1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Creationism - Why it is valid.

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by kendemyer, Feb 4, 2004.

  1. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am the author of the string on creationism.

    I thought I would submit some humor to the string with a twist on something G.K. Chesterton said regarding theism/atheism. I do think there is some truth to the humor though. Here it is:

    The arguments against creationism are easily dealt with. There are no arguments against creationism!

    Sincerely,

    Ken
     
  2. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    I updated my essay and resources with more recent quotes. I also added information regarding molecular biology. I also expanded the second law of thermodynamics information as well. Lastly, I wanted to say I included a quote from a evolutionist in regards to his following a materialist ideology and how it has affected his ability to explain nature.

    Here are the sites with the expanded information:

    http://www.apologetics.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=937

    http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=180&view=getlastpost
     
  3. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    And you still did not remove any of the out of context quotes, the ones where in context the meaning is the exact opposite of what you are presenting it as saying even though you have been shown the true meaning in context.

    You did not remove any of the inaccurate quotes, the ones where you claim evidence does not exist that I have shown you does exist.

    You still link to websites with holes big enough to drive trucks through.

    Or did I miss something? :rolleyes: :confused:
     
  4. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html) the expanded information on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

    Well, I pulled my thermo book (Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, Smith and Van Ness, 4th Edition, 1987) off the shelf and I found that it gave three definitions for 2LOT.

    1. "No apparatus can operate in such a way that its only effect is to convert heat absorbed by a system completely into work."

    2. "No process is possible which consists solely in the transfer of heat from one temperature level to a higher one."

    3. "It is impossible by a cyclic process to convert the heat absorbed by a system completely into work."

    I cannot see where any of those speak against evolution. Your "source" quotes Lord Kelvin with an equally valid form of the 2nd law. And then goes on to ignore that definition completely.

    Let us take a look at the reasons for the second law. Imagine for a moment that you have energy stored as potential energy. Say you have lifted a rock to a great height. Now you release the rock and let it fall. You can convert a very high percentage of the stored potential energy into kinetic energy just by leting it fall. If you were to eliminate the friction by removing the atmosphere, your conversion would come even closer to 100%. Now imagine that your energy is stored as heat, say a container of hot water. The amount of useful work you can get out of the stored heat is much lower. If you build a really efficient machine, you will still get much less than half of the stored energy out to do actual work. Heat energy is a much lower quality of energy than mechanical forms. When you try to convert heat to work, much of the heat is simply lost and it is lost as entropy. Entropy is a property of a material that can be measured and calculated just like enthalpy or temperature. For a completely reversible process, the change in enthalpy is zero. For all other processes the total change in enthalpy is greater than zero. A particular object can have its entropy reduced provided that the total entropy of the system increases. The change in entropy, S, of a process can be written as dS=dQ/T.

    Now, my challenge to you is this. You claim that evolution is in violation of the 2LOT. Please, tell me which step of evolution violates the principles spelled out above, preferrably in mathematical terms. If you cannot do this, then you should withdraw the claim about evolution being in violation of 2LOT.

    Now I know that entropy is a difficult property to get you hands on. Increasing entropy is often associated with increasing randomness to make it easier to understand. My text gives the following example. "From a microscopic point of view we therefore associate an increase in entropy with an increase in randomness or a decrease in order at the molecular level." Now, what this is talking about,for example, is: You take ice and melt it into water. As ice, the molecules are arranged into a regular crystalline structure. As water, the molecules are free to move about randomly and are less orderly organized. The entropy has been increased. Now, to take this definition of order and substitute your own definiton of order is a misapplication of thermo and I do not care that the substitution is often made to help lay people grapple with what entropy actually is. It is wrong. And you cannot show mathematically where any proposed step of evolution violates the laws of entropy.

    I am glad to see that you are not being allowed to get away with the misquoting on the other sites, either. I am also glad you labeled your statement at the top of this page as humor because in reality there is no evidence for a young earth.
     
Loading...