Hi Charles, here are my thoughts.
To me, the language is pretty clear. God tells us what he did on each day of his creative work and at the end he says:
The "account of the heavens and the earth when they were created" describes what was done and when it was done. This is an explicit timetable. On Days 1 through 6 God did his creative work and on Day 7 he rested. The "inspired scriptures" give no hint of an old earth. All our ideas of an old earth come from outside of scipture based on the fallible ideas of fallen men. Charles says that "Science pretty well has demonstarted the old age of the earth." Some science shows an old earth and some equally valid science shows a young earth. But what does a straightforward reading (without adding to the scriptures the potentially fallacious ideas of fallen man [a big no no according to Rev 22:18]) of the record of the One who was there say? The information in the Bible leads only to the conclusion that the earth was made over the course of six 24 hour days only several thousand years ago. So, I "have a problem with inspired scriptures AND and old earth."
How old is the earth
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by 7-Kids, Mar 12, 2004.
Page 11 of 13
-
Uh . . . Mud . . .the point is, the "science" for a young earth is NOT equally valid. It is patently cobbled together to support a pre-formed conclusion and does not stand up to any unbiased analysis.
-
Mud,
Paul is right in one respect - the "science" in support of a young earth is weak - it just is. No way around that. I'm not against a young earth interpretation - I just don't feel bound to it. Also, one does not have to believe Darwinian evolution to be in favor of an old earth. -
"Unbiased analysis"??? On this issue? I don't think so!
Most objections old earthers raise against young earth evidences have been soundly rebutted (nay sayers to the contrary). The assertion that the science for a young earth "is patently cobbled together to support a pre-formed conclusion" is unwarranted hot air.
Yes there are some problems with YEC evidences. But there are also problems with evidences for an old earth--especially those derived from uniformitarian methodologies. The supports for Uniformitarianism are becoming quite wobbly.
I agree that Darwinian evolution has been fully discredited, but the notion of an old earth didn't become vogue in scientific circles until Darwinism was thought to be true. Now that the deficiencies of Uniformitarianism and Darwinism have come to light, perhaps it is time to step back and allow for the possibility that men sometimes make mistakes and that God's word just might be true in its timeline and that we should be able to see the correlation between the word and the world. Observations of the real world fit nicely within the YEC framework of earth history.
I encourage and challenge everyone who believes that God was able to say what he meant and meant what he said about earth history in the early chapters of Genesis to set aside your preconceive ideas based on the fallible propositions of fallen men and take a fresh look at the YEC position. I think a good place to start is in the Questions and Answers section of the AiG website ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp ) Take a look at their Feedback section as well for answers to their critics and for positive testimonials ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/ ). -
By the way, you and other creationists keep talking about uniformitarianism as if that were a deep flaw in science. What do you mean by that slur against the real scientists, when you call them uniformitarianists? -
P of E:
"It is a matter of historical fact that Darwin was able to use the already existing notion of an ancient earth from the science of geology to help him derive his theory."
=====================
You are absolutely right. Darwinism is premised on 'old age' notions invented by Lyell and Hutton who simply denied Cuvier's repeated cataclysms in earth's history. Lyell also invented the Uniformitarian Principle which claims that all historical processes can be measured according to present conditions.
Obviously, Darwin coudn't substantiate either Lyell's claims or his own.
He could only imagine them. -
Evolution is indeed on a “weak footing,†though I do not believe that it is “in danger of being overthrown any day now†because its weaknesses are quite well hidden.
I would not say that long ages are on a weak footing.
By the way, wouldn’t saying that he made all the different types of plants and animals as fully formed units over a short period of time be deceptive if he had really used slow and gradual processes to make the different kinds of organisms in a step by step fashion over millions of years? That doesn’t sound like the Jesus I know.
The findings of observational science are not opposed to biblical creationism. It is historical science with its myriad of tentative assumptions that has a problem with biblical creationism.
[ April 10, 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: mud ] -
Mud
Let's explore this "Law of Increasing Entropy."
Please define this law for us, tell us what the origin of the law is, and how evolution goes against it. -
Hello, MUD! Thank you for a thoughtful reply that actually addresses issues. Those one shot "I'm right and you're wrong" kind of posts are a little tiresome, wouldn't you agree?
Look below for the great law of entropy challenge.
And there are intermediate forms, you know.
When I was a child, I looked at a clock and told my mother the hands weren't moving. She told me the hands were moving, just moving to slowly for me to see. I didn't believe her then but she was right. That's the way it is with watching evolution. The pace is too slow to observe in just a hundred years or so.
And now - THE GREAT LAW OF ENTROPY CHALLENGE!
Here's how evolution creates new information and new complexity, in theory.
Your challenge is to find where, exactly in this process, the law of ever increasing entropy would intervene and stop the thing from working. Which step or steps are prohibited by the 2nd law of thermodymics, sometimes paraphrased as asserting that new information cannot arise without intelligent intervention.
Evolution theory is about how living things evolve, so we'll start with having already gotten some living things that use our own DNA coding to reproduce.
Step One: They will reproduce and grow the population until some limit to their growth comes along, such as a limited food suppy, limited room to live in, whatever. (hmmm. We see that happening all the time, I guess that's not going to be against any laws . . . )
Step Two: Random changes will come into the genome, most of them harmful, rarely a good one. (Hmmm. That makes sense, surely that can't be against any laws)
(Note: None of the living creatures can tell who's got the bad genes and who's got the good genes. Unless, of course, its you and you notice your potential mate has two heads . . and pass them by)
Step Three: Over time, the law of averages affects what happens to those living things with the changed genes. The ones with baaad genes have less success reproducing and this makes the baaad genes less and less common in the population. The ones with the GOOD genes have greater success and the good genes tend to become more and more common in the population.
(hmmm. I think I've even seen some of that happening to some people I know . . this must not be against any laws)
Step four: As time goes by, generation after generation, eventually the good gene totally replaces what used to be there and this qualifies as NEW INFORMATION as to how to put together a genome that will get along in the environment these living things find themselves.
(hmmm. A new gene that works better is now in place everywhere . . . surely that counts for new information!)
There. That is how new information can come about, according to the theory.
SO THE GREAT CHALLENGE IS LAID DOWN. Can you show where anything specified here is contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? hint - can't be done, not if you stick to the real 2nd law of thermodynamics.
As for saying that evolution could produce minor changes but never a change of species, well, that is like saying giving somebody a penny a day would never make them a millionare, not even in a million years! -
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
- 1 Peter 1:3-5
-----------------------------------------
HE LIVES!
Happy Easter everybody! -
The Law of Increasing Entropy means that all systems left to themselves tend to run down and deteriorate; order tends to become disordered, information becomes lost or corrupted, energy becomes unusable.
Like all of the physical and spiritual laws, this law originated in the mind of God.
Darwinian evolution is contrary to the Second Law in that it requires the elements of the earth to go from a state of disorder to order, from simple to complex all by itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don’t believe in the sky and interstellar space. You may not believe that the sun shines on the earth. You’ve never used the terms “sunset” and “sunrise”. And you think Genesis defines biological evolution. Wow!
I’m sorry. I’m being facetious.
at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0704icecores.asp
The ice “age” followed hard on the heels of the Flood when the oceans were warmer and the atmosphere was colder. For more on the ice age see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/iceage.asp .
-
I do not believe that there is any such thing as the "Law of Increasing Entropy." I think you actually hit the nail on the head when you asked Paul "I’m confused. It seems like you are you saying that evolution does not contravene the second law because the earth “sends out” more disorder than it receives. Does this make sense to anyone?" It is not exactly right, but it is close enough.
You are right, I do know a little about thermo. Maybe just enough to be dangerous. In aquiring my degree, I had two thermo courses. Anyhow, I dug one of my thermo books and here is how it stated the 2LOT.
"No apparatus can operate in such a way that its only effect is toconvert heat absorbed by a system completely into work."
"No process is possible which consists solely in the transfer of heat from one temperature level to a higher one."
"It is impossible by a cyclic process to convert the heat absorbed by a system completely into work."
Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics Smith and Van Ness 4th Edition 1987
Basically what we are saying is that heat is a poor means of storing energy. Whenever you try and do work with heat, invariably some of the energy is lost. Entropy is what we call this lost energy. Entropy can be described as an increase in randomness (or disorder) at the molecular level.
Think of a box containing ice. The ice is in a regualar pattern (a crystal). If you heat the ice, it melts into water. The molecules are more randon at the molecular level. If you continue heating you get steam. This is even less ordered than the water was. If you heat the steam, the molecules will move faster and faster becoming even more random. That should be close enough to get an idea of what is happening.
But there is nothing about entropy violated by evolution. Paul's basic challenge boils down to that fact. If you believe that evolution violates the 2LOT, then your challenge is to identify exactly which step is the violation and describe the violation with math. It cannot be done because there is no violation.
I hope that helps.
But yes, all that the 2LOT says is that the total entropy of a closed system must increase. The earth receives much energy from the sun, so its total entropy (though it is NOT a closed system) can increase while plenty of energy is available for all sorts of biology. -
This means that there must be a way of losing heat.
Like a Stirling engine. Nothing leaves a stirling engine, as you know except one side is kept hotter than the other, and that makes it cycle.
In this fashion the only way the extra entropy leaves the stirling engine - and also our earth - is as heat. The stirling engine does work and may not get any hotter over time than it already does, but the ENVIRONMENT around the stirling engine gets a heat increase, and this is the extra entropy demanded by 2lot.
In the same way, the earth sheds extra energy in the form of heat by infrared radiation.
Really. Its true!
Of course, however one feels about 2lot in that kind of ultimate sense, everybody knows sunlight can energize life, it does so all the time, and why they think 2lot has something against evolution is impossible to pin down, without saying the magic word "rationalization" . . . -
An energy flow that has been continuing ever since the beginning of the earth.
Me, earlier:
Of course I believe in the sky and the heavens. What I don't believe in is a dome over our heads that holds back the waters above from coming down and flooding the dry land that is made possible by this dome; a dome in which are spotted the Sun, Moon and Stars, with a chamber for the Sun when it isn't up in the sky.
It is a matter of historical record that protestant and catholics alike OPPOSED the upstart notions of Copornicus and Gallileo et. al. on literal interpretation grounds. You cannot deny that history. Today the need for a literal interpretation is explained away, instead, as at the sites you posted.
Do you know why the ecclesiastical bodies including your sites changed from the literal to the subjective interpretation? Of course you do. It is because the science of the matter won the field. It is because the literal interpretaiton was false. I did not say the Bible was wrong; I said the literal interpretation was false. Some people around there think to say the one is to say the other.
Lessee now. Can you spell Archeopterix? (hmmm . . can I?)
</font>[/QUOTE]Rather, if evolutionism were true we would expect the fossil record to be very different from what it is.
[/quote]
Hey, here's a neat thought for you to digest -
(a) What would the fossil record be like if all life were created simultaneosly only 6000 years ago and
(b) what would the fossil record be like if life were evolved over the last billion years?
Your thoughts on that would be interesting to see.
-
You know Paul, I figure your a little closer to reality than I am. It does seem to make more sense that the total entropy of the earth is at least close to being in balance. I don't know why, but it just seems right. BTW, the earth is about 1 W/m^2 from equilibrium. There will be a little warming, but not as much as the more pessimistic models suggest.
-
Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
There's your first mistake! Elements of the earth are not left alone all by themselves, even in terms of the natural universe. God's SUN shines on it, creating a natural flow of energy.
An energy flow that has been continuing ever since the beginning of the earth.Click to expand...
It was the addition of natural selection to the theoretical picture that suddenly brought sense to all the hints of evolution that had been seen by others. It was one of those simple ideas that revolutionizes everything.Click to expand...
Your words are correct - really! 2Lot says entropy always increases. The earth is roughly in balance for entropy, because the earth is roughly in an energy balance. It receives high energy photons from the Sun. It radiates to outer space lots more photons - LOTS more - but in low energy form, as infrared radiation. This energy flow drives plant photosythesis and allows the plants to live and thrive; we parasitic animals eat plants and from their energy also thrive; and the whole thing is able to continue without us all dying from an excess of heat build up because the earth sheds as much heat as it takes in.Click to expand...
Originally posted by me:
The origin of the DNA code is only unknown to those who disregard the information revealed in the Bible. It originated in the mind of God. God wrote the code for all of His creatures.
Well, that is ultimately true, but to a scientist that is not enough. You'll never have the fun of finding out how God did a thing if you just quit checking, secure in the fact God did it!Click to expand...
By the way, how does what I said imply that I think we should “just quit checking” how God “did a thing?”
It is only an interpretation that no ANIMALS died before the fall of MAN. Many have argued that the death of men is uniquely a tragic event in a way that applies to no animal.Click to expand...
It is a perfectly viable option to hold that the death that came because of Adam is death for MEN not death for ANIMALS; you will not find a verse that forces this interpretation to be false.Click to expand...
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 5:14Click to expand...
What about the doctrine in Romans 8:
The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, . . .Click to expand...
. . . in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay . . .Click to expand...
. . . and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
- Romans 8:19-21Click to expand...
. . . the law of sin and death.
- Romans 8:2Click to expand...
Revelation 21 says that the new heaven and new earth will have no tears, no death, no sorrow, no pain. Should we assume that the unchanging God considered suffering and death acceptable, yea, even preferable (since he could have done it instantly), in the making of the first creation, but not in the second?
No! A thousand times, no!
Of course I believe in the sky and the heavens. What I don't believe in is a dome over our heads that holds back the waters above from coming down and flooding the dry land that is made possible by this dome; a dome in which are spotted the Sun, Moon and Stars, with a chamber for the Sun when it isn't up in the sky.Click to expand...
Nope, I’m pretty sure Genesis doesn’t say anything about a dome that, uh, “holds back the waters.”
It is a matter of historical record that protestant and catholics alike OPPOSED the upstart notions of Copornicus and Gallileo et. al. on literal interpretation grounds. You cannot deny that history.Click to expand...
Today the need for a literal interpretation is explained away, instead, as at the sites you posted.Click to expand...Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.Click to expand...
I acknowledge that a literal interpretation of Genesis denies biological evolution.Click to expand...
C'mon, MUD, I have no problem with omnipotence and omiscience being able to make the earth in six days. Of course He could do that! But the evidence we find in the earth and in outer space is that He did something else.Click to expand...
Now now, there you go again. Billions and billions? Hardly!Click to expand...
Tell me, if the flood came upon the earth in our day, would it be unreasonable to suppose that of the trillions of organisms alive on the earth, several billion would be fossilized? Well, the ancient earth was no less lush than our current earth.
Much more on fossils and biblical creation is here http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp .
And as for intermediate characteristics, every time an intermediate is found, a guy like you will say, that's not an intermediate, instead its a whole creature to itself, and there are now two gaps where there used to be one!Click to expand...
Every time a guy like you is shown evidence that is contrary to evolution and long ages you will say, well that’s just not valid.
Lessee now. Can you spell Archeopterix? (hmmm . . can I?)Click to expand...
Umm - as I recall, it was the fish air bladders that turned into our lungs, the gills just stopped showing up.Click to expand...
Hey, here's a neat thought for you to digest -
(a) What would the fossil record be like if all life were created simultaneosly only 6000 years ago and
(b) what would the fossil record be like if life were evolved over the last billion years?
Your thoughts on that would be interesting to see.Click to expand...
If the biosphere was created in the manner Genesis describes and was subsequently wiped out by a year long deluge we would find what we found. Abundant fossilization showing the early, sudden contemporaneous, appearance (Cambrian explosion) of many different types of complex organisms with no fossil evidence that one kind was derived from another. The fossils would tend to be sorted in the fossil record in a manner representative of both the geographical/ecological location of the organisms and their relative abilities to flee from (but ultimately succumb to) the flood waters. And there would be numerous instances of out-of-sequence fossils (i.e., simpler organisms buried above more complex organisms).
If life evolved gradually from a common ancestor, there should be no sudden appearance of radically different complex organisms at roughly the same time especially in the “oldest” strata of the earth. There should be many, many good examples of intermediate life forms. There would be almost no instances where a more complex organism was buried in strata deep to a simpler organism. And those embarrassing living fossils should quit showing up!
From previous posts:
You:
Look right here on this forum there are modern people with a supposed general education who are unable to understand that God used a slow and gradual process of change to produce the life of our planet! What chance would a pre-modern individual have to understand?
Me:
Now you are being facetious!
You again:
I was dead serious. The facts are the facts.Click to expand...
Radiometric age determination.Click to expand...
Geological column.Click to expand...
Billions of light years distant stars.Click to expand...
Ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica showing 200,000 plus annual layers laid down.Click to expand...
The living tree of life in its consistent family relationships, confirmed by the fossil record and by the independently derived genetic family relationships.Click to expand...
The Hawiian islan chain.Click to expand...
Annual layers of silt in a lake going back over 50,000 years.Click to expand...
Yes the earth speaks for those who will listen without having chosen to disregard all evidence in advance to their pre-chosen ideas.Click to expand...
All right, let me rephrase the choices.
Which is more likely, that
(a) God decided to literally tell the truth in Genesis and plant deceptive evidence in the earth and skies that say another story
or
(b) God graciously allowed men to receive his revelations about Himself in a manner that accomodated their inability to understand the literal truth and allowed the earth and universe to retain evidence of the true mode of creation?Click to expand...
B. What inability to understand? The concept is simple. Non-living matter came to life. Simple life gradually changed into more complex life. I’m sorry if you had to struggle to grasp these ideas but most of us didn’t.
Me:
“Loaded words”??? Do you not realize that when dealing with the unobserved past one must make certain assumptions in order to make sense out of present day observations? And, in context, an assumption, as defined by Dictionary.com, is “The act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing without proof; supposition; unwarrantable claim.” Therefore, an assumption, by definition is tentative. So, you see, saying that historical science makes “tentative assumptions” is quite appropriate.Click to expand...You:
There you go again, leaping from the need we all have to make assumptions every day to calling every one of them tentative.Click to expand...
I could just as logically say the inspiration of the Bible is only tentative, because, after all, it is an assumption, is it not?Click to expand...
There. Perhaps that will show you that merely tagging labels on something is not an argument against it.
Alas, all you said on this matter is more tagging labels and claiming that makes a difference in reality.Click to expand...
All science is both operational and historical; because every experiment ever done is now a past, historical experiement and it is only on faith we take it to be repeatable in the future; a faith that we think we recall having been sustained many times but . . . what about the next time?Click to expand...
No experiments were done on evolution in the past. No one was there to record his observations of sedimentation over the years. No one was there to measure the relative amounts of parent and daughter products or to make observations ruling out accelerated decay. No one was there to make observations in the remote past except God and you don’t believe what he has to say on the matter!
This is a far cry from the observations and measurements made in the past by scientists who recorded what they saw and did. We can repeat their experiments and see if we get the same results. The people who observed and recorded the Mount Saint Helen’s eruption and the aftermath saw the steam blast remove thousands of tons of rock in one horrendous convulsion. They watched as a million mature trees were ripped out of the ground and strewn about like matchsticks. They marvelled as a great canyon with walls hundreds of feet high was cut through solid rock in a matter of days. They chronicled the progression of a mud flow as it swept down from the hills and scoured the earth leaving behind thousands of fine grained layers. No one can go there now and say that these features were produced slowly and gradually because the events were observed and documented. However, if these events hadn’t been observed and recorded, there would be some who would speculate that some of them may have taken long ages to perform.
Me:
I’m sorry, but your challenge is quite confusing and I don’t have time to work on it right now and I may not bother anyway.Click to expand...You:
OK, I understand. Just realize that until you can (a) show where the steps I gave are inconsistent with what science says evolution does or show where they just plain won't work
or, failing that,
(b) show where, somewhere, anywhere, in those steps something happens that is forbidden by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then you should, in all honesty, never ever claim to know that evolution is against the second law of thermodynamics, sometimes called the law of increaseing disorder.Click to expand...start with having already gotten some living things that use our own DNA coding to reproduceClick to expand...
I say it again, without a plan and a mechanism for implementing the plan the 2LOT forbids evolution.
----------------------------------------------------------
Are we still debating the age of the earth?Click to expand... -
Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
There's your first mistake! Elements of the earth are not left alone all by themselves, even in terms of the natural universe. God's SUN shines on it, creating a natural flow of energy.
An energy flow that has been continuing ever since the beginning of the earth.Click to expand...
It was the addition of natural selection to the theoretical picture that suddenly brought sense to all the hints of evolution that had been seen by others. It was one of those simple ideas that revolutionizes everything.Click to expand...
Your words are correct - really! 2Lot says entropy always increases. The earth is roughly in balance for entropy, because the earth is roughly in an energy balance. It receives high energy photons from the Sun. It radiates to outer space lots more photons - LOTS more - but in low energy form, as infrared radiation. This energy flow drives plant photosythesis and allows the plants to live and thrive; we parasitic animals eat plants and from their energy also thrive; and the whole thing is able to continue without us all dying from an excess of heat build up because the earth sheds as much heat as it takes in.Click to expand...
Originally posted by me:
The origin of the DNA code is only unknown to those who disregard the information revealed in the Bible. It originated in the mind of God. God wrote the code for all of His creatures.
Well, that is ultimately true, but to a scientist that is not enough. You'll never have the fun of finding out how God did a thing if you just quit checking, secure in the fact God did it!Click to expand...
By the way, how does what I said imply that I think we should “just quit checking” how God “did a thing?”
It is only an interpretation that no ANIMALS died before the fall of MAN. Many have argued that the death of men is uniquely a tragic event in a way that applies to no animal.Click to expand...
It is a perfectly viable option to hold that the death that came because of Adam is death for MEN not death for ANIMALS; you will not find a verse that forces this interpretation to be false.Click to expand...
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 5:14Click to expand...
What about the doctrine in Romans 8:
The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, . . .Click to expand...
. . . in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay . . .Click to expand...
. . . and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
- Romans 8:19-21Click to expand...
. . . the law of sin and death.
- Romans 8:2Click to expand...
Revelation 21 says that the new heaven and new earth will have no tears, no death, no sorrow, no pain. Should we assume that the unchanging God considered suffering and death acceptable, yea, even preferable (since he could have done it instantly), in the making of the first creation, but not in the second?
No! A thousand times, no!
Of course I believe in the sky and the heavens. What I don't believe in is a dome over our heads that holds back the waters above from coming down and flooding the dry land that is made possible by this dome; a dome in which are spotted the Sun, Moon and Stars, with a chamber for the Sun when it isn't up in the sky.Click to expand...
Nope, I’m pretty sure Genesis doesn’t say anything about a dome that, uh, “holds back the waters.”
It is a matter of historical record that protestant and catholics alike OPPOSED the upstart notions of Copornicus and Gallileo et. al. on literal interpretation grounds. You cannot deny that history.Click to expand...
Today the need for a literal interpretation is explained away, instead, as at the sites you posted.Click to expand...Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.Click to expand...
I acknowledge that a literal interpretation of Genesis denies biological evolution.Click to expand...
C'mon, MUD, I have no problem with omnipotence and omiscience being able to make the earth in six days. Of course He could do that! But the evidence we find in the earth and in outer space is that He did something else.Click to expand...
Now now, there you go again. Billions and billions? Hardly!Click to expand...
Tell me, if the flood came upon the earth in our day, would it be unreasonable to suppose that of the trillions of organisms alive on the earth, several billion would be fossilized? Well, the ancient earth was no less lush than our current earth.
Much more on fossils and biblical creation is here http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp .
And as for intermediate characteristics, every time an intermediate is found, a guy like you will say, that's not an intermediate, instead its a whole creature to itself, and there are now two gaps where there used to be one!Click to expand...
Every time a guy like you is shown evidence that is contrary to evolution and long ages you will say, well that’s just not valid.
Lessee now. Can you spell Archeopterix? (hmmm . . can I?)Click to expand...
Umm - as I recall, it was the fish air bladders that turned into our lungs, the gills just stopped showing up.Click to expand...
-----------------------------
I don't know why, but my post would only go through in two pieces. Please see below for more.
-----------------------------Click to expand... -
Originally posted by mud:
Adding energy to a system causes the system to move toward disorder more quickly. If the energy is not harnessed and directed the system will deteriorate.Click to expand...
Thus, you shoot a man and he dies, the bullet envforcing a hole where before things were arranged differently, and the man is very against that disruption of him.
But the general of the army that is sending the solders through is happier with the new patterns.
In the same way, the energy from the sun has provided for new patterns on the earth, the patterns we call life, and they have formed in cooperation with that energy, with some resulting disruption of the patterns that were on earth before, although nobody complains about messing up rocks and things to have farms and forests.
Darwin and Wallace and their follows did not know what we know now. Orthodox Darwinism was inadequate because natural selection only works on pre-existing genetic information. It can not generate new information. That is why neo-Darwinism arose. However, its mechanism, genetic mutation + natural selection, is also inadequate.Click to expand...
Plant photosynthesis is driven not merely by energy from the sun but by the mechanisms built into plants that convert solar energy into chemical energy. That’s what I’ve been trying to convey regarding the 2LOT (by-the-way, thanx for the abbreviation!) and matters inability to become more complex without a plan and a mechanism. Likewise, without our complex digestive system and its attendant enzymes, we could make no use of the energy in the foods we eat.Click to expand...
What about the doctrine in Romans 8:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, . . .Click to expand...
Did you catch that? The creation (including the animals) longs to be freed from the frustration of death which began with Adam.
</font>[/QUOTE]Did you notice you had to explain to me that it actually includes animals be inserting your interpretation in parenthesis? ISN'T THAT A CLUE THAT THIS IDEA IS ACTUALLY MERELY AN INTERPRETATION? I think it is.
Revelation 21 says that the new heaven and new earth will have no tears, no death, no sorrow, no pain. Should we assume that the unchanging God considered suffering and death acceptable, yea, even preferable (since he could have done it instantly), in the making of the first creation, but not in the second?Click to expand...
But if you find it easy to believe that God would spend such care making tapeworms and polio virus as effective as they are at what they do, go right ahead.
Nope, I’m pretty sure Genesis doesn’t say anything about a dome that, uh, “holds back the waters.”Click to expand...
Genesis 1:14 Then God said, "let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens . . . "
Yes, Paul, billions and billions. There are fossil graveyards where the number of fossils is estimated to be over a billion in a single fossil bed! See Thundering Burial at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/burial.asp .Click to expand...
At Partridge Point one can see countless thousands of fossilized sea creatures’ remains. But one’s mind is quickly overwhelmed trying to comprehend the countless billions of fossils that must therefore have been buried in these rock layers underneath many hundreds of square miles of Michigan!Click to expand...Me, earlier:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And as for intermediate characteristics, every time an intermediate is found, a guy like you will say, that's not an intermediate, instead its a whole creature to itself, and there are now two gaps where there used to be one!Click to expand...
</font>[/QUOTE]Well at least you admit it!
I am aware that archaeopteryx is routinely touted as the best example of an intermediate. And you surely know that it has been classified by evolutionists as a true bird. I know you could point out several anatomical features that are similar to reptiles (so please don’t bother), nevertheless it is a true bird.Click to expand...
I submit you treat all the evidence just as unfairly, having already made up you mind in spite of all evidence no matter what it might turn out to be.
Furthermore, fossils of unquestionably true birds have been found in strata “older” than those that archaeopteryx have been found in. So as I said, there are no convincing intermediate forms in the fossil record.Click to expand...
So, on the one hand, we have fish with air bladders, and on the other hand, we have animals with lungs. Is there anything in the middle?Click to expand...
I don't think they were the real first land animals way back, but they are just what you asked for, something in the middle . . . which shows that something in the middle is possible.
I don't know why, but my post would only go through in two pieces. Please see below for more.Click to expand... -
mud
Glad to have you around. It looks like the three of us might be able to get in about a post a day and have an interesting if not productive conversation. This is turning out to be more enjoyable than many of the conversations around here. It is hard to explore a given topic for long. We generally see the shotgun appraoch. Helen is good about exploring a topic but she has been mostly leaving these conversations alone for a while.
I am just going to comment on your post where it interests me.
"It can not generate new information. That is why neo-Darwinism arose. However, its mechanism, genetic mutation + natural selection, is also inadequate."
This would be fun to explore. Why is it that you you think that mutation togther with natural slection is in adequate? I am looking for specific reasons other than you just cannot see how it would work.
Why can new information not be generated through mutation? If I have a given genetic sequence and I mutate one "letter" of that sequence, have I not created new information? Now this new gene may be better, the same, or worse at doing whatever that gene is supposed to do. (There are technical reasons about the way the genetic code has evolved that makes it most likely that the new gene will have a very similar function to the old gene.) One thing that you see when you look at living organisms is that there is often a class of related genes (by that I mean genes that have a similar form) that code for widely varying functions in the organism. This fits in nicely with the model of mutation giving rise to new "information." Suppose, for example, that I have a gene that codes for a particular protein. This gene gets duplicated. Now the organism has two copies of the same gene. If one mutates, the other still makes the needed protein. This extra mutating copy may at some point code for something useful to the organism. The old function has been preserved and a new function developed. The genes that we find in cells in real life supports this idea.
We have also observed organisms as they evolve new traits. Certainly a new trait counts as new information. Observed right before our very eyes. One of the better known examples is the "nylon bug." A bacteria was found to evolve the ability to digest nylon.
"Adding energy to a system causes the system to move toward disorder more quickly. If the energy is not harnessed and directed the system will deteriorate."
Why do you find this important? Even in a living cell, does not the utilization of energy come about in a purely natural manner? The law of thermodynamics dictate how energy can be used. Living cells are merely following chemistry. Even the genetic code is merely chemistry in action. Local decreases in entropy happen spontaneously according to the rules of our physical universe. What you are asserting is insufficient. You must show where some step along the way actually violates the rules of thermodynamics. But you can't.
"Likewise, without our complex digestive system and its attendant enzymes, we could make no use of the energy in the foods we eat."
Do you think you could get by with a slightly less complex digestive system? Do you think you could get by if one of those enzymes was a little less effective? Do you think there are digestive enzymes that you could be completely without and still get by? If you can answer yes to any of these, then you should start to be able to see how evolution can give us the complex systems that we see. If you cannot answer yes, you are not trying hard enough.
"I am aware that archaeopteryx is routinely touted as the best example of an intermediate. And you surely know that it has been classified by evolutionists as a true bird. I know you could point out several anatomical features that are similar to reptiles (so please don’t bother), nevertheless it is a true bird. Furthermore, fossils of unquestionably true birds have been found in strata “older” than those that archaeopteryx have been found in. So as I said, there are no convincing intermediate forms in the fossil record."
Archaeopteryx is not a true bird. Though it is quite close. Archaeopteryx is an exceedingly convincing transitional if you will look at it objectively. You asked for me to not bother giving you the reptilian features of Archaeopteryx. I am going to halfway oblige you. You will find such a listing at the bottom of this post as a note. But you should not be so quick to dismiss these features. Archaeopteryx has dozens of features that are well outside the norm for ANY modern bird. But these same features are well within the norm for the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. That is why they are so important. They show us both that Archaeopteryx was a transitional and that it should not be considered a true bird. Those that have tried to distract you by telling you that birds have been found in layers older than those containing Archaeopteryx have forgotten to tell you that it was a side branch, not directly ancestral to birds. But it provides a wonderfull glimpse at the features present during the transition from reptiles to birds. (It is a similar trick to what is used in the whale sequence. Basilosaurus is a wonderful example of a transitional creature. But, it most likely is not a direct ancestor of modern whales.)
But I do have one question. If Archaeopteryx is a true bird, where is its beak? (It has jaws.)
But there are many wonderful examples of intermediates. Here is a link to a post I made detailing the transition from reptiles to mammals. http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html? The whale intermediates are good: Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus and Dorudon to name a few. The fish to amphibians intermediates, particularly Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, are very good examples. If you ask, I can give you intermediate series anywhere from species to species to new genera, families, orders...
"Also, if there were no Flood there would be far fewer fossils around since fossilization requires rapid burial."
No no. For instance, a fish can die and sink into an area with little oxygen. Decay does not happen rapidly. Without oxygen, the body is not scavenged. It can be covered slowly. Another instance. There are many fosils that were rapidly buried...by volcanic ash.
"Abundant fossilization showing the early, sudden contemporaneous, appearance (Cambrian explosion) of many different types of complex organisms with no fossil evidence that one kind was derived from another."
You better take a look a what animals are actually found in the Cambrian. Not many modern animals in there. Say, no tetrapods at all. And we do have pre-Cambrian fossils. Do you have examples of some things that suddenly appeared?
"The fossils would tend to be sorted in the fossil record in a manner representative of both the geographical/ecological location of the organisms and their relative abilities to flee from (but ultimately succumb to) the flood waters."
I can look out my window and see conifers and angiosperms and grasses. If I walk over into the woods I can find ferns growing among the other three. So they exist in the same ecology, at least here. Now, if we look into the fosil record, we see that there was a time when we only found ferns. Then ferns and conifers. Then ferns, conifers and angiosperms. Then, finally, all four. How did they get sorted this way consistenly? Why do we not find creatures with similar habitats and abilities to flee together? Never any elephants with sauropods. Never any whales or dolphins with ichthyosaurs or plesiosaurs or mosasaurs. Why no graases with any dinosaurs? For that matter, no primates with any dinosaurs? Just how did this sorting take place again? It seems hard to get what we actually have this way.
"And there would be numerous instances of out-of-sequence fossils (i.e., simpler organisms buried above more complex organisms)."
You mean there are not any simple organisms alive today? EVERYTHING is complex? Wow.
But you miss the actual "out-of-sequence fossils" that are predicted and not found. Such as those listed above.
"If life evolved gradually from a common ancestor, there should be no sudden appearance of radically different complex organisms at roughly the same time especially in the “oldest” strata of the earth."
I ask again for examples. I suspect you may actually be able to drag up a few since we have so few fossils from that long ago. So I deliberately give you an opening. But I do not think you can show the "sudden appearance" of more modern animals for whom the fossil record is more complete. Of course, that is sort of indirect evidence for transitionals.
"There should be many, many good examples of intermediate life forms."
Here is a short list. Acanthostega, Adelobasileus, Ambulocetus, Australopithecus, Basilosaurus, Cantius, Caudipteryx,Confuciusornis, Cynodesmus, Dimetrodon, Eusthenopteron, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Hovasaurus, Hylonomus, Ichthyostega, Kenyapithecus, Microraptor, Oreochima, Osteolepis, Pachycynodon,Pakicetus, Panderichthys, Parapithecus, Parasemionotus, Peramus, Proailurus, Probainognathus, Proconsul, Procynosuchus, Proganochelys, Proterogyrinus, Protoclepsydrops, Rodhocetus, Sinoconodon, sinornithosaurus, Spathobatis, Thrinaxodon, Triadobatrachus, Tristychius, Ursavus, Ursus, Utatsusaurus. Would you like a longer one?
"And those embarrassing living fossils should quit showing up!"
Why are they embarrassing? Do you think everything necessarily goes extinct if part of the population evolves into something else? Do you think animals cannot exploit a given ecological niche for a very long time if given the opportunity? Do you think these "living fossils" are the same species as the old version?
"The one where strata were assigned “ages” arbitrarily (after all, they didn’t have radiometric dating)? "
Not arbitrarily. They recognized index fossils even back then.
"The one that doesn’t actually exist in the real world but only in text books?"
Explain that one. What do these guys go did in? Do you for some reason expect that we should find all layers in all places? Erosion and subduction happen. But in the young earth scenario, should there not be a single, thick, rather homogenous layer all the way around the world? You argue against your own case.
"Humphreys’ ideas are promising."
His ideas are not promising. Has has no formal training in either cosmology or relativity. His big words sound good to those of us who do not know better. But they fall apart in the light of anyone who knows anything about the sciences. I know of no expert in relativity who has ever given credence to his ideas.
"Have you heard about the squadron of war planes that crash landed on a Greenland ice field in the 40’s? When they were finally located (for salvage purposes) in the 80’s they were found under some 250 feet of ice in only 40 odd years."
In an area known to accumulate ice at a rate of about 7 feet per year, that sounds right.
"Better explained by realizing the DNA code between animals having similar structures would show similarity. The instructions for building a simple doghouse would be quite similar to those for building a simple birdhouse. Likewise, the coding for hair, or eyes, or livers will have many similarities whether the DNA is that of a mouse, a monkey, or a man."
But it works better than that. Let's take cytochrome-C. It is a very basic protein found in just about everything. It so happens that when the gene for it mutates, the is little effect on the function of the protien. Looking across the variety of life, there is wide variation in the form of this protein. But there have been cases of scientists removing the gene for this protein from one organism and replacing it from another organism. And it works across wide swaths, like between plants and animals. If you draw a tree based on cyctochrome-C, you will get the same basic tree as if you did it from morphology. And there is no reason for this to be the case based on the form of the creature. And it works with many different proteins.
"No one was there to measure the relative amounts of parent and daughter products or to make observations ruling out accelerated decay"
Light takes a finite length of time to get here. All I have to do is look out into space various distances (especially at supernovae) and I can directly observe the same decay rates in the past.
"This is a far cry from the observations and measurements made in the past by scientists who recorded what they saw and did."
Are you saying we cannot make observation about the past by looking at the fossils? There is nothing to learn from a fossil !?! Other scientists cannot look at the same fossils and see if their observations match the originals?!?
"I say it again, without a plan and a mechanism for implementing the plan the 2LOT forbids evolution."
You'll have to prove that assertion.
-----------------------------
Archaeopteryx
Like a reptile, the vertebrae in the trunk region are not fused. In a bird they are fused.
"Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it. This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds."
The head attaches to the neck from the rear just like reptiles. The head of birds attaches from the bottom.
The cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets like related dinosaurs. These facets in birds are saddle shaped.
Archaeopteryx has a long tail with most of the vertebrae that make up the tail free. Birds have short tails with fused vertebrae.
Birds have short, stout ribs that are connected to one another with braces and which move with the breast bone. Archaeopteryx has slender ribs that are unconnected to one another and that do not move with the breast bone.
Archaeopteryx has a pelvis and pubic bone that are halfway between what is found in theropod dinosaurs and birds.
The sacrum, the vertebrae to which the pelvis attaches, is six bones in Archaeopteryx and ornithipod dinosaurs but 11 - 23 vertebrae in birds.
Like reptiles, Archaeopteryx has a flexible wrist. Birds have a fused wrist.
It has a nasal opening like a reptile, not like a bird.
"Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles. Typical of reptiles but not found in birds."
Archaeopteryx has three claws on its wing, unlike any modern birds.
Like reptiles, the tibula is the same length as the fibula. Birds have a short fibula.
The two quote above from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html -
there are some gaps in time in the bible and when you take that into consideration then the earth is about 10,000 yrs old!
Page 11 of 13