Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

Bob, I see we are still hung-up over entropy.

</font>[/QUOTE]Asimov claims that this consistent observation in creation - of local human systems - showing the effects of increased entropy is what "the second law is ALL about". I believe him - don't you?

...</font>[/QUOTE]This:

Nor this:

Actualy restate (technically) what the Asimov quote actually said. Certainly you don't maintain that we are unable to decrease the entropy in our messy homes with picking up and cleaning, do you? Aren't we allowed to decrease the entropy of our automobiles by cleaning, tuning, lubricating, etc. Note, all this requires is some "elbow-grease" and outside intervention (inputs) on our part.

As others have stated, life itself is an example of a 'local' decrease in entropy. I know you realize that the current constituent molecules of your body were previously in a more random and higher state of entropy, before they were a part of your body. They are now more organized and as an assembly are in a decreased state of entropy.

If this is not true, then you are dead!

I'm sure you heard of the story of the fellow who was constructed from dirt. The entropy of the universe increased, but the stuff that formed him was in a lower state of entropy. Well, rather than me telling the story:

I believe this - don't you?

In Christ,
Michael

 

Bob

First off, please be more careful in attributing quotes to the correct person. In both this flurry of posts and the previous, you have attributed quotes to me from other people.

Now, let's start with the salient point as you are fond of calling it. You still have not told us what exactly it is about evolution that entropy prevents from happening! You said "Isaac Asimov "gets it" about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. IT DOES apply to biological systems and although he confesses that the mythologies of evolutionism DO "require" a "Massive DECREASE in entropy" - what we actually "observe in creation" is an INCREASE in entropy when it comes to human biological systems."

Now let's look closely. You are not applying this to evolution, you are applying it to all of biology in such a way that life itself is impossible. The entropy of the universe can only increase. But local decreases in entropy are allowed. And this is what life does. It pulls together material and energy from the environment, shapes it and uses it to grow and reproduce. This is accompanied by a local decrease in entropy as the material and energy is brought together from a more random state while free in the environment to a more orderly state in the body.

Think about it. Imagine a plant's life cycle. (I here will use entropy with your informal "definition" of order rather than the proper thermodynamic definition.) You have a tiny seed. Now this seed is about to pull in nutrients from the enviroment and begin to grow. It sprouts a few leaves and begins to make its own food from sunlight. It sinks roots into the group where it can pull nutrients up and make useful compounds from them. It grow larger and more mature. It reproduces, spreading seeds over a wide area. Eventually, it gets old, declines, and finally dies. It has finally succombed to entropy, at least your form of it. But look closely. For much of its life, it was an example of a local decrease in entropy. The way you described it in your post, this plant could have never lived because you claim that even the entropy of a living creature must always be increasing.

Now, long ago, when you first brought up this "entropy problem" you claimed that what it prevented was an increase in "information" and beneficial mutations. Now I have shown you in great detail one method of bringing about new information. Shown that the steps have been observered. I have shown you strong empirical evidence of complete families of genes made in this manner. I have shown you details of their gene sequences that prove that these families were the result of evolution. I have presented you with examples of observed beneficial mutations. You have responded to none of this. (I think this is because the empirical evidence is key and there is nothing on this aspect of homologs at AIG or ICR.)

I believe I may have done a better job with this than I thought. As shown by the entropy, you have no problem ignoring whatever evidence is placed before you once you are on a roll. But even you have not come back to the "information" problem. Perhaps I convinced you that there is a way to gain information, whatever that is, in evolution. Since you have not brought it back up even though you are still on the entropy warpath and have been unable to come up with anything that entropy prevents, I think I may have done the impossible, convinced you of the truth of one aspect of evolution. Or maybe you just can't refute it becuase AIG doesn't cover it. I don't know.

But you still cannot tell us anything that entropy prevents.

 

Bob

You also have not addressed the issue of why you choose to apply your outside knowledge to let you know how to interpret parts of scripture yet you condemn those who do the same. You make fiery posts on the proper way to interpret, yet you are not consistent in following these rules yourself.

I have given you a list of things that if you were to take the plain reading of scripture, as you insist must always be done, you would believe. Yet you do not. But the key thing is, you do not believe these things not because of what the Bible has to say on these matters, but because of what fallible man has to say on these matters.

You have blustered a bit. But you have not addressed the issue. Using only your method of interpretation, show us that the earth is spherical and not flat. Show us the earth goes around the sun rather than the sun in a "circuit" about the earth. Show us that hail and snow are formed in meteorlogical processes and are not kept in storehouses.

You have had plenty of opportunity to answer this and you have not. I believe it is because you cannot. You know that these things go against what you know to be true, so you willingly reinterpret. But when others do the same, you cannot stand it. You accuse us of not believing the Bible and calling God a liar and all sorts of things. All for doing what you do. Unless you can rise to the challenge. Come on, show us how the rules of interpretation should be applied using these example topics.

 

Notice the growing list of things ignored by our young earth brothers. The list of evidence for an old earth presented in this thread grows without a response from the young earthers. I think they know the evidence goes against them and that they will lose if they attempt to stand and fight. We have all we need in the Creation around us to answer this debate.

 

So, if science disagrees with our view of scripture, we should discard it? That's a dangerous view. It was the view purported those who disagreed with Columbus, Galileo, Compernicus, and more recently, Mendel. We would be living in a world of a flat earth, geocentricity, and a disregard for genetic traits.

What I see here by you is an attempt, to equate scientific fact with biblical truth. While your endeavour is sincere and honest, it must be understood that fact and truth are not interchangeable. We have a doctrunal requirement to accept the whole of the Bible as completely true. There's no doctrinal requirement to accept the whole of the Bible as completely factual. If that were the case, the Bible would be wrought with factual errors and contradictions.

Now, I do not propose that biological evolution is a scientific fact (I don't think that any OEC proponent here does). However, the general theory is supportable by ample scientific evidence, and as such, the concept should not be ignored. Science should continue to uncover more evidence and ask more questions to foster a greater understanding of the topic. If evidence is uncovered that invalidates part of the theory, then that part of the theory will be discarded, and the theory will be updated. Such is the process with all science, and to date it has served us well. It appears to be only this current issue that we're having a problem with when it comes to the scientific process.

I think the fact that a C/E thread will yield 200 or pore posts, while a "How can I witness to my neighbor" thread will yield 10 posts, tells me that our focus as a Christian cummunity is more definitely in the wrong place. Even a "Jesus dead 3 days 3 nights" thread will get more interest than a "How can I witness to my neighbor" thread. We need to be less concerned about where we came from and more concerned about where we're going.

[ July 02, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

So little time...this will have to wait a few days for a full reply. I do notice that many, many issues havebrought up remain even unemntioned much less addressed.

"First, you assume there is a choice between believing God's word or believing science."

Nope. Believe them both. Disagree with oyu on interpretation, however.

"Your "interpretation" says that God is a liar."

Still going down the slander route I see. Bummer.

Well saying that I disagree with you does not make God a liar.

"By the way - coal only needs weeks to form... not millions of years as was once suggested/thought.
See AiG's Page On Coal"

There are major errors in this. I have dealt with them before but doing so again will have to wait a few days.

"I feel I did a fine job arguing the scientific points of Creationism."

Fine, then show me the young earth better interpretation for the issues I have raised. I have a bunch of fossil record stuff in just the last few days.

"In fact, Humans are the only creation made in God's image."

This is not a physical thing and if you mis that, you miss the whole point of being in the image of God.

"Is it that Bob Ryan 'doesn't get it about thermodynamics', or is it that he is unwilling to look at it through your lense of humanism?
"

Oh boy, another entropy entry. Maybe YOU can tell us what entropy prevents from happening in evolution because Bob sure is unwilling to do so.

 

Michael thank you for ignoring the details of Asimov's quote and the salient point of the post. I have been arguing the point that evolutionists have a difficult time dealing with basic science when it is shown to refute their beliefs - and so far - I am batting 1000 on this one.

Notice that the appeal Asimov makes is to the everyday "witness" that entropy IS impacting local human biological systems (in fact from his wording above - it can only be taken as EVERY human biological entity) in the form of INCREASED entropy (force driving to decay and disorder).

Asimov admits that we have to exert "energy" to overcome this.

(Leave a newborn out on their own - and "see what naturaly happens" for example).

Asimov is "obviously" correct. But denying the "obvious" in favor of misdirection is the bread and butter of evolutionism.

Again the reader "sees" the text above where Asimov states that "This is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is ALL about" - as he brings several examples into focus - including the every day disorder and decay principle that HE says is working on the human body.

But Michael - you appear to struggle with that.

Misdirection again. Asimov does not argue that "we see a decrease in entropy as we MAINTAIN our health" - rather he points out that the force that is driving human systems to disorder and decay IS visible evidence of increased entropy EVEN though we exert energy and effort to overcome that principle - it does not make the prinicple dissappear. RAther it is BECAUSE the principle REMAINS that we must continually exert intelligence and entropy to overcome it.

But as much as this is basic scientific principle and is obvious for any reader to see in the quote from Asimov -- for evolutionists the only choice is to pretend they don't get the point.

And it is sad to see Christians so bent on propping up the failed doctrines of evolutionism - that they have to pretend they don't see these basic points.

But certainly we all see why they "need" to take that approach.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Duplicate - deleted

 

Actually if we pay attention to what Asimov actually said - he claimed that we can "See" in all life - (and particularly in human biological systems) the effects of increased entropy in every day existence - locally - all the time - every person. (Get it??)

He also admits that "evolution" from molecule-to-man requires that we "see" a "Massive DECREASE in entropy".

The obvious problem is that aggregating a bunch of local decreases - does not amount to a "massive increase" over time.

Now this is just stating the obvious. Basic science "observes" that what Asimov claimed to see - is what we all see.

But then - this is the very thing that the doctrines of evolutionism must obfuscate and sidestep.

Better to just accept good science - and the Bible rather than refuting both with the speculative stories of evolutionism.

Having said that - I don't deny that when God "Created" life in those literal 7 days of Gen 1-2:3 He was inserting a massive "decrease in entropy" into the system. But I don't claim that the universe figured out a way to disorder itself to a complimentary degree in order to "enable" God to do it - though some claim that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Never-the-less that is the view that evolutionists take when dealing with basic science like entropy and the fact that amino acids do not "occur" in chiral orientations favorable to the myths of abiogenesis.

For Christianity it is more the case of sticking with "good science" - particularly emperical methods and abandoning the "stories" of evolutionism.

Oh good - revisionism again.

Is this where we "pretend" we did not notice UETEOTW claiming to "refute" the basic science observed today that living cells all consist of left-handed chiral orientation in their amino acid chains and that this clearly "refutes" the idea that what we actually see - is the way life works. Did we not notice as he speculated that in fact it did work another way -.... a long time ago - in a place far far away??


Johnv said of the myths of abiogenesis

Yet this is RIGHT where evolutionists "ignore it" - when it comes to SEEING that science continually "Shows us" that all chiral orientation of amino acids in living cell proteins is left-handed despite the fact that they do not naturally occur in that distribution.

(You know - emperical science? Observing and then believing what we "See"?).

This has been a very difficult concept for evolutionists so far.

Or not.

This is RIGHT where evolutionists "ignore it" - when it comes to SEEING that science continually "Shows us" that all chiral orientation of amino acids in living cell proteins is left-handed despite the fact that they do not naturally occur in that distribution.

Your statement is saying in effect - "We should be less concerned about what the Gospel IS and more concerned about spreading it to those who don't believe it".

These obvious points have been difficult for our evolutionist bretheren to wrestle with - so we are being patient.

In Christ,

Bob

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mercury:

I think it's very interesting the way this is turning out. Those of us Christians who accept evolution believe that humans are very different from both animal and plant life -- because humans, and only humans, are made in God's image.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob said --

So how is it that killing, starving, and inflicting deiseases on hominids "results in the image of God"??

How could such a "creature FALL"?

How many human brothers/cousins/sisters did Adam have?

Was there an Adam?

Did he "fall into sin"?

What was the sin?


I mean since you seem to want to marry the Gospel to the myths of evolutionism - what text of scripture shows your scenario above?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still waiting on this one...

They have been "dodged" time and time again. Efforts have been made to "Switch topics time and time again" - but never have the points listed in that post been "addressed" and the details confronted by our evolutionist bretheren. Rather - misdirection and jumping to extreme positions on obscure unrelated texts has been "the rule" for evolutionism's arguments on these points.

Then "the finishing touch" that the evolutionist uses is to repeat "yes but I am done with that" as a way to "refute" Bible based contradictions in their beliefs.

I guess the idea is that if they repeat their own conclusions often enough - people will fail to notice the factless nature of its premise.

But I don't complain because this simply invites the fact-rich repitition of the obvious contradictions to the doctrines of evolutionism.

Here is a "classic" example of misdirection when confronted with the insurmountable difficulties evolutionism faces with the Gospel and the fall of mankind.

Earth to Paul of Eugene - we can STILL find sunset and sunrise times posted by weather organizations. Is it because they believe the world is flat? Does this discussion solve the dilemma for evolutionism when it comes to Adam and the fall of mankind?

Not.

But then ... that was obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ho hum. For some reason, BobRyan thinks that the fact that life has evolved to use highly efficient enzymes that make proteins in "left handed" form is an argument against evolution. Why doesn't he see it is equally an argument for evolution?

Its another of BobRyan's smoke screens. Enough verbage and those who think with their reflexes will reflexively respond positively. But there isn't any sense to this posture.

Everybody knows that life does things that non living matter doesn't when life isn't there. Stating this fact over and over doesn't affect the theory of evolution at all in any LOGICAL way.

 

Originally posted by BobRyan:

Uh - Bob - the expression "sunset" and "sunrise" are linguistic VESTIGES of the time when it was REALLY BELIEVED by everybody that the sun goes around the earth. The development of the idea that the earth in fact rotates and the knowledge that this is the cause of day and night came because of scientists like Gallileo and Copornicus and Faucault.

The changeover was documented in history. The changeover came after our Bible was written. This is documented history as well.

When the changeover was beginning, there was opposition from the faithful believers in the literal interpretation of the Bible just like your opposition today. That is also historically documented.

There are many scriptures that plainly teach it is the sun that goes around the earth to make day and night. Not one that teaches it is, in fact, the earth's rotation that does the deed.

You yourself, as I see from your post, have decided to abandon the literal teachings of scripture on this point. You do this with nothing to guide you except overwhelming scientific evidence. Thus you show us all that when scientific evidence comes up against the literal interpretation of scripture the literal interpretation must give way.

Because otherwise, you would be denying yourself the opportunity to know the truth.

About the earth rotating as the cause of day and night.

About the ancient age of the universe and the earth.

About the common descent of all life.

 

Hi Bob. I'm from Canada and we had our Canada Day holiday on the 1st. Because I took some time off for the holiday, I haven't had time to respond for a while. I'm sorry to keep you waiting for the answers to your questions.

It doesn't. The image of God results from God endowing humans with his image. I think our spirit -- our ability to commune with God -- is a big part of this image. Unfortunately sin has broken our connection with God, but Jesus provided a way for it to be restored. This is the good news of the New Testament -- and also the message the Old anticipates.

I do not believe our bodies, with four limbs, internal organs and genitals, is what the image of God is about. God is spirit, and I think imagery that describes God's "outstretched arm" and other such phrases are anthropomorphic and not actual physical descriptions. I don't even think God has DNA.

Your next question was based on a mistaken assumption about what I believe the image of God entails, so I can't answer it.

I don't claim to know. Whether Adam's daughters married their brothers, had relations with angels, or interbred with other humans living at the same time is not a fundamental concern for me.

I believe so. I don't discount the possibility that Adam is representative and not historical, but I think he did exist.

Certainly Adam (whether historical or representative) fell into sin, as have all humans born since (save one). As for his sin, as C.S. Lewis put it when speaking more generally about sin, he said "my will be done" instead of "thy will be done".

Anyway, that answers all the questions you repeatedly posted for me. My only request is that before you respond to this with more vitriol and attacks, please deal with some of the outstanding questions and clarifications other people are waiting for you to answer.

 

If naturalistic evolution is true, man is merely a well-adapted mammal. If theistic evolution is true, all life comes from God, and humans are set apart from all other life forms by sharing the very image of God. I have no intention of debating naturalism with you because neither of us accepts that world-view.

The same way God's power in holding the entire universe together (Colossians 1:16-17) is in no way diminished by the studying how gravity works, so too God's power in creating all kinds of life is in no way diminished by studying how evolution works. Gravity does not do away with God -- it merely explains one force that God created and sustains! Evolution also does not do away with God -- it explains another natural system that God created and sustains!

Romans 5 directly states that death spread to all men as a result of one man's sin.

Once again, here's the verse you're referring to: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned". My view is that the phrase "death spread to all men" clarifies what kind of death is being discussed. Your view is that the first instance of the word "death" is generic and the phrase "death spread to all men" zeroes in on one aspect of it. Both are literal interpretations. But, which one makes sense in the larger context?

Let's analyze your interpretation by seeing if it works throughout the passage. Romans 5 talks about both death and life, so let's look at two verses that describe the life Jesus provided us. Here's verses 17 and 21: "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ"; and "so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Now, is the life spoken of in verse 17 talking about eternal life, or life in general? If your interpretational approach is correct, then verse 17 talks about life in the generic sense being given to all men through Jesus' act of righteousness. In other words, neither Adam nor any other human would have ever lived -- not even in a pre-fallen state -- without Jesus' death and resurrection! Obviously that's not true: while Scripture states that Jesus was active in creation, it was not Jesus' gift on Calvary that physically created us.

My approach is to use the clarification in verse 21 to further understand verse 17. We had life before, but thanks to Jesus we have eternal life! Both verses speak of this eternal life, regardless of whether they use the phrase "eternal life" or just say "life". Just as verse 21 clarifies what kind of life verse 17 refers to, the second half of verse 12 clarifies the kind of death the first half of that verse refers to.

The remainder of your critique of my points from Psalm 104 consisted of ignoring Psalm 104 and quoting a few other verses:

I don't discount any of those verses. I believe them. They're in my Bible too. But, so is Psalm 104. None of those verses contradict Psalm 104, unless you think that when James states that "every good gift and every perfect gift is from above" you think that rules out food for hungry carnivores. Instead of guessing about whether prey can be considered a good thing from God, why not see what Scripture says? Psalm 104:21,28 say that "The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God" and "You give to them, they gather it up; You open Your hand, they are satisfied with good."

If you dispute Psalm 104 or interpret it differently, please show how. Don't just ignore it and retreat to other verses instead. If your interpretation is correct, you have nothing to fear from examining this passage of Scripture.

 

Excellent point Gup20!

Satan was arguing on the basis that Eve was a better judge of the "evidence" than God. His premise was that anything God said is easily proven beyond a doubt at all times to all people. He argued that IF it was possible to raise ANY obscure "question" (even if only remotely possible) THEN God is not LITERALLY telling the truth.

Perhaps God only "symbolically" wanted her to avoid the tree - but not "literally"?? Many many questions were introduced in that gap.

Hence - here we are today - going around in the same circles on this.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well - welcome back Mercury.

Then we agree. God's creative act is as "HE" said - "God SPOKE and it was He COMMANDED and it stood fast". Instead of "nudging the big bang and stepping back to see inverse entropy produce the human race given enough billions of years" -- God simply spoke EACH of the evening and morning events listed in Gen 1-2:3.

Leaving disease, extinction, suffering, death and predation as tools of sin and Satan - not methods of God.

And by "evolving" you mean --- death, starvation, disease, carnage and extinction?

You know - the same "kinda creation" we see out the window each day?

Perhaps we just don't have the right mix of disease, death, predation, starvation, extinction and suffering to get us fully connected the way the brutes were back in those caves smashing in their daily ration of monkey brains??

Surely we can get that back again...

You appear to be having some trouble with this subject in general. Lets stick with the specifics of creation and the fact that the processes you imagine for it - result in a non-Adam experiencing a non-fall into non-sin having a non-relationship with a non-creator who only "Did something" back at the dawn of the big bang.

Dodging the point again? I asked for Adams family - HIS brothers and sisters. And you are right - since you don't believe there was a first man - first Adam created by God in His image as an adult with one woman - Eve as his wife - living in a sinless, perfect, peaceful ideal garden of joy and peace and perfect intelligent communion with God.

Rather you believe in a "hominid population" squatting in caves and grunting in approval of each monkey sacrifice they make. You believe that another "population" of humans descends magically from that first group - but basically this brutish, ignorant, cave dwelling, savage group "FALLS" into sin at some point. Leaving their perfect savagry to "eat the fruit".

Bob said

Please explain how you cling to both conflicting ideas at once.

So even though he did not exist - though he is not real - we all must die.

Even though he is nothing more than a POPULATION of savage cave-dwelling brutes grunting in approval when they "make the kill" - some how they "fall" so we all have to go to hell instead of just bashing in monkey brains as we dwell in our caves???

You really "believe" that tripe? Please be serious.

I think I get it now.

Thanks.

You seem to have "no answer" to the most critical gospel centered - Bible centered issues on this subject.

How "odd" that this is the least of your interest.

Hmmm. AS I said - this Bible-centric Gospel-centered discussion is "of almost no interest".

But what IS of interest is "Sun up and Sun down and why Bible writers talk about it".

Christian evolutionists - never cease to amaze me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Because it is not?

Because it is "obvious" that if random chiral orientation is ALL that we get in "emperical science" it is "exactly" what we expect for an abiogenesis mytholgoical scenario and it is NOT supportable at ALL as a "Story" for building living cells.

BECAUSE IF we found that living cells today WERE composed of amino acids having RANDOM chiral orientations evolutionists WOULD be touting this as "an open door for abiogenesis" -- living "proof" in their little plans.

The fact that evolutionists "want" to claim that NO EVIDENCE in their favor is the SAME as actually HAVING something - as in this case (they have nothing but CLAIM IT anyway) shows us what little objectivity and what little critical thinking there is left among evolutionists.

It SHOWS us the degree to which they embrace tautaulogy and complete blue-sky myth rather than science.

(Mercury, this is an example of one of those posts that does NOT pay any attention to the connundrum evolution is in regarding the Gospel and the Word of God... Enjoy!)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Agreed. The big bang wasn't something God nudged: it is a name given to part of what God did! Without him, there would be no big bang, no universe, no life.

And by "evolving" you mean --- death, starvation, disease, carnage and extinction?</font>[/QUOTE]Bob, please at least try to read what I'm saying instead of what you want me to say. I said "endowing" not "evolving".

The rest of your response similarly ignored what I said and instead argued against your caricature of what I believe. I tried to correct that caricature by answering your questions, but for some reason you have not read or understood my answers. (Case in point: I say I believe Adam existed, and you respond that I think Adam did not exist.) I'll let anyone else still reading decide for themselves whether my beliefs are more accurately stated in my own posts or in Bob's.