Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

Hmm you "Accept" the doctrines of evolutionism "and yet" you "believe" that man is "endowed" with the image of God.

Did I miss something?

You already admit that you are an evolutionist. How do you think evolution works if not by survival of the fittest?

You already admit that Adam is NOT a real person - the real FIRST man created on the evening and morning of the 6th day of creation. Created FIRST and THEN Eve.

(In fact you claim to have no clue how many OTHER brothers/sister/cousins ALL HUMAN that Adam had... so "obviously" not the first Human as GOD describes it in HIS Word).

Are you simply dodging points that are "inconveniently exposing your beliefs" or are you trying to say something when you argue that man did not EVOLVE but is rather ENDOWED with the image of His non-maker?

After claiming faith in evolutionism as you are quoted in this post as doing - it is "odd" that you want to claim that you did NOT say Adam "evolved".

There is a grand canyon sized gap in those statements - and seem to feel no need to come up with a story that holds together.

Why wouldn't that be your "first" objective when challenged with my statements on this thread regarding the Word of God and the Gospel?

I have addressed the point explicitly (repeatedly) and still you are mincing words and dodging instead of being straight foreward.

I said

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


So how is it that killing, starving, and inflicting deiseases on hominids "results in the image of God"?? (you know -- evolution... natural selection...etc. Perhaps you call this ENDOWING though you are flip flopping on this one)

How could such a "creature FALL"? (You have no clue at all on this one)

How many human brothers/cousins/sisters did Adam have? (You can't believe what the Bible says about Adam being the FIRST man so you claim that MANY is the possible answer))

Was there an Adam? (You can't believe what the Bible says so you say -- "NO" because you claim it is a population of hominid offspring not ONE man - the ONE and only FIRST man)

Did he "fall into sin"? (You can't believe what the Bible says so you say "NOT really - God is just telling a fable")

What was the sin? ( You can't believe what the Bible says - so you say you have no clue)


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

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes, Bob, you did miss something! Here it is again. My apologies to those who already read it the first time:

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

I do not believe our bodies, with four limbs, internal organs and genitals, is what the image of God is about. God is spirit, and I think imagery that describes God's "outstretched arm" and other such phrases are anthropomorphic and not actual physical descriptions. I don't even think God has DNA.</font>[/QUOTE]To put it in different words, I do not think the image of God refers to our physical shape and bodily structure. Evolution, however, is about our physical bodies. That is why I have no problem accepting evolution and believing that humans bear the image of God.

I am an evolutionist in the same sense that I am a gravitationalist. Basically, I reject that science is a grand conspiracy. Anyway, how do you think micro-evolution (which I assume you accept) works if not by survival of the fittest? What does that have to do with the image of God?

Where did I state that Adam was not a real person? I said that "I don't discount the possibility that Adam is representative and not historical." Just because I don't discount the possibility doesn't mean I think it's the only possibility, or even the most likely possibility.

I don't think the early chapters of Genesis are historical, and because of that, I don't claim to know the historical details of early human life on earth. That doesn't mean I disregard those chapters (indeed, since I don't try and reconcile them with science, I am free to take them more literally than most YECs or day-agers or gap-theorists), and from what I've seen so far, I even interpret Scripture in general more literally than you do. (For instance, I wouldn't claim that the flood narrative states that dinosaurs were wiped out in the flood because of their violence. As you put it, "They did not make it on the ark. No T-Rex with Noah." I really have no idea how someone who claims to be a literalist could come to such a conclusion.)

As I said, "Whether Adam's daughters married their brothers, had relations with angels, or interbred with other humans living at the same time is not a fundamental concern for me." You thought this was a misdirection, but it's not. The third option (that there were other humans living at the time) would mean that Adam had brothers/sisters/cousins. Personally, I think the second option about women having relations with angels is pretty wacky, but I don't doubt someone's faith just because they hold to it. None of these views are really that critical, except for what they say about the way a person interprets the Bible. When we get down to brass tacks and deal with what a passage of Scripture means, you rarely have much to say, aside from echoing or distorting what others have said.

I did not argue that man did not evolve. However, I stated that I believe God made humans in his image. What they were before that, whether dirt or primates, isn't a great concern to me. After that, they were distinct from all the other animals. The only reason you've taken this as a dodge is because you refuse to acknowledge that I don't equate the image of God with physical human bodies. Our bodies are formed through natural processes (including evolution). Natural processes only exist because God created and sustains them. Our spirit is supernatural. As such, it is not formed by natural processes; it did not evolve. It is what separates us from the animals. It is a gift from God, and I believe it is a big part of what "the image of God" entails.

As a fun exercise, I encourage everyone to compare Bob's paraphrase of my answers with my actual answers given here (link).

 

Ok so in a sidestepping kinda way you admit that group of homosapiens living in caves and grunting their likes and dislikes that you call "Adam" DID "evolve" as natural selection states via "starvation, disease, extinction, predation, suffering and death".

Notice what you said about the evolution of Adam --

To put it in different words, I do not think the image of God refers to our physical shape and bodily structure. Evolution, however, is about our physical bodies. That is why I have no problem accepting evolution and believing that humans bear the image of God.


And of course - those grunting, brain-eating squatting brutes - children of cave-dwelling hominids are in your words "in the image of God" spiritually - or mystically - or mythically or what-have-you (in your view).

This would then be a good time to stop dodging the point and show "HOW" this rise through death and carnage is "And God said LET us make mankind in our own image... Male and female God made them".

This is also the ofte repeated opportunity for you to show how such brute beasts "Fell" such that we as their descendants became "doomed to hell" rather than just "doomed to eating monkey brains for the remainder of our cave dwelling days".

But of course - you keep "avoiding" the Bible contradictions to your beliefs in evolutionism - so why should this exchange be any different?

Wrong. I take it as a dodge of the oft-repeated challenge because you refuse to show how this brutish scenario for "Adam pre fall" that you have faith in -- squares with the Word of God and the idea of "The FALL" into sin.

What was the population of humans you call "Adam" Doing? What sin did they commit? What "Fall" could there be from cave-dwelling brutish monkey-brain eating homosapiens living amid carnage, death, extinction, disease and suffering?

Still avoiding the question "I know" but I think if it is repeated often enough - you will get lazy and actually respond to how your view squares with the Gospel, the fall of man, God as our direct creator, the fact that Adam was "Created first and then Eve" according to the Gospel writers. (I.E the DETAILS of the Gen 1-2:3 story are appealed to as authorotative by NT Gospel writers).

So though you want to avoid the way your answers have lined up with the questions I keep asking - it may be time to "notice the details".

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You already admit that you are an evolutionist. How do you think evolution works if not by survival of the fittest?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1. You dodged this question as well. I asked how you claim to be an evolutionist and yet are denying the principle of natural selection through "death, extinction, disease, starvation, predation and suffering" that natural selection relies on for survival of the fittest. (since you object to it every time this is brought up regarding the "Creation" of those you call Adam).
Your bait-and-switch-topic response is classic.

#2. Evolution is not science - it is a non-science appeal to blue-sky speculation in the "obscure". This was shown with the "non-data" used to defend evolutionists "Fix" for the chiral orientation problem AND it was shown in the need to "ignore Isaac Asimov's" clear statements on increased entropy seen in human biological systems. (But then that would be "Science" so no wonder evolutionists didn't like it).

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You already admit that Adam is NOT a real person - the real FIRST man created on the evening and morning of the 6th day of creation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact you agreed that you believe that Adam was "many" individuals -- brothers, sisters, cousins etc of the first generation of humans NOT one individual created by God during the 6th evening-morning sequence of Gen 1-2:3. IN FACT you admit he was created via evolution's "PROCESS" and that this generation had as "father" - their cave dwelling male hominid progenetors.

Or - are you speculating that evolution works "some other way"?????

Your "story" is getting mixed up as you seem to want to deny each step of it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oh but you do.

I believe it is called "natural selection".

Or do you propose some "other" form of biological evolution?

Also - this statement of yours that the "Details" of God's Word in Gen 1-2:3 are so untrustworthy that you can't "Actually" know what happened - means that each APPEAL to those DETAILS made by Christ in the Gospels and by other NT authors must be .... false? Or are they simply lying (in their details) in the same way you must think Gen 1-2:3 is an 'untrustworthy statement' in its "details"??? (At least untrustworthy to the point that one can not read it without being convinced that the DETAILS it states are the MOST untrue thing about it).

So instead of burning those chapters of scripture - you simply allow them as parables and untrustworthy myths behind which we might find some "general principle" that is true but not "The DETAIL" actually IN the "Account".

Amazing! Since they need not "BE TRUE" you are free to have them say anything - as in a Peter Rabbit story - you are free to embelish to any degree SINCE in the end - we all know it is NOT TRUE!

Amazing!

Now HERE is the Kicker! After insisting that the Genesis "Account" is so bogus that we can have NO understanding at all of the actual historical "Facts" regarding the ONE man Adam and then the ONE woman EVE from which ALL mankind comes, created sinless, who then FALL by eating from the tree God commanded them not to eat from (all details that you claim can NOT be trusted as being historically correct) --- you claim that THIS is a good example "taking the Bible literally"!!!

I needed that quote! Thanks!

Oh "yes"! that is an EXCELLENT way to solve the problem of the Fall of man - and HOW that fall happened when in fact Adam is a "group of cave-dwelling brutish homosapiens squatting on their cave floors and grunting in approval with each kill that they make".

You seem to be staying on topic and have proven your point well as to how LITERALLY you are taking that Gen 1-2:3 text by that excellent point about dinosaurs on the ark!!!

This is the poster child epitomy of what I have been talking about when I say evolutionists do not allow themselves to be objective or think crticially. You are dodging the central point of the discussion as fast I can bring us back on topic!

I salute you!

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob asks about ADAM's contemporaries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In fact you claim to have no clue how many OTHER brothers/sister/cousins ALL HUMAN that Adam had... so "obviously" not the first Human as GOD describes it in HIS Word).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mercury ducks the point by answering instead about what he does NOT know about Adam's children

Hmm - nice dodge. I ask about ADAM's peers and you want to talk about his CHILDREN instead.

Do you ever just come out and "answer" a direct question or is this another key to the evolutionists "game"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ho hum. BobRyan continues to ask questions, demand answers, and NEVER ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

Some of us suspect he can't answer questions, so he just asks instead.

Let me remind you of my question to you, BobRyan, which you have not answered. Its not just me - many of us want to know how you answer this question.

Why do you feel it is consistent to ask that we give up what science teaches us about common descent of life and the age of the universe - on the grounds that the literal teaching of the bible opposes that part of science - and yet accept what science teaches us about the cause of night and day which is that the earth rotates, wherease the literal teaching of the scriptures is that the sun moves across the sky to cause day and night?

All of us watching your endless devotion to the cause of discrediting science (and as a result, discrediting christianity) can tell what the answer is. The scientific evidence for the rotation of the earth is so overwhelming that even you can't find a way to discredit it in your mind. Therefore you inconsistently say the words of God's Bible, in this case, are to be reintepreted. Fancy words come out such as "They are words that are meant to be interpreted phenomenologically". All a smokescreen for shrinking away from the literal statements found there.

So, BobRyan, the question remains before you, stil not answered by you, how can you find it in your conscience to be so inconsistent?

 

The problem I see with that logic is that there is nothing supporting atheism in mistaken beliefs of the past that science now refutes in reference to geocentricity.
Bob Ryan is trying to match science up with the bible, where you're trying to make the bible line up with science.
Science "facts" change. The bible doesn't, and we either believe the bible more than science or science more than the bible.
I tend to have more faith in arguments that come from Bob Ryan's point of view than yours, and believe most Christians do. That is easily seen by the number of topics on science and the bible that have never seemed to influence anyone very much despite their length or numbers.
The evolutionists will need to start approaching things from a better stated biblical view over scientific before anything they say is given much credit by the majority of believers.
Gina

 

Gina
"I tend to have more faith in arguments that come from Bob Ryan's point of view than yours, and believe most Christians do."
''
Your definition of the word Christian has just become very important Gina. So what does it take to be called a Christian in that line of yours I quoted?

 

The definition of the word Christian has nothing to do with what I said. From my understanding (although I may be mistaken) most of the evolutionists on this board are Christians. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

My point in the statement is that most Christians put more credence in the bible than they do science, no matter how logical or illogical the outcome of that.
Evolutionists on this board seem to be approaching the subject by giving more credit to scientific beliefs and then attempting to make the bible's words fit from that perspective. That simply won't work with the majority of believers.
YEC's take a different approach, in that they attempt to understand science from the basis of the bible.
Gina

 

Gina
"From my understanding most of the evolutionists on this board are Christians."
''
All of them are, if they aren't (christian that is), it is your solemn duty to ban them. This is after all a Christians only board.

"My point in the statement is that most Christians put more credence in the bible than they do science, no matter how logical or illogical the outcome of that."
''
And my point is that the vast majority of christians on this green earth belong to churches that differ significantly from strict Creationism in their exegesis of the book of Genesis. But it is possible that you don't count the membership of mainline churches as christians, so I that why I asked who you considered Christians.

 

Hi Gina, thank you for joining the fray! I know you will bring an understanding mind to the discussion.

It is true that science changes. As the great C. S. Lewis once stated, it is the glory of science to progress. But - and it is a very large but - there are some parts of science that are so well established that it is difficult to see how they could be discarded.

For example, the idea that water is made of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen in every molecule. I cannot conceive of anything on the scientific horizon that could possibly change that little discovery.

The rotation of the earth, which naturally results in passage of day unto night. It has been directly observed by astronouts on the moon and robotic space craft from afar. What could possibly now undermine that discovery?

Now as we get into scientific knowledge and learn more and more, there are some other things that become solidly established in one's mind. Einstein's special theory of relativity, for example, once it is understood with a certain amount of real understanding, it becomes so clearly true that all cosmological theories must fall in line with it or be deemed nonsense. Yet for millions this is not the case because they don't really know what it is all about.

And this theory is the origin of the famous equation e = mc^2 !

Now there are areas of knowledge that even today we know must be "upgraded", so to speak. What was the big bang really like when it started? That's a toughie. How do you reconcile Einstein's general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics? All physicists know these two, at this time, are not reconcileable, yet they seem to both work wonderfully well in the same universe, so SOMEHOW they can reconcile -

The tree of life. It's broad structures have been well documented, but clearly there are a few species that their relationships have not been finally and completely specified . . .

So that comes down to the ancient age of the universe and the common descent of all life from an original simpler kind of life.

Once one has assimilated enough science in these fields the truth of common descent and an ancient universe becomes clearly evident. These are among the truths of science that are not going to go away; instead they are amoung the building blocks of future science.

The problem is that, like Einstein's theory of relativity, that much science is not commonly assimilated in our culture.

 

Well, since this discussion is on this board my comments mostly have to do with those on this board, not with all the Christians and churches on this green earth. Although, the majority of those I know who claim to be Christians belong to denominations such as Baptist, Lutheran, Evangelical, non-denom, Presbyterian, etc..
Gina

 

#1. The evolutionists on this board admit that the text is not speaking in terms of evolutionism's doctrines or the current form of the myths of evolutionism.

#2. The evolutionists on this board (at least some of them) have admitted that they think the "reason" that the Bible is speaking about creationism instead of evolutionism is that the people of Bible days were too ignorant and unskilled in creating life from scratch or evolving new species.

#3. The evolutionists on this board have shown their willingness to "cling" to these beliefs no matter what the Bible says. And by that they do not simply limit themselves to the book of Genesis as "not really true" or "True" in a kind of "untrustworthy details" sorta way.

#4. The evolutionists on this board make immediate efforts to switch topics whenever a post is made - directed at thte "point" of some Bible text on creationism and how it compares with evolutionism. (But of course in #1 and #2 above they have explained "why" they would need to derail that subject when it comes up).

#5. The evolutionists on this board have steadfastly refused to reconcile their views on marrying the Gospel to evolutionism with prominent evolutionists who themselves make claims "about evolutionism" showing that such a marriage is a contradiction. Just as Bible-believing Christians have made on this thread.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Mioque is correct. The majority of Christians (if though probably not the majority of denominations) seeks to marry the myths of evolutionism to the Gospel of Christ about the fall of man, the Creator-Savior, and the sin problem. But they "pretend" that inserting evolution into an admittedly creationist text might hopefully be done invisible to the Gospel of good news regarding the Creator-Savior's solution to the FALL of mankind in the Garden of Eden.

(Yes - I know their plan seems foolish but that is their goal).

In Christ,

Bob

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Michael - you appear to struggle with that.

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

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

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

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

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]******************
Bob

No, Bob, thank you for pointing out for us what I have obviously ignored, though I really don't know how you are able to divine this.

Good, Bob, so far you have not mis-characterized the "salient" point(s) Asimov is trying to make in his quote. Though it is not strictly necessary that it is "we" that must exert "energy". In general, the 2nd law does not "personalize" the direction of the energy transfer. He is trying to put forth examples that "we" understand.

Asimov's quote doesn't refrence "evolutionism". He may be an evolutionist. Regardless, he or evolutionists, can't change the 2nd law. Nowhere in his quote does he try to refute creationism.

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

But Michael - you appear to struggle with that.

Misdirection again. Asimov does not argue that "we see a decrease in entropy as we MAINTAIN our health" - rather he points out that the force that is driving human systems to disorder and decay IS visible evidence of increased entropy EVEN though we exert energy and effort to overcome that principle - it does not make the prinicple dissappear. RAther it is BECAUSE the principle REMAINS that we must continually exert intelligence and entropy to overcome it.
</font>[/QUOTE]I don't believe I was "struggling". I argued that some quotes you had added didn't exactly characterize Asimov's quote. I then asked you a question.

Your above reply seems to better agree with what I think Asimov was saying. I agree with you (you with me?)!

Now you said I used misdirection. If I am misdirected and you agree with me, what does that make you?

Now is time for your "misdiredtion". Based on Asimov's quote and your latest comments, I fail to see how it is "obvious" to anyone how these defend or refute claims made by evolutionists.

The creation works the way it works. The 2nd law is a law (principle) in which we have very high confidence that we understand it and it works consistently. Of course, it is God's perogative to "violate" it if and when He chooses. I am not sure that if He did violate it that we would even know or have any evidence of it.

I not sure whether you are trying to discredit the 2nd law or just discredit evolutionists. Are you trying to say that if evolutionists trust the 2nd law that the 2nd law is wrong? Or, do you agree with the 2nd law and think the evolutionist don't understand it? They may not, but you have not put forth a convincing argument that demonstrates they don't understand it.

I am not an evolutionist. I am a Christian and a scientist (sort of - an engineer). I take both roles very seriously. As a child, I was told that God loved me and I believed it in my heart. It was my love for and interest in science that convinced my mind that God was real. The complexity and magnificence of the creation attest to the existence of a wise and glorious Creator.

It bothers me when people twist science to try and "prop-up" God. God doesn't need it. Science can do without it. God's general revelation in His creation stands for us to observe and try and understand. Obviously, our science is as fallible we are. But for science to be of any value we must use it to objectively seek the truth or it is no longer science, rather it is pseudoscience.

It also bothers me when people believe their interpretation of the Bible is infallible. God's written revelation to us is infallible. Are we so arrogant that we think we can force our prejudices into the reading and make the Bible conform to our current (or any) scientific thinking?

If you (we) base our interpretation of the Bible on today's prevailing state of science (or psedoscience) and then later the pevailing science (or psedoscience) changes, does this mean the Bible has changed? Obviously not, but when we insist on reading the Bible through science or science through the Bible, we set up both God and the Bible to be blasphemed by the non-believers.

In Christ,
Michael

[ July 05, 2004, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Michael52 ]

 

I'm back...

I am just going to start where I left off and try and comment on what I can. There have been quite a few posts while I was down at the beach.

"I am saying they disbelieve the Bible because the Bible is very clear on the matter. There is no 'other' interpretation of the scripture - there is only to believe what it clearly says, or believe that it doesn't mean what is clearly stated."

And as I have pointed out, without response, is that there are many places where you are perfectly willing to do the same and think nothing of it. I have given you several topics. The disagreement boils down to this. The entire Bible is inspired by God and written by men. It is therefore written in a way that reflects how the people of the time understood the world. I have given the example of the flat earth. The people of that day believed in a flat earth and so did the writers of the Bible. You have been quite unwilling to apply your insisted upon method of interpretation to this issue and that is very telling. You know that you cannot support a spherical earth Biblically while a plain reading gives a flat earth. Be aware that I am not insisting that this is a Biblical error, mind you, but only a reflection of what the writer and the reader of the day thought. And God chose not to corect it.

By the same token, there are parallels between the way the Biblical creation story reads and the creation stories of the other cultures of the region at the time. The form of the telling is in something that they would be familar with. But with a difference. There is only one God. And He has created man in His image and has a special relationship with man. A form they are familar with is used but through that the true nature of God and man is revealed.

This is not a mistake or error. This is not calling God a liar. This is not disbelieving the Bible. No matter how many times you say such things, it still does not make it true. The Bible is "IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, AND IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS."

It is very telling that you do not address the issue of how you are willing to ignore the plain text reading in cases where you are convinced otherwise by outside evidence. Or are you a closet flat earth geocentrist?

 

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

Let's just look through here.

"Sinking the swamp theory..."

So, you find one kind of coal that was formed from plant material that was not from a swamp and that makes you willing to ignore the evidence for all the coal that was made in swamps? Yawn. So I guess if I see one SUV obeying the speed limit then they all do?

This is wild extrapolation in spite of the evidence. Strike!

"Coal needs only weeks, not millions of years, to form..."

Let's take a look at this more closely. It is said "lignin (the major component of wood), water and acidic clay heated in a sealed container to only 150°C produced brown coal in just two to eight months." How many mistakes can we find in this?

First, I believe that cellulose is the "major component of wood," and not lignin. Lignin is like a binder that holds the cellulose together and only makes up about a quarter of the plant. Second, they did not add water, it was dry, powdered lignin and clay. They did not make brown coal, but they did make somethinf with some similar properties. And this says nothing about what it takes to turn cellulose into coal. I beleive the first step of that is a good bit of time for bacteria to digest the cellulose. And you would have a hard time heating a wet mixture to 150 C. You would heat to 100 C and then all your heat would go to evaporating water. After that, you could continue heating, but there would not be any water present. (Elsewhere, AIG stresses that this was done without any added pressure.) Funny, AIG does not mention where the heat came from for the coal formation scenario. Interesting.

But there is another problem. I am quoting from http://www.blackdiamondenergy.com/coalbed.html which is about the formation of natural gas from coal beds.

Now the experiments in question were carried out at about 300 F. As you can see, there are specific chemical changes that happen as a result of what temperature the coal was heated during formation. For most low rank coals, this temperature is much less than the temperature at which the experiment was run. So while you can get something with some of the characteristics of a low rank coal after months of high temperature heating, the chemistry of what you get is still incompatible with what is found in the ground. (BTW, we gasify a lot of low rank coal and I have visited one of the coal mines in the region, Powder River Basin, where the company I am referncing is located. Not that it means anything, but I did get to see the world's largest truck.)

But there is yet another problem. Geological evidence shows that some coal is autochthonous and some is allochthonous. For AIG to be correct, ALL coal would need to be allochthonous and this is just not so. Young earthers must again ignore the evidence. Let me just quote again.

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/aigcoal.htm

So much coal shows evidence of being produced in situ while the AIG must completely rule this out. They must ignore the evidence.

 

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

Bingo! I think we have winner!

The universe drives towards increasing entropy yet, through work, local decreases in entropy are allowed. You just said it yourself. Cobine this with the theoretical stuff I gave you earlier that shows how this local decrease is spontaneous for certain reactions and actions and you now have your answer. In general entropy is increasing, yet local decreases are allowed and do happen.

Now, would you mind telling us specifically what entropy prevents from happening? You have just stepped on your own argument which I think was that entropy can never decrease. I do not think you can point to anything specifically that entropy prevents.

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

Mighty big assertion there. Why not?

Just how much of a decrease in entropy do you think is needed to grow a human brain? More than needed to grow the oak tree in my front yard? Come on Bob, quantify these things for us. If this is such a huge problem, then how do living things even mange to grow?