Errors in Science!

DHK didn't say that, I did.

I think some of you folks are confusing us since we both are Canadian and have Canadian flags under our names. But we couldn't be more different in our positions. God Bless Soul Liberty

You have a whole bunch of stuff mixed up in this sentence.

This is the astronomical theory of Big Bang from redshift data.

This is abiogenesis which is a recent biochemical theory that is independent of evolution and based on a very small body of controversial evidence and not well accepted in the scientific community.

Evolution is about genetic populations having common origins and separating into distinct populations that evolve over generations. Turning a dog into a cat is not an example of evolution because that is about an individual organism.

 

No need to repeat the post.

Old Reg you write: Transition from a state of disorder to a state of order requires a decrease in entropy, again a violation of the Second Law.

When my yard is ignored it tends toward a state of disorder. When I clean it up, therefore... decrease entropy.
This doesn't violate the 2nd law.
WHY? ...energy was provide from an outside source (ME).

Earth is an open system. Are there sources that provide energy to our earth that influence or could fuel the process of evolution? Despite my reluctance to accept evolutionjary theory the answer is YES. Internal heat and external solar energy are sources of energy.

Hey I'm on the boat when it comes to who the Creator was. Just don't try to use the 2nd Law of thermodynamic to disprove the possibility of evolution, IMHO it doesn't wash.

Rob

 

Gold,

I hear what you're saying, but what I hear is double talk.

Either it all started from the same "gaseous clouds" or it didn't. If it did, it required evolution to cross species. If it didn't - we're back to God.

 

Huh? Gaseous clouds? What do clouds have to do with evolution? What does cross breeding have to do with evolution? I'm very confused about this post.

 

Which begs the question: "What is the source of energy being put into the system of our universe?"

 

Which begs the question: "What is the source of energy being put into the system of our universe?" </font>[/QUOTE]Other than the energy that was put there initially (which I believe was from God) what natural phenomenon suggests there is more energy being put into the system of our universe?

Maybe God is putting more energy in, but what suggests this is the case?

 

That is a good point... evolution cannot be disproven by this law or any other law of science. Therefore it is not scientific by the same definition used by evolutionists to protest creationism.

We get accused of invoking God to fill the gaps... evolutionists just invoke the great "unknown", ie. "We don't know how this occurred but we know that it has a naturalistic explanation."

 

Which begs the question: "What is the source of energy being put into the system of our universe?" </font>[/QUOTE]Other than the energy that was put there initially (which I believe was from God) what natural phenomenon suggests there is more energy being put into the system of our universe?

Maybe God is putting more energy in, but what suggests this is the case? </font>[/QUOTE]If you are going to invoke God, why not just accept that He spoke the universe into existence just as He declared?

 

Rob,

Again - there are MANY respected scientists who say it CAN be invoked. Why ignore them?

Why accept the words of the nonbelievers and then claim the believers are not scientists when, in fact, there are MANY many respected men of science in all fields who support Creationism?

 

He did speak the universe into existence just as He declared, and that likely resulted in the Big Bang that we see as redshifted stars.

 

I don't "accept" or ignore the various scientists who write on the subject.
I follow their arguments and learn.
I then am able to filter those who can be trusted, those who need further evaluation or study, and those who are no longer worth listening to.

Why accept the words of non-believers? Regretfully, there are times when they make more sense than the "Biblical literalists" do concerning our origins.

Rob

 

He did speak the universe into existence just as He declared, and that likely resulted in the Big Bang that we see as redshifted stars. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not talking about starting a natural process. That idea is not to be found in the text nor context.

I am talking about creation ex nihilo. When Christ rose from the dead, it wasn't the result of a process... but rather the imposition of divine will over natural law.

 

Okay, I have to ask this then. ..

What are your science credentials that allow you to cast judgement on the work of men like Dr. John Baumgarden, Dr. Russell Humphries, Dr. Eugen Chaffin or Dr. Jay Wile?

 

More sense biblically or according to the wisdom of man dealt with in I Corinthians?

 

Have you really looked at the logic of what you support Rob?


Evolution still teaches a common ancestory between man and ape, and yet, every time they claim they found the missing link they find older evidence of more developed man, and each discovery puts man independent of ape theories.

 

And it was a bunch of Christians who threatened to hang Galileo if he didin't back down from his sinful, worldly claim that the sun was the center of our solar system.

 

Are you sure you really want to start throwing PhDs around? If you want to play, "who has the longer PhD list", I don't think you'll win that one.