How old is the earth

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."

 

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/ ).

 

This is one of the longest running predictions from the creationist side - the idea that the discoveries of science regarding evolution and the age of the universe are on weak footing and are in danger of being overthrown any day now. It wasn't true in Darwin's day and it isn't true today.

I missed the memo on that one - that is, a credible memo with evidence behind it!

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.

Meanwhile, real science completely ignores such comments and continues to refine the theories it is working with.

God is able to say and do anything He wants to. In particular, He is able to decide to graciously accomodate His inspiration to the level of understanding of those who recieve it.

The idea that Genesis must be interpreted literally in order to percieve what God wants us to learn there is ALSO a theory put forth by fallen men and hence concievably fallible.

This web site is better than most; it points to some problems for the creationist point of view as well as asserting problems for mainstream science; and it seems to have at least paid a little attention to what real scientists say. But it still remains a cobbling together of ideas selected solely for whether or not they will support the literal interpretation of the Bible as opposed to the findings of modern science. The discussion on thermodynamics, for example, repeats the flawed idea that evolution is somehow disproved by thermodynamics.

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.

 

I am surprised to find a Christian defender of Darwinism in this forum. The discoveries of science show clearly that Darwinian evolution (which is to say that the undirected processes of the natural world gave rise to life from non-living matter and to the variety of life forms) is not supported by the evidence. To name a few: The Law of Increasing Entropy by itself negates the possibility of increasing complexity without the addition of energy directed by some kind of plan utilizing some sort of mechanism. Natural selection is inadequate to explain increasing complexity in that it only acts on preexisting genetic information and involves only a sorting or loss of that information, never an increase in the informational content of the genetic code. Genetic mutations are overwhelmingly harmful to an organisms viability and is an exceedingly inadequate means of increasing the information in the genetic code. Coded information never arises without an intelligent agent to code it. The DNA molecule is the pinnacle of coded information; it could not have arisen without a Mind. The information in it directs the construction of the profoundly complex biological systems we see everywhere in the biosphere. Irreducibly complex biochemical systems also speak eloquently of the necessity of a designer. The fossil record gives far better support to special creation than to evolution in that it chronicles the sudden appearance of the different kinds of organisms with no trace of convincing intermediate forms. Observations of the natural world in our day show no signs of biological evolution in progress. Rather observations show that the biosphere is becoming less and less diverse and more and more corrupt as genetic mutations occur.

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.

I didn’t say the notion of an old earth wasn’t invented until the time of Darwin. I meant that it hadn’t yet become a common assumption throughout the scientific world. I am aware that long ages had been asserted by Hutton and Lyell prior to Darwin’s time and that their ideas were particularly influential to him. Many of his contemporaries rejected the ideas espoused by uniformitarian geologists including long ages. However, when Darwinism came to be widely accepted it gave added weight to the ideas of Hutton and Lyell and only then did the notion of long ages become vogue (i.e., common/popular) in scientific circles.

Yes, and despite itself, it keeps turning up new reasons to question the validity of Uniformitarianism and Darwinism.

So you would agree that God was able to create everything in six days just like he said he did? Do you really think that ancient people (who archeology shows were no less intelligent than we are) would be unable to understand that God used slow and gradual processes of change to produce the different types of plants and animals?

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.

Taking the straightforward meaning of the text is surely the least interpretive method of understanding scripture that I can think of. Let the Logos speak for Himself.

Your repeated reference to “real science/scientists†is a misguided slur itself in that there are hundreds or thousands of professional scientists who lend their expertise and support to biblical creationism (For a partial list of “real scientists†who nonetheless truly believe God’s word see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp and http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html and http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html ).

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.

I never called anyone a uniformitariantist (and I can't see how that could be construed as a slur anyway). But yes I do think Uniformitarianism is wrongheaded. YEC'ers are not alone in their feelings about it, check out what the now deceased guru of evolutionism, Stephen J. Gould, had to say about one of the fathers of the uniformitarianists (there, I said it ):

Uniformitarian geologists continue to impose their imaginations upon the evidences of catastrophe in the rocks of the earth so, you see, it is “a deep flaw in science.â€

[ 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?

Evidence drove Darwin to his theory; Evidence drove Wallace to the same theory independent of Darwin; Evidence led the theory of evolution to become the mainstay of modern biology.

A false notion. The law of increasing entropy is perfectly satisfied on this planet because this planet sends out more entropy than it recieves; in the form of infrared radiation, ultimately.
Look below for the great law of entropy challenge.

The theory of evolution provides a theoretical means by which information content of the genetic code can increase naturally. Look below for the great law of entropy challenge!

The origin of life with the DNA code is unknown at this time and as far as I'm concerned it could have been a miracle or it could have been built into the universe as a possibility by God. I don't think you have a problem with God being able to make a universe that could bring forth life; your only problem is you don't think he did it because you prefer the literal interpretation of Genesis. Your literal interpreation is already shot for the firmament over the earth and for the moving of the sun around the earth to cause day and night and for the common descent of all life from a single ancestor; once that is realized, the idea that God could have had the earth itself bring forth life is not a big leap.

Irreducible complexity as an argument against evolution is a kind of last gasp thing. It asserts that if we grant evolution can occur for some kinds of things, others appear to be to complicated for evolution to achieve; it amounts to asserting I don't see how it could be done therefore it couldn't be done; and one is always left with the suspicion that the failure might be in the one who can't see instead of what is possible to be done. Therefore this idea is not very influential in real science circles.

Which is perfectly explained by the fact that fossilization is a rare process and the organisms that are in the intermediate forms are going to be relatively small in population until they settle down into the new form and reach a stable "shape" for their new environmental life; then they provide lots and lots of individual living organisms that among them have a few that get fossilized. In other words, if evolution is true, we would predict the fossil record to be about what it is.

And there are intermediate forms, you know.

At this time, the world wide ecology is undergoing a very stressful event that is causing the loss of many species; the arrival of scientifically empowered mankind. Our own unchecked population explosion is reducing habitats for species all over the planet. But evolution is, however, proceding. But how long have we been paying attention to species in such a way that we could actually see evolution before our eyes?

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.

The weaknesses you have cited are not real.

Yes, thats the way science works. An idea is put out, it may not be accepted at first, but as more and more evidence for it comes in, it gets accepted. And part of that is that the ideas get accepted even when they are unpopular and against somebody's religion

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?

No more deceptive than putting all that history of evolution into the rocks and that history of long ages of earth into the rocks for man to find. Which is more likely - that God decided to decieve us with fossils and radioative age evidence and all that other stuff or that God decided to allow for man's limitations in the revelation of Genesis One?

Those loaded words "tentative assumptions" are inappropriate for the solid discoveries in Astronomy, Biology, Geology that establish the age of the earth and the fact of common descent of life. And I question your division of science into "observational" and "historical" catagories.

Geologists are perfectly willing to accept a catastrophy when they have evidence for one. It is the imaginative placement of a catastrophy on the earth without evidence for it that they object to. The flood of Noah was of the world as he knew it, not in the world beyond his horizon. This is proven by the fact that there are undisturbed annual layers of ice in greenland and in the antarctic that go back over 200,000 years which would be impossible if those places were flooded with liquid water.

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!

 

Hi, UTEOTW. I have no doubt you know all about the Second Law of Thermodynamics but I guess I’ll humour you anyway.

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.

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

Hi, Paul. I’m glad you appreciate my efforts. And it IS an effort!

Ideas of biological evolution had been circulating for hundreds of years but were seen to be false by the “real scientists” of Europe. Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, published his ideas about evolution in his book Zoonomia (1794). As for the theory of natural selection, I think the earlier writings on the subject by James Hutton (1726-1797),William Wells (1757-1817), Patrick Matthew (1790-1894), and, especially Edward Blyth (1810-1873) had more of an influence on Darwin and Wallace than any supposed evidence for evolution. Please see the current issue of Creation for more on “Darwin’s illegitimate brainchild” [Creation Vol. 26 No. 2]. Darwin and Wallace merely saw natural selection (erroneously) as the mechanism driving evolution.

Nooo . . . Propaganda “led the theory of evolution to become the mainstay of modern biology.” But evolution isn’t really a theory. A theory is advanced to explain phenomena that are actually repeatable and observable. Evolution is more of a model, uh, a poor model.

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?

Okay.

I assume you are referring to genetic mutation. As I pointed out in my last post

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.

In fact, I DO have a problem with the idea that the all-holy God might have used evolution to bring forth life because it requires that he use the cruel processes of suffering and death (the last enemy) to achieve his good purposes.

Yes, I do prefer to heed the word of my God.

Excuse me, you don’t believe in the sky and the heavens?

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you do not actually believe that the sun does not actually give light on the earth as described in Genesis 1:14-18. I’ll assume rather that you are referring to the “long day” described NOT in Genesis, but in Joshua, the tenth chapter. The straw man argument that the Bible is unscientific because it supposedly describes the sun as moving around a stationary earth in this chapter has been thoroughly rebutted many times. Please see Galileo, Geocentrism, and Joshua’s Long Day www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geocentrism.asp for some good reasons why you would do well not to use this argument to show that the Bible is full of errors.

OKAY! Now I am really confused. Are trying to tell me that “a literal interpretation of Genesis” defines biological evolution?

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.

On the contrary, it grants evolution nothing. It shows that even the “simplest” forms of life are far too complex for evolution to ever achieve. And rather than being a “last gasp thing,” it is in the vanguard of observational science that is breaking through the ranks of the quickly crumbling evolutionary front.

It seems that you “can’t see” what is “possible” for the omnipotent One to accomplish. “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?” Jeremiah 32:27. The answer, Paul, for the true believer is, “No, Lord! Nothing is too difficult for thee--not even making the universe is six days or in six seconds.”

The idea of irreducible complexity is derived directly from the observations of molecular biochemistry and basic mechanical engineering and thus “real science” shows that the idea has very significant implications regarding the pseudoscience of evolution.

By the creationist framework of special creation and global flood!

Yes, fossilization is a rare process but there are still billions and billions of fossils and none of them show intermediate characteristics. For a single common ancestor to diversify into the great variety of life forms in the earth, there must have been billions and billions of organisms going through the process of gradually becoming more complex. Where are the examples of fish with gills gradually being replaced by lungs? Where are the examples of a small mammal developing wings as it becomes a bat. Where are the . . . ah, never mind the list could go on ad nauseum. You can’t change one gene and get lungs instead of gills. Nor can you change one gene and get a wing membrane to stretch between the sides of a mammal and its forelimbs. New structures require that lots of new complex information be added to the genetic code and that can’t happen via random genetic mutations but that is all Darwinian evolution has for natural selection to act on.

Rather, if evolutionism were true we would expect the fossil record to be very different from what it is.

I said “CONVINCING” intermediates.

So, you basically agree. There are no good examples of evolution happening anywhere in our world today.

Too fast in the past and too slow in the present, is that right?

You have not demonstrated that the weaknesses I pointed out are imaginary.

Now you are being facetious!

There is no history of evolution in the rocks. The rocks of the earth shout, “We are the result of the worst cataclysm the world has ever seen.” Are you deaf?

You missed a choice. It is more likely that God said what he meant and meant what he said. You deceive yourself.

“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.

There is a clear distinction between operational science and historical science. To explain the difference, I’ll just paste the following in from this feedback letter to AiG http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0312.asp :

You would say that the millions of cubic miles of sedimentary rock on the earth filled with the fossil remains of billions of animals does not constitute evidence for a catastrophe?

What in Genesis 6-9 would give you the authority to say that? Please notice that it is God speaking the following words:

The flood of Noah was of the world as God knew it, NOT Noah!

More fallacies drawn from Uniformitarian dating methods. See Do Greenland ice cores show over one hundred thousand years of annual layers?
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’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.

 

Hello, mud. Glad you continue to be with us. Are we having fun yet?

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.

 

High, UTEOTW! On the matter of entropy - we could pretend, without noticing such things as ice ages and warm periods between them and man - caused global warming ( if it exists, and I think it does) and pretend that the earth is in energy balance, can't we? In other words, it loses about as much energy as it takes in, so that it on the average stays about the same temperture.

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" . . .

 

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.

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.

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.

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!

Me, earlier:

Back to quoting you:

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. 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.

Excuse me, you don’t believe in the sky and the heavens?

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.

I'm not saying it is in error; I am saying we no longer interpret the Joshua passage literally. Please pay attention.

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.

I acknowledge that a literal interpretation of Genesis denies biological evolution.

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.

Now now, there you go again. Billions and billions? Hardly! 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!

Lessee now. Can you spell Archeopterix? (hmmm . . can I?)

Umm - as I recall, it was the fish air bladders that turned into our lungs, the gills just stopped showing up.


</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.

I said “CONVINCING” intermediates.

Now you are being facetious!

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

You throw new energy at a thing and it will make a new pattern of its own. The previous pattern might be unhappy about that, being disrupted and all, but the new pattern is getting is way.

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.

You say that, but you can't prove it. It is only a matter of faith for you.

Both as we see them today are the products of millions and millions of years of evolution, which can create new information by the process I detailed in the "great entropy challenge" post above.

You see, creation’s (this would include the animals of creation) problems began at the time of the one who subjected it to frustration . . .

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.

Personally I find it preferable to believe that our Loving Father did not personally craft fleas, sharks, poisenous vipers, but instead allowed them to be created second hand via evolution and intended for man to be free from them in the special garden, which Man would have enlarged to fill the earth if he hadn't fallen first.

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.

Genesis 1:6 Then God said, "let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters which were above the expanse", and it was so.

Genesis 1:14 Then God said, "let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens . . . "

But you won't find that MEN HAVE UNEARTHED billions of fossils. Here's the relevant quote from that site:

Quite so! That’s because there is no indication that the organism was ever anything else. It just shows up fully functioning and there is no trail leading up to it.
</font>[/QUOTE]Well at least you admit it!

You see, all the evidence matters nothing to you, a little word is for you all that matters, no matter what the evolutionists who use that word are trying to say. You have confessed it before all men. The very evolutionists who call it an example of a transistion call it a bird. You ignore what they say and misuse their words to try to make them say something different.

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.

So, since dogs came from wolves, there can be no more wolves around, right? WRONG!

sure. You never heard of lungfish?

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.

No, thats really your evil twin. Slap him down for the both of us !

 

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!