the debate, you need to do the research. You have the entire Internet at your fingertips and libraries have tons of book you can use to research the subject as well.

 

anyone ever tell you you're a jerk Matt?

you need to take a look at that "we" thing you have too - you are not a "we"

keep your chin up Riley

 

You are attempting to apply your interpretation of a physical law to a spiritual Being. Apples and oranges.

 

Process theologians (incorrectly) believe in a theological evolution of sorts, although not in a sense as you mention.

The theory of evolution pertains to biological matter, not spiritual factors. God would not have to "evolve," even if evolution is true.

I wouldn't play the scientist game. Christianity has had its fair share of bloodshed too, unfortunately.

 

I really think you need to get a better understanding of evolutionary theory.

 

Riley, not sure about peer reviewed sites, but try Googling the International Journal for Creation Research. Hope that helps. Good luck on your debate. Hope you smoke 'em.

 

Actually, bacteria have a way of incorporating and passing on new genetic material, through circular rings of DNA called "Plasmids". When a certain bacteria develops a resistance to a certain drug, it can pass this resistance to it's buddies, extremely quickly.

Also, genes are constantly undergoing addition of new material, at least in germ line (non somatic, i.e. "sex cells" or "sperm and egg") cells, through several processes such as crossing over during synapsis, genetic recombination, etc. Mutations can also "shuffle" DNA, making the codon call for a completely different amino acid (and hence, a different protein structure).

None of this really makes any difference to the debate, though. Let me give you an example.

Suppose I found a car, laying in a field, upside down. I then begin to show you calculations, graphs, and figures, which "prove" the car could have fallen out of an air plane.

Now, does that prove that the car did, in fact, fall out of an airplane? No, of course not. All I have proven, is that it is a possibility. It could have been dropped from a helicopter, it could have fallen off of a higher cliff, etc.

In order for me to "Prove" that it was dropped by an airplane, I would need direct evidence. A statement from the pilot perhaps, or a flight plan showing that the plane had been there in the right place and the right time (and even then it would not "prove" it).

Evolutionists attempt to do just this. IS it possible, that one could take an ancient bacteria, and in billions of years, possibly get a human by rearranging the DNA? Yes. Our DNA codes for the exact same proteins, and when you put the DNA in the right sequence you WILL get a human.

Does that mean it can be done in the wild? Probably not: the factors inhibiting such a possibility would be great. There are some HUGE evolutionary hurdles in that sequence (such as the eye) which would make it near impossible.

But even if it WERE possible, does that mean that it DID happen? No. Just like the car example above, proving something is POSSIBLE does not prove that it is ACTUAL.

Beyond all this, the genetic system as a whole, is far to complicated and precise a process, to have just "happened". Amino acids cannot be linked, without codons (three base sections of mRNA) placing them in the proper sequence (via tRNA) to be meaningful. And codons cannot do this, without fully functioning cellular machinery, which cannot be made without the codons and functioning machinery to make them.

Hope that helps.

 

Howdy

This video is great and blessed me and others about Creation and science.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUAX4UjsRU :thumbs: