Do the doctrines of evolutionism protect the Bible?

UTEOTW · May 15, 2004

"Thank you for the welcome, and no, I have not been lurking. I was invited to come here by our mutual friend, Bob, who saw me posting on a secular Creation VS Evolution forum. To tell you the truth, I would MUCH rather argue creation VS evolution with believers as the basis if YEC (young earth creationism) is the Bible - which is most usually scoffed at by secularists."

I agree. I like to talk about this, but I have never been willing to venture off to any other sites. I have lurked there on occasions, but never often. A problem around here is that most of the people who once discussed it at this site no longer come around since they discontinued the dedicated forum. I think the moderator for it got too busy and no one else wants to get into that mess. So, there are only a few people that post regularly on each side. My loyal opposition seems to have been reduced to "I don't want it to be true so it must not be." You seem to be fairly informed and could make this much more interesting. There is one other well informed individual 'round here, Helen, but she is too busy to pop in much. Her husband is Barry Setterfield of the decaying speed of light fame.

"Adaptation does not mean evolution took place. It is, however, strong evidence that the bacterium has some seriously wonderful design. It was designed for a wide range of environments as well as with the ability to adapt to new situations."

Well, yes, I would disagree. Let's go back to the most basic definition of the theroy of evolution (as opposed to the observation that evolution has actually occurred / occurs). The change in allele frequency. A new and useful allele has appeared. It made the bacterium more fit for that environment and so bacteria with it were more likely to survive and increased their numbers. I call it evolution. Any type of adaptation I would call evolutiion.

"Would you agree that God designed the bacteria? Do you think that God created Bacteria discreetly as he did Adam?"

That is a tricky one. No, I do not think any of the lifeforms we see today were discretely designed. I think the evidence is against it. But, there may be a scant piece of common ground, but I do not think you will take it. Abiogenesis is something that we will never be able to tease out of history. We will never know for sure how that happened. As a Christian, I have no problem with God sticking that first population of simple life on the early earth knowing in His wisdom where things would end up. If you look back above, you will see that I did a paragraph on the genome being evolved to evolve because of how substitutions to the code affect proteins. Maybe we could agree to designed to evolve and disagree on the magnitude of that evolution.

"Secondly, (to address your 1st point) I would argue that nuclear DNA is what is most important."

Well, I would agree. But, when advantage is conferred on an individual, I don't think that it matters where the change comes from. Thinnk about how much we have learned in the past several years about how non-coding parts of the genome affect traits.

"Here we see God creating creatures and commanding them to reproduce after their own kind. "

Do you think you are a creation of God? Did your parents not give birth to you? Is there a contradiction here?

In evolution, change is slow. A creature never gives birth to something that is not of the same species. But with changing allele frequency within a population with time, a population can become something new. It is a misrepresentation of the process to suggest that it means that a "sea creature would reproduce after it's kind to give birth to a land animal." Evolution follows the reproduction within kind. It is just that kind changes with time. Even you accept speciation. And apparently new genera, too. Nothing stops that process from going higher. I believe I went over a couple of examples for you in a very general way above.

[snip information discussion]

First, nice answer on the apoprotein. You make that point well.

But I do not think that you have demonstrated that mutation is always an overall degrading process. With point mutations, you have the chance of giving a protein the ability to better do its job. No loss of complexity there. Even better, in duplications you now have two copies of the same gene. One can maintain function while the other mutates. If it turns into junk, nothing was lost. If it turns into something useful, then something was gained. And, as mentioned before, since there are many different classes of proteins where similar structures perform a wide variety of functions, we have circumstantial evidence that this is an import method of producing new and useful genes.

[snip discussion of skin color]

But, sticking with skin color, we do not actually see that humans are either full on or full off in their pigment production. They exist on a continuum. Each adapted to his environment.

"Ah, but again, this uses the unifomitarian concept that we can interpret the past by what we observe in the present (the thought that things are now as they have always been). It may very well be that, as I have indicated, there were many functions which were not polar, but dynamic and mutation and 'micro-evolution' (sometimes called speciation by creationists) is acceptable within the creationist paradigm."

First, if you oppose unifomitarian you have the burden of proof to show us that things actually operated differently in the past.

Now, in the real world of today, we see a wide variety of different versions of the same allele giving rise to different versions of the function. These varieties of genes with adapted function goes against the idea of no new "information."

[snip junk DNA discussion]

I will fully agree that we are learning that much of the "junk" is actually useful. Doesn't change that a lot of it is truely junk. I made a specific example. A large proportion of the genome is retroviral insertions. Humans essentially share all the same insertions. If this class of junk was added during the last few thousand years, then there would be a lot of variance in what LTRs were in which humans. You would even expect to see variation from generation to generation. But, we do not see this. The insetion of a LTR into a germ line cell that is used for reproduction and passed on seems to be a very rare event. More directly related to evolution would be the several LTRs shared between all the apes including humans.

UTEOTW · May 15, 2004

Bob

Your quoting of Dawkins on matters of religion is a fallacy, specifically appeal to authority. He has no special expertice on religion and his views on religion are no more relevent than the man on the street.

""And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome."

You are connecting two things which are unconnected. They are talking about a very specific type of change that they can now understand genetically. You are misapplying it to new traits in general. This is a mistake.

"I had already read Gup20's devastating responses ..."

You call admitting to a new trait but trying to disregard the change because it was not in the nuclear DNA "devastating?" Please.

If you want to show a problem with mDNA, then destroy my math. You seem to imply that we can just stop the process at some point and that the pattern no long hold true. WRONG. The population of mothers of a given population will continue to get smaller. It is a mathematical certainty. You even quote an authority to tell you what I already did. There were other mothers living at the time, but at some point their lines ended without daughters. If one of these lines had had a daughter, then the common ancestor would just be pushed back a bit further.

UTEOTW · May 15, 2004

"In fact, for one to assume that they are an evolutionary ancestor-decendent tree, one would have to discount the creation of distinct creatures in Genesis 1."

If they were all alive at the same point, the fossil record should reflect this. It does not.

"Also - I am curious - How do you reconcile Noah's flood? If you believe evolution, do you believe in Noah's flood?"

I think it was local. There is not any evidence for a global flood.

Here is an interesting link that makes the case that everywhere the Bible uses the words translated for the whole world in the Flood account that it always means local.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

"I don't see why he must deny it. He isn't saying that a sea creature turned into a land creature - he is saying that sea creatures have a continuum of species and land creatures have a contnuum of species for the wide range of environments each could face. "

I think it is an admission that such a continuum has been found, consistent with evolution, and he is seeking an alternate explanation since he can no longer deny their existence. Again, deiscretely created kinds predicts that we should see everything that ever lived in the lowest levels of the fossil record and loss of "kinds" above that. This is not hwat we see.

As far as the paste, I have a fair understanding of the idea of kinds among the various flavors of creationists. (BTW, I would include myself in the "Creationist" category, just at a far end from some others.) But we still need to define exactly how to do you tell what a kind is.

UTEOTW · May 15, 2004

BobRyan · May 15, 2004

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Your quoting of Dawkins on matters of religion is a fallacy, specifically appeal to authority. He has no special expertice on religion and his views on religion are no more relevent than the man on the street.

I beg to differ. The point of the subject of this thread is now the Bible and the Creator's account is-or-is-not at risk for non-believing evolutionist "scientists" who fully accept evolution.

Using Richard Dawkings as a prominent example of "just such an evolutionists" who does "know something about the claims of evolution" is EXACTLY the salient point of the thread.

A fallacy would be to ignore the point so central to the subject of the thread.

Dawkings becomes a "case in point" of how the Bible and Christianity is "At risk" and "held to ridicule" by NOT accepting the Creator's account as He stated it.

Your interest in avoiding that devastating point is understandable given your views - but it is hardly "beside the point of this thread's title".

As has been stated before - evolutionism tends to inhibit critical thinking. The fact that 'the risk' that the Bible has when either ignoring or accepting the Creator's account is "discounted" when an actual case is presented of an atheist "hold one view up to ridicule" is "instructive".

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · May 15, 2004

The evolutionist William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology is quoted as saying

""And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome."

Actually - my quote was as follows

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

“The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution,” says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. “How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.” "

My point was to call for critical thinking - in asking "where this confession was" before the experiment of McGinnis was available as a "Story" for evolutionists.

Still no answer.

My mistake was in connecting his "story" with the Nylon bug "story".

Must have been a late nite posting that came up with that example.

I agree - two different evolutionist "stories" not the same one. But the same evolutionist practice of non-critical thinking and denying the points in dispute until they think they finally have a story to address it.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · May 15, 2004

Bob said --
"I had already read Gup20's devastating responses ..."

UTEOTW --
You call admitting to a new trait but trying to disregard the change because it was not in the nuclear DNA "devastating?" Please.

Again your avoidance of critical thinking here - merely inhibits your responses from showing a grasp of the point made in opposition to evolutionism.

The points were as follows.

#1. This is NOT a change in the DNA of the Bacteria - in fact the Bacteria's DNA remains UNCHANGED.

Use critical thinking - are you trying to address "plasmid evolution" or are you trying to
show the Bacteria "evolving".

#2. EVEN The affected Gene of the Plasmid - RETURNS to its initial state once deactivated.

Do you then promote reverse evolution claiming that it "just so happend to EVOLVE BACK" or can you begin to see this as the function of the plasmid to start with - by "design"?

#3. The effect of the change to the plasmid was to REDUCE complexity in the organism - reverting to a simpler less complex discrimination for food (substrate). This is the "opposite" direction for the "molecule-to-man" mythology central to evolutionism.

Again - some critical thinking on your part is needed to respond to each of the points made.

"Pretending" not to get the point does not form a "valid substitute" in the mean time.

I have simplified the task of critical thinking for you - by enumerating the points that need a response from Gup20's post.

You may respond with substance - when ready.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · May 15, 2004

UTEOTW

If you want to show a problem with mDNA, then destroy my math. You seem to imply that we can just stop the process at some point and that the pattern no long hold true. WRONG. The population of mothers of a given population will continue to get smaller. It is a mathematical certainty.

I fail to see how you can continue to miss the point in response. This just isn't that hard.

Evolutionism DOES NOT START with "one lucky pair" so the number CAN't go to ONE - since ONE is not the starting point. (Can I make it any more direct????)

The MATH will never solve that problem NOR will it ever "invent" just ONE parent when the starting point is MANY contemporaries all generating "critical biologic mass" for a new species.

There is "no mathematical certainty" that the "daughters of EVERY contemporary eve must eventually be eaten - except for one line".

And "yet" evolutionism "needs" that to be the case and so "states it" this way.

Unwittingly the evolutionists of NOVA published the following confession

So what about all of the mtDNA of the other women who lived during "Eve's" time? What happened to it? Simply this: Somewhere between now and then, they had female descendants who had only sons (or no children). When this happened, the passing on of their mtDNA halted.

( NOVA Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA By Rick Groleau Jan 2002

Though the analysis of that statement requires a little critical thinking – I think Christians are up to the task.

Ok - now here it is -- the conclusion of the point "again"

In other words NOVA said every other strain must somehow die off – this is not a “mathematical certainty” that “all other lines MUST die”. Yet evolutionist need to "pretend that it is".

They do this by applying not critical thinking to the "story" and pretending not to see when they have unwittingly admitted to their own mistake.

(Now was that point so hard to see?)

Then (as if circular reasoning would help) you make this statement...

UTEOTW

You even quote an authority to tell you what I already did. There were other mothers living at the (SAME) time, but (we NEEDED to discover that) at some point their lines ended without daughters.

How "instructive".

Then you add this hopeful statement (as if a NO-contemporary starting point with just ONE-LUCKY-PAIR is in fact the PREDICTED boundary for all new species in evolutionism's myths)

UTEOTW -
If one of these lines had had a daughter, then the common ancestor would just be pushed back a bit further.

Why - because evolution NEEDS a single parent - "one lucky pair" start?

In Christ,

Bob

Gup20 · May 16, 2004

UTEOTW: A new and useful allele has appeared. It made the bacterium more fit for that environment and so bacteria with it were more likely to survive and increased their numbers.

I am not arguing the merits of Natural Selection. That, indeed, was a useful observation by Darwin. However, one should not attribute so much 'intelligence' to natural selection. It is merely the weeding out of those unfit to survive. The result is a population that IS fit to survive. However, natural selection has no mechanism or ability to confer information. It is an indescriminate killer. It has no ability to 'make the bacteria more fit' or less fit to survive. Those who can adapt survive... those who don't adapt die.

It would appear that the plasmid on which the change occurs has some intended function for adaption as it is only activated when selective pressure is applied. Hard times come so the bacteria opens the 'storehouses'. However, as we said before, the primary structure of the bacteria itself doesn't change. As soon as the plasmid is de-activated it goes back to ist's mild mannor 'Bruce Banner' self (for all those comic book junkies out there).

Another important and overlooked distinction here is that bacteria are asexual - they have the ability to reproduce on their own. This is a seemingly ignored topic. Asexual reproduction is much more efficient than sexual reproduction. What possible naturally selective process could have lead to the less efficient sexual reproduction? Instead of an organims simply dividing and reproducting itself, it now has to find a partner in oder to pass on it's genes to the next generation.

UTEOTW: No, I do not think any of the lifeforms we see today were discretely designed. I think the evidence is against it.

Evidence is a funny word isn't it? Creationists and evolutionists all have the same body of 'evidence' but we come to such drastically different conclusions. Why is that? Well, for starters Evolution is exclusionary to supernatural influence and causation. It attempts to explain what it sees in a completely natural setting. Therefore the conclusions that are drawn from an interpretation of the evidence are exclusionary to the supernatural as well - they are entirely naturalistic. Creationism on the other hand accepts many of the naturalistic mechanisms of evolution, however, it also accepts the Bible's account as truth. YEC's can convincingly show evidence of a 6000 year old earth and evidence of Biblical events, such as a Global flood. These line up naturalisticly and scripturally. It comes down to - do you want to believe the fallible theories of man, or the infallible word of God. I choose the latter. Therefore we can see how the Bible and evolution become a lense through which all the evidence we find is seen and interpreted. We all have the same evidence, and come to distictly different conclusions.

UTEOTW: As a Christian, I have no problem with God sticking that first population of simple life on the early earth knowing in His wisdom where things would end up.

That is perhaps one of the most curious statements I hear some christians make. If God is God, and he 'knew' where life would end up - do you think He is unable of creating man as the Bible says he did - in less than 24 hours? God was smart enough to create a universe, create planets and stars, create time and space - and then he plopped a whad of goo down knowing full well it would turn into man? If God can create all that, don't you think he is capable of creating Man in the mannor described in Genesis?

UTEOTW: If you look back above, you will see that I did a paragraph on the genome being evolved to evolve because of how substitutions to the code affect proteins.

You will also see (looking back) that I posted on non-coding RNA and psuedogenes. It would appear that there are many many more genes with function that do not involve coding for proteins. It used to be thought that those genes that didn't code for proteins were just 'junk' but researchers are discovering that isn't true, and that what we know about non-coding genes only scratches the surface of what there is to know. In fact, it is being discovered that many of the traits that separate man from chimps (and other apes) is in the non-coding RNA. That these 'junk' genes place a much more cruicial role that we had previously thought. During the human genome project it often argued as to if the 'junk' should even be mapped (as some had thought that it would be such an incredible waste of time and resources).

UTEOTW: Do you think you are a creation of God? Did your parents not give birth to you? Is there a contradiction here?

I think God created Adam & Eve and told them to 'be fruitful and multiply' and I am a result of their obedience. Adam and Eve reproduced after their own kind on and on down the line to my parents.

UTEOTW: It is just that kind changes with time. Even you accept speciation. And apparently new genera, too. Nothing stops that process from going higher.

Except when you consider that sea creatures and land creatures were created separately - the Bible does make that clear. It also makes the disctinction that sea creatures reproduce after their kind and land cratures reproduce after their kind. In that light, I would see the continuum of creatures designed for land and sea and say that they are discreet not morphing into another section of 'kinds'.

This discussion will always come down to 'do we believe what the Bible says is true or not'. If we do, then we can argue from a position of power and authority, if not, we undermine Biblical authority and it becomes a battle of mans intellect vs mans intellect.

UTEOTW: But I do not think that you have demonstrated that mutation is always an overall degrading process. With point mutations, you have the chance of giving a protein the ability to better do its job.

This story about AiG's Carl Wieland is very interesting. It speaks to the concept of the difference between natural selection and evolution.

In this account, Dr. Wieland give his account with a trip to the intensive care unit. During his recovery he got infected with a "SuperGerm". These are germs that are resistant to every known anti-biotic. These are dreded infections indeed! Dr. Wieland got infected with some of these germs however he did manage to recover. Even after his recovery, these 'supergerms' still infected his body. What did the doctors tell him? They told him to go home, get some rest, and roll in the dirt. Why? Why would you roll in the dirt? Because while these 'supergerms' can't be killed with the most powerful anti-biotic, their mutations had left them extremely succeptable to natural selection. As soon as there were other germs to compete with, the supergerms would soon die out as they turned out to be 'superwimps' when in competition with other normal germs. Their mutated state left them unable to compete in a natural environment. In the article Dr. Wieland makes the following statement:

So if new information, new functional complexity, can be shown to be arising by itself where previously there was none, this would give some credibility to the idea of molecules-to-man evolution, although it would not strictly prove that it had occurred.

However, it can be shown that in every situation where populations of living things change, they do so without increase (and often with a decrease) of information. Thus, it is completely illegitimate for anyone to claim that such changes show 'evolution happening'.

UTEOTW: First, if you oppose unifomitarian you have the burden of proof to show us that things actually operated differently in the past.

Certainly -

Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

People don't live for 900 years anymore. They bearly get to 120 (guiness says the oldest living person is 113).

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground

Here you have one example in biology, and one example in geology.

UTEOTW: I think it was local. There is not any evidence for a global flood.

To quote Ken Ham of AiG "all you see are billions of dead things burried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth".

There are marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest. Evolutionists claim the whole region was once under an ocean (millions of years ago). We have marine fossils in just about every layer of the Grand Canyon - evolutionists say the majority of the US was under an ocean at one point. You find this repeated over and over and over. All you see is local flooding all over the face of the globe to explain the fossil record. But then you try to make the case that the Bible is true, and people jump up and say - there was no flood! or they say Noah's flood was local!

Again, you are COMPLETELY undermining the authority and accuracy of the Word of God to say that the flood was local. If what the Bible says about the flood isn't true, then how can we trust that what the Bible says about the Virgin Birth, or about Salvation is true? If what the Bible says about the flood isn't true, how can we trust or believe that anything in the Bible isn't also a fabrication?

Gen 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.
Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.
Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.

These verses make it astonishingly clear that everything (meaning EVERY THING) that was outside the ark perished in the flood. Everything on the whole earth.

AiG has a great article listing common sense reasons why the flood was global (beyond the bare fact that the scripture makes that claim):

Biblical evidence for the global Flood
The local flood idea is totally inconsistent with the Bible, as the following points demonstrate:

The need for the Ark
If the Flood were local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and escaped. Traveling just 20 km per day, Noah and his family could have traveled over 3,000 km in six months. God could have simply warned Noah to flee, as He did for Lot in Sodom.

The size of the Ark
If the Flood were local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all the different kinds of land vertebrate animals in the world? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, or only domestic animals, the Ark could have been much smaller.1

The need for animals to be on the Ark
If the Flood were local, why did God send the animals to the Ark to escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce those kinds even if they had all died in the local area. Or He could have sent them to a non-flooded region.

The need for birds to be on the Ark
If the Flood were local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range. Birds can fly several hundred kilometers in one day.

The judgment was universal
If the Flood were local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not have been affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin. It boggles the mind to believe that, after all those centuries since creation, no one had migrated to other parts—or that people living on the periphery of such a local flood would not have moved to the adjoining high ground rather than be drowned. Jesus believed that the Flood killed everyone not on the Ark (Matt. 24:37–39).

Of course those who want to believe in a local flood generally say that the world is old and that people were here for many tens of thousands of years before the Flood. If this were the case, it is inconceivable that all the people could have fitted in a localized valley in Mesopotamia, for example, or that they had not migrated further afield as the population grew.

The Flood was a type of the judgment to come
What did Christ mean when He likened the coming world judgment to the judgment of ‘all’ men (Matt. 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? In 2 Peter 3, the coming judgment by fire is likened to the former judgment by water in Noah’s Flood. A partial judgment in Noah’s day would mean a partial judgment to come.

The waters were above the mountains
If the Flood were local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains (Gen. 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2

The duration of the Flood
Noah and company were on the Ark for one year and 10 days (Gen. 7:11, 8:14)—surely an excessive amount of time for any local flood? It was more than seven months before the tops of any mountains became visible. How could they drift around in a local flood for that long without seeing any mountains?

God’s promise broken?
If the Flood were local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a Flood again. There have been huge ‘local’ floods in recent times: in Bangladesh, for example, where 80% of that country has been inundated, or Europe in 2002.

All people are descendants of Noah and his family
The genealogies of Adam (Gen. 4:17–26, 5:1–31) and Noah (Gen. 10:1–32) are exclusive—they tell us that all the pre-Flood people came from Adam and all the post-Flood people came from Noah. The descendants of Noah were all living together at Babel and refusing to ‘fill the earth,’ as they had been commanded (Gen. 9:1). So God confused their one language into many and scattered them (Gen. 11:1–9).

There is striking evidence that all peoples on earth have come from Noah, found in the Flood stories from many cultures around the world—North and South America, South Sea Islands, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Japan, China, India, the Middle East, Europe and Africa. Hundreds of such stories have been gathered.3 The stories closest to the area of dispersion from Babel are nearest in detail to the biblical account—for example, the Gilgamesh epic.

UTEOTW: Here is an interesting link that makes the case that everywhere the Bible uses the words translated for the whole world in the Flood account that it always means local.

On that same link to AiG, it lists the following:

Objections to a global Flood
Objection 1: ‘All’ does not always mean ‘all’6
Some have argued that since ‘all’ does not always mean ‘each and every’ (e.g. Mark 1:5) that the use of ‘all’ in the Flood account does not necessarily mean the Flood was universal. That is, they claim that this use of ‘all’ allows for a local flood.

However, the meaning of a word is decided by the context. From the context of ‘all’ in Luke 2:1, for example, we can see that ‘all the world’ meant all the Roman Empire. So, it is the context that tells us that ‘all’ here does not mean every bit of the whole land surface of the globe.

However, to determine the meaning of ‘all’ in Genesis 6–9, we must consider the context, not just transfer the inferred meaning from somewhere else.

The word ‘all’ (Heb. kol) is used 72 times in the 85 verses of Genesis 6–9, 21% of all the times it is used in all 50 chapters of Genesis.

In Genesis 7:19 we read that ‘all (Heb. kol) the high mountains under all (Heb. kol) the heavens were covered.’ Note the double use of ‘all.’ In Hebrew this gives emphasis so as to eliminate any possibility of ambiguity.7 This could be accurately translated as ‘all the high mountains under the entire heavens,’ to reflect the emphasis in the Hebrew. Leupold, in his authoritative commentary on Genesis, said of this, ‘ … the text disposes of the question of the universality of the Flood.’7

You can also see the following article from AiG some more reasons why the flood wasn't local.

Many Christians today think the Flood of Noah's time was only a local flood, confined to somewhere around Mesopotamia. This idea comes not from Scripture, but from the notion of 'billions of years' of Earth history.

But look at the problems this concept involves:

If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.

If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.

If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.1

If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 metres) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn't rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2

If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin.3 If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of 'all' men (Matthew 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.

If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.

Belief in a world-wide Flood, as Scripture clearly indicates, has the backing of common sense, science, and Christ Himself.

And finally, this article from AiG shows some discussion between a presbiterian minister who believed in local flooding.

UTEOTW: I think it is an admission that such a continuum has been found, consistent with evolution, and he is seeking an alternate explanation since he can no longer deny their existence.

Or it may simply be that he believes that the Bible is true, and it says that there are distinct kinds that reproduce after their own kind. Mixing that with common sense (humans dont' give birth to chimpanzees, cows don't give birth to dogs) one can only come to the conclusion that the life we see now is a result of special creation of a discreet continuum of animals.

The only way to get evolution out of the fossil record is to start with the premise that God didn't create full grown animals as the Bible says he did. One has to assume that the Bible is wrong and that God didn't create man on an ordinary day to arrive at the conclusion that we evolved from Apes.

UTEOTW: (BTW, I would include myself in the "Creationist" category, just at a far end from some others.) But we still need to define exactly how to do you tell what a kind is.

Well in that, then, we agree.

Paul of Eugene · May 16, 2004

Originally posted by Gup20:
Another important and overlooked distinction here is that bacteria are asexual - they have the ability to reproduce on their own. This is a seemingly ignored topic. Asexual reproduction is much more efficient than sexual reproduction. What possible naturally selective process could have lead to the less efficient sexual reproduction?

Actually this point has been addressed. I've even addressed it myself. I made a little program that simulates evolution both with and without genetic exchange. Genetic exchange greatly facilitates the purging of bad genes from the group.

YEC's can convincingly show evidence of a 6000 year old earth and evidence of Biblical events, such as a Global flood. These line up naturalisticly and scripturally.

I've never seen any reasonable creationist explanation of the continents having once been united and now separated by thousands of miles at inches per year. I've never seen any reasonable creationist explanation of the hawaiian island chain, extending thousands of miles past midway island.

UTEOTW · May 16, 2004

Bob

Did you read any of the abstracts I provided for you? What do you think of scientist's ability to trace the evolution of various proteins?

"Using Richard Dawkings as a prominent example of "just such an evolutionists" who does "know something about the claims of evolution" is EXACTLY the salient point of the thread."

If it is not a fallacy to use Dawkins as a source of information regarding religion then tell me what qualifications he has on religious matters that would make him an expert compared to the average man on the street?

IMHO, you quoting of Dawkins does more to support my opinion than yours. You are the one agreeing with the athiest that Christianity is incompatible with reality. I OTOH recognize that if you accept the overwhelming evidence for common descent and interpret Genesis in a non-literal manner, you then remove this line of attack from the atheist camp.

"Dawkings becomes a "case in point" of how the Bible and Christianity is "At risk" and "held to ridicule" by NOT accepting the Creator's account as He stated it."

No, the ridicule comes when he points out that the position that you and others holds goes against what is as plain as day to those who look at the data objectively. The ridicule is of the literal interpretation. I again question your definition of "devastating."

"My point was to call for critical thinking - in asking "where this confession was" before the experiment of McGinnis was available as a "Story" for evolutionists. Still no answer."

I HAVE answered you. The pont of the article was that they did not have a genetic basis for that particular kind of change. Now they do. You were saying that they had no genetic basis for ANY change. That simply is not true. I answered. I answer again. Did you read ANY of the abstracts I provided you?

"This is NOT a change in the DNA of the Bacteria - in fact the Bacteria's DNA remains UNCHANGED."

Look. The plasmid DNA is part of the DNA of the bacteria. I do not see how you can say otherwise.

" EVEN The affected Gene of the Plasmid - RETURNS to its initial state once deactivated.
EVEN The affected Gene of the Plasmid - RETURNS to its initial state once deactivated."

And... Any gene will lose its function if deactivated. Now, here is an important part. You say that "the effect of the change to the plasmid was to REDUCE complexity in the organism." So, tell me, what function did the bacteria lose? (This is actually an opening for you because there likely is an answer.)

"reverting to a simpler less complex discrimination for food "

Still wrong. It gained the ability to metabolize nylon. You could decide to start eating nylon tomorrow but I doubt that your cells would have the enzymes to break it down and metabolize it.

"Again - some critical thinking on your part is needed to respond to each of the points made. "Pretending" not to get the point does not form a "valid substitute" in the mean time. I have simplified the task of critical thinking for you - by enumerating the points that need a response from Gup20's post. You may respond with substance - when ready."

I think I have responded. Multiple times. Who exactly is pretending not to get it?

"Evolutionism DOES NOT START with "one lucky pair" so the number CAN't go to ONE - since ONE is not the starting point. (Can I make it any more direct????)"

You cannot be more direct but you cannot be more wrong. You can accept that the population of mothers in a given generation that lead to the population today must decease each time you go back a generation. But then you decide to arbitrarily stop the process at some point. That is not how math works. It keeps getting smaller. It has to, there is no way around it. Your objections are not grounded in fact and therefore are invalid.

"In other words NOVA said every other strain must somehow die off – this is not a “mathematical certainty” that “all other lines MUST die”. Yet evolutionist need to "pretend that it is"."

Yor going the wrong direction which makes this much harder to understand. Go back and look at my math proof again. You'll see if you are objective.

"Then (as if circular reasoning would help) you make this statement..."

Come on Bob, where is the circular part? You are going to have to do a much better job than that to show a fallacy on my part. I told you in my first response what happened to the other lines. You then quote an expert that says the same thing, as if that helps your case. Nothing circular about it.

I do find it "devastating" that you will not answer the entropy question when given the statement of the second law from a thermo text and asked to apply the real statement to the question of human evolution.

UTEOTW · May 16, 2004

Gup20

Do you yet have any explanation for the retroviral LTRs that are found in the human genome, the specific pattern of how they are found, and why they would be shared with the other apes?

"I am not arguing the merits of Natural Selection. ... It is merely the weeding out of those unfit to survive. The result is a population that IS fit to survive. However, natural selection has no mechanism or ability to confer information. It is an indescriminate killer. It has no ability to 'make the bacteria more fit' or less fit to survive. Those who can adapt survive... those who don't adapt die."

I am glad that we both agree that NS is a viable and useful process. NS by itself does not have any ability to adapt or evolve. But, when you combine it with mutation which provides different levels of fitness to selct upon, it provides a powerful method for developing the diversity we see today.

"Asexual reproduction is much more efficient than sexual reproduction. What possible naturally selective process could have lead to the less efficient sexual reproduction?"

Sexual reproduction provides some distinct evolutionary advantages. Yes, as you allude, there are tradeoffs and we see that most of the life on the planet uses asexual reproduction. But, sexual reproduction ofers an advantage in the mixing of genetic information. If a bacteria has a particular advantageous mutation, it has no way to spread that to the rest of the population. (OK, that is not completely true, but close enough.) If another bacteria has a different advantageous mutation, they are simply left to compete with one another. Not real efficient at bringing about large changes. But with sexual reproduction, the two benficial traits can be brought together ans spread.

"Evolution is exclusionary to supernatural influence and causation."

If must be. If you allow such causes in, how do you identify them? How do you make use of them? Does ravity control orbits or is it angels pushing the planets around? YOu have no way of knowing. Science must restrict itself to reproducable, natural causes.

"YEC's can convincingly show evidence of a 6000 year old earth and evidence of Biblical events, such as a Global flood."

I have seen no evidence to support these conclusions.

"Therefore we can see how the Bible and evolution become a lense through which all the evidence we find is seen and interpreted. "

You have decided that your interpretation of scripture is the only valid one and you exclude all data that contradicts that. You do not allow the evidence to lead you where it will. YOu have already made up your mind and try and fit everything into that round hole no matter how square the peg.

"If God is God, and he 'knew' where life would end up - do you think He is unable of creating man as the Bible says he did - in less than 24 hours? "

He is capable of whatever He wishes. Do you think it impossible for Him to create a universe 13.5 billion years ago with a set of initial conditions that would lead to what we see today? I am not putting God in the box of your own creation that you are. The evidence indicates He used an old earth. Why question that?

"You will also see (looking back) that I posted on non-coding RNA and psuedogenes."

Yes, we both agree that some of the non-coding parts of the genome serve a purpose.

But since you brought up psuedogenes, let's dicuss vitamin C. Humans and the other apes and primates all lack the ability to make vitamin C. They lack this ability because they all share the exact same mutation in the exact same gene that codes for one of the enzymes used. Why do they share this? You can look at other species and see what the function of the the gene is. You can see what mutation disabled it. Common descent explains this well. How do you explain it?

"In that light, I would see the continuum of creatures designed for land and sea and say that they are discreet not morphing into another section of 'kinds'."

This is merely a convenient way to define away transitionals. You define them as an originally created "kind." Yet the evidence does not support this. All the various kinds must have been alive at the beginning. They should all be found together in the fossil record. Yet this is not what we see. We see only a very narrow slice of life at any given layer. Can you show me a single whale, for example, in Cambrian fossils?

I have already given a general discussion of two apparent transitional series and alluded to others. Do you simply dismiss these away a seperate created kinds even though they are only found in narrow slices of the fossil record.

And a related question. What do you make of the fossil hominids? Here you have creatures that were much like humans. They walked with a fully bipedal gait. They had large brains. They made tools, some rather complex. Some even buried their dead. But they were not homo sapiens. How do you handle these creatures?

"To quote Ken Ham of AiG "all you see are billions of dead things burried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth"."

But let's look at this more closely. The way in which we find the fossils does not fit them all being laid down in a single flood. We have already discussed that the fossils should be rather randomly mixed instead of the very specific arrangement that we see. Such a catastrophe would be expected to destry delicate creatures. But instead we find well preserved examples in places. We find fosils that were buries slowly in still water. We find fossils buried by blowing sand. We find evidence of the scavenging of fossils. We find fossils buried by landslides. We find fossils buried in volcanic ash. Ham's overly simple statement masks the complexity of what we actually see.

"...We have marine fossils in just about every layer of the Grand Canyon..."

We find fossils of things in layers that could not possibly be attributed to a great flood. Fossil footprints. Fossil rain imprints. Fossil burrows. Fossil animal tracks. Many more examples can be given.

Let me focus on a specific aspect. 65 million years ago, a large object smashed into the earth near the present Gulf of Mexico coast of Mexico. This wiped out much of the life on earth including all of the dinosaurs except the birds. As we look arounf the world, we see many things. First, from just below to just above this layer, the KT boundary, we find that about 70% of the species disappear. If all the fossil were laid down in the flood, there should be no change in fossils, especially in such closely spaced layers. Second, the boundary layer worldwide is concentrated with iridium attributed to the space rock. This dust would take a long time to settle out. If all the fossils were laid down in the flood, this concetrated layer of iridium would not exist, it would be scattered through the various flood layers. At the KT boundary, worldwide, we also find grains of shocked quartz and tektites. A space impact is the only known event forceful enough to form shocked quartz. Tektites are small balls of molten rock from an impact. If the dust, the quartz and the tektites would distributed across the ocean surface, they would not sort out togther into the same flood layers because of the differing particle sizes and densities. So how do you explain these observations?

I went up to Tennessee a few months ago and toured one of the many caves in the foothills of the Appalachians. Did the flood lay down the limestone from which the mountains are made? When where the mountains uplifted? When were the cabes dissolved? Or maybe the flood caused the erosion of the mountains. Then where did the limestone come from? How were the caves dissolved? Or maybe the flood carved the caves. If so, where did the limestone and erosion come from? And what about the magma intrusions into parts of the lountains. When did these occur? How did they cool so quickly? When magma cools, if it is cooled quickly, say in only thousands of years, it makes no crystals. We can tell how long it took rocks to cool from the chemistry. Different minerals form at specific temperatures and grow at known rates. We can cross check this with heat transfer calculations that show how long it takes heat to get out. These agree with one another and can be millions of years. So how did the igneous rocks of the world, with their crystals of various minerals, form in such a short time? Neither the physics of cooling nor the chemistry of crystal formation allow it.

A related question. To which flood model do you ascribe? Specifically, where did the water come from and where did it go?

" (humans dont' give birth to chimpanzees, cows don't give birth to dogs)"

Strawman and a poor one at that. Science does not hypothesize that creatures give birth to anything bu the same species. A newborn is never of a new species. That type of change happens to populations and over time.

"Here you have one example in biology, and one example in geology."

No. You need to show me that a cause today had a different effect in the past.

There are a number of problems you need to address: retroviral LTRs; the shared vitamin C crippling mutation; the nature of the fossil record including why we do not find past life mixed in a way consistent with everything having been alive together at the beginning; the tyoes of fossils we find including trace fossils; the evidence for a major impact at the KT boundary; the details of mountain formation; and the fossil hominids. Paul has also brought up some good issues. Some items related to his questions would be the linear relationship between age of the vocanoes of the Hawaiian chain and their distance from the active volcanic region and the consistent change in amounts of erosion with age. The measurment of seafloor spreading combined with indications that the rates are the same now as they were in the past, that rocks dated from different distances from the spreading agree with the expected age based on distance and rate of spreading, the magnetic field reversals chronicled in the rocks, and the many millions of years that these facts show that spreading has been happening. The paleomagnetic data supporting continental drift.

BobRyan · May 16, 2004

Bob said -- "Using Richard Dawkings as a prominent example of "just such an evolutionists" who does "know something about the claims of evolution" is EXACTLY the salient point of the thread."

UTEOTW
If it is not a fallacy to use Dawkins as a source of information regarding religion then tell me what qualifications he has on religious matters that would make him an expert compared to the average man on the street?

IMHO, you quoting of Dawkins does more to support my opinion than yours.

That shows a lack of critical thinking in my opinion.

Had I chosen the fallacy of "authority" to support my argument - it could only come in the form of quoting the Pope or Billy Graham saying "Christians should not corrupt the text of Genesis" or something of the sort.

Instead - I take the approach of the subject of this thread - where the argument is that the Bible and Christian faith are "at risk" in the eyes of atheists IF we do not capitulate immediately to evolutionism's myths - subjecting the clear reading of the Creator's Account to the whims and myths of evolutionism "as if evolutionism might one day be proven to be true".

I show that the VERY ONES that would be ridiculing the Bible ARE ALREADY ridiculing your compromised-Bible "solution".

This of course - is devastating to the argument you need to make here. IT means your "solution" is to "lose the debate in advance" of the feared event.

The salient argument from Dawkins that applies to this - is his statements about the "claims of evolutionism" -- not theology.

It is his statement that evolutionism ALREADY provides all the answers and is in need of nothing.

Once we have his view of evolutionism - it does not matter what you think of his logical and obvious conclusion about what this does to belief in the Bible and God.

Yet your position needs to dance around that "as if" that point is not obvious.

The fact that an atheist evolutionist would "OF COURSE" presume bias to evolutionism as the TRUE account of CREATION and ORIGINS and the Bible to be "wrong" - is a given. It is not in debate.

What IS in debate is whether your "solution" has in fact "solved anything" for such an atheist - and Dawkings "Shows" that the clear answer is "no". It merely "concedes the point before the argument begins".

In Christ,

Bob

UTEOTW · May 16, 2004

"Had I chosen the fallacy of "authority" to support my argument - it could only come in the form of quoting the Pope or Billy Graham saying "Christians should not corrupt the text of Genesis" or something of the sort."

I think you are confused. Quoting the Pope or Billy Graham on religious issues would be acceptable because they would be considered to be experts, at least to some degree. Quoting them on science issues would not, they have no special knowledge to be a scientific expert.

Same thing with Dawkins. If you wish to quote him on evolution, fine, he is an expert. You want to quote him on religion, no can do. He has no expetice.

Look, you think Dawkins helps your case, I think it hurts your case. We are getting no where as we do not understand the others reasoning. I suggest we move on. How about that question of how evolution fits or does not fit the real statement of the 2LOT. That sounds like a good place to move on towards.

Gina B · May 16, 2004

Bob Ryan posted:
#2. My claim is that the "boogy man" dreamed up by evolutionists sitting around their campfires is the "great fear" that "some dark and stormy day a long long time from now - a scientist MIGHT create life or MIGHT come up with evidence that LIFE creates itself. And THEN - where will Christians be??? whooooooo!".

It is that "fear" that is "supposed" to drive Christians that trust in the Creator's account - away from that trust.

Gina: Unfortunately that fear DOES drive Christians away from that trust sometimes. I don't know why, but it does. I'm constantly suprised when I find people who see science advance and instead of it deepening their faith it drives it away. I don't get that. The more we advance as humans, as God created us to do, the more amazing it is to me to find how God and His creation works. How a baby develops, how the body works, how mountains are formed, bodies of water made. Instead of explaining away the power of God it reinforces it for me.

Ok, continue on, just had to throw that in there.

Gina

BobRyan · May 16, 2004

Gina - I agree that "fear" of the unknown - fear that evolutionists might some day be able to make their case in "good science" leads some to "preemptively jump the gun". They think that if they "capitulate the point before the debate begins" they will some how save themselves embarrassment and save the Word of God from ridicule by non-believers.

Part of their problem is in claiming for the Word of God what it does not say. Part is in not understanding all the guesswork and bad science methods that go into propping up the myths of evolutionism and part is in not fully understanding the implications of gutting the Word of God at the very start. They come to think that the Gospel has nothing to do with the fall of man, the Creator or trust in the accuracy of what the Creator has said.

And so - unwittingly they capitulate the entire point - before the debate begins - and they do so out of "fear" of what evolutionists "might" be able to prove some day in the future, or out of frustration over some previous creationist theory in science, about a given technical puzzle, that did not pan out as nicely as they first thought it would.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · May 16, 2004

Bob said -- "Had I chosen the fallacy of "authority" to support my argument - it could only come in the form of quoting the Pope or Billy Graham saying "Christians should not corrupt the text of Genesis" or something of the sort."

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

I think you are confused. Quoting the Pope or Billy Graham on religious issues would be acceptable because they would be considered to be experts, at least to some degree.

Well we differ on so many other things - why not this one too.

This is a fallacy as you have stated it above - because instead of "proving the point" the appeal is "this Christian leader believes my point and he is well respected in Christian circles so it must be right". That is a fallacy because it has nothing to do with actually proving the point. It appeals to the stature and reputation of a Christian leader to say "this Christian argument is the correct one - no matter what the details of the argument - since the Pope agrees with me" (in essence).

Which is why I do not go to McArthur, or D. J Kennedy or Billy Graham and say "They reject evolution so evolution must be wrong".

See?

In Christ,

Bob

UTEOTW · May 16, 2004

I have given up that line with you, we are accomplishing nothing on it. How about answering the 2LOT question. Apply the actual statement from a thermo text to evolution. You claim there is a conflict. Show us using the actual 2LOT instead of a lay, popularized account where the problem is with human evolution as outlined above.

BobRyan · May 16, 2004

UTEOTW

Same thing with Dawkins. If you wish to quote him on evolution, fine, he is an expert.

Which is my point. He does speak as someone who "knows something about the claims of evolution".

He also represent "a case in point" for the "ridicule" that the Bible is exposed to by a non-believing atheist viewer.

In asking if evolution is protecting the Bible going to an authority on "evolution" is approriate to get a sense of "its claims".

Then to see the "ridicule" that a compromise in Genesis promotes - we simply observe the obvious and logical argument made. "Evolution accounts for everthing" is purely a statement about "evolution" -- then simply observing the obvious "So why then do you need God" - is logical and explicit in exposing the "risk and ridicule" for the Bible in that compromised situation.

UTEOTW

Look, you think Dawkins helps your case, I think it hurts your case. We are getting no where as we do not understand the others reasoning. I suggest we move on.

Again - your are not allowing yourself to think critically here.

#1. You "like" the part where Dawkings rejects the Bible account of the Creator's act in creating the world. You claim this makes your point.

I point out that this was never in debate. The fact that an atheist would not accept the Creator's account has never been disputed. You keep "pretending" that promoting this non-disputed fact from Dawkings quote "makes your point". It does not. It was never disputed - so how could it?

You simply are not allowing yourselve the benefit of critical thinking here.

#2. Dawkings argument that "Evolution explains everything" is not a theological statement. You keep ignoring it - because it is devastating to your case. You suggest we quit qouting Dawkings - and with good reason - this statement about evolution - this non-theology statement is devastating to the case that you would make.

It "shows" that the "solution" you jumped to - is no solution at all.

It shows that the very audience supposedly satisified by your compromise in Genesis - merely holds your own solution up to the very atheist-ridicule you sought to avoid by embracing evolution instead of the Creator's account.

The point "could not" be more obvious. And it is central to the subject of this thread. It cuts the very heart of your supposed solution - showing that it is not accomplishing the purpose you gave in going this direction. The Atheits do not see your solution - as solving anything. If anything they hold your compromise as a totally conter-intuitive option as internally conflicted as the Christians hold it to be - that also reject your solution. Both the science of the atheist and the theology of the Christian (who accepts the Creator's account) view this solution in the same light.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · May 16, 2004

UTEOTW
How about that question of how evolution fits or does not fit the real statement of the 2LOT. That sounds like a good place to move on towards.

This is an excellent case in point - showing how the "solution" of jumping on to the evolutionist bandwagon not only compromises the Bible and Gospel position - but in this case is "bad science" to boot.

The evolutionist needs to pretend that there is no connection between biological systems and entropy. No connection between mythical self-ordering systems that aggregate and assimilate new genetic information over time - and entropy.

As Asimov stated it - the "connection" between 2LOT (entropy) and decay - dissolution (equilibrium) is obvious.

Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."

[Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institution Journal (June 1970), p. 6 (emphasis added).]

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of available work you can get out of the energy of the universe is constantly decreasing. If you have a great deal of energy in one place, a large intensity of it, so that you have a high temperature here and a low temperature there, then you can get work out of that situation. The smaller the difference in temperature, the less work you can get out of it. Now, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there is always a tendency for the hot areas to cool off and the cool areas to warm up -- so that less and less work can be obtained out of it. Until finally, when everything is one temperature, you cannot get any work out of it, even though all the energy is still there. And this is true for EVERYTHING in general, the universe all over."

[Isaac Asimov in The Origin of the Universe in the ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be video series (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Communications, 1983).]

[/QUOTE]

Even though the Sun is shining - entropy marches on - observable, repeatable, verifiable every day on earth.

Emmett Williams, Ph.D:

"It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. While the utterances in some fields (such as astronomy) seem to change almost daily, the science of thermodynamics has been noteworthy for its stability. In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted."

Notice the "details"?

Asimove makes a direct and explicit connection between bilogical systems and entropy.

Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate.

Asimov does not make this statement "because he is a stupid creationist" as many atheist evolutionists like to portray Christians when they run out of arguments for evolutionism's doctrines.

Neither can one "successfully" make the circular argument that the obvious contradiction (between 2LOT entropy and what is "needed" by evolutionism for molecule-to-man self-ordering )"must not exist" since evolutionists hold to both conflicting views at the same time.

Better for the Christian to hold to the consistent and logical view that the Creator is trustworthy and that entropy has the biological effects that Asimov clearly stated.

In Christ,

Bob

Do the doctrines of evolutionism protect the Bible?

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member