Science or The Bible?

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Sounddoctrine04:
The argument against the theory of evolution can go on indefinitely when it is fought on the ground of this fact vs. that supposed fact.

The theory of evolution is a RELIGIOUS, not scientific (because in the end analysis, it has to be believed by faith), attempt to deny the existance of God, and therefore any accountability to such a God.

.....

Let me clue you in as to the difference between science and religion.

Religion deals with supernatural agents such as God and Angels, immortal souls, things we cannot verify scientifically. Religion deals in values, saying for instance that God wants us to be good, and describes what good means.

Science deals with what can be learned based on reasonable interpretation of physical evidence. It never determines values; it only observes things as they are according to the physical evidence. It takes note of how bacteria can evolve resistance to antibiotics without reference to whether that is good or bad.

Evolution is a theory that makes sense as a way of understanding the evidence. Therefore it is a scientific theory.

Evolution says nothing about values. Just because you have no descendents does not make you less valuable in the eyes of science, but it does have implications for the unique genes that make you up.

(I wonder why this is so hard for some people to understand?)

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Evolution is a theory that makes sense as a way of understanding the evidence. Therefore it is a scientific theory.

Macro evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory since there has been no verification. At best it is a hypothesis.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Macro evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory since there has been no verification. At best it is a hypothesis."

What means would you propose to verify the theory, if it might be true? Something that would actually be possible according to the theory if possible.

There simply is no competing theory that can explain the diversity of observations from the Creation.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Macro evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory since there has been no verification. At best it is a hypothesis."

What means would you propose to verify the theory, if it might be true? Something that would actually be possible according to the theory if possible.

There simply is no competing theory that can explain the diversity of observations from the Creation.

It can't be verified, therefore, it is incorrect to call it a theory.

Your last statement is false. Creation itself explains the diversity of observations!

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Does anybody here think this thread has been hijacked?
I think what our dear friend was trying to point out was that over time when there are differences between what science teaches and what the Bible teaches is that science eventually catches up with the Bible and proves Gods'Word true.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by The Bible Answer Kid:
Science once stated that the earth was a flat disk. What does the Bible say? It states the following: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and the people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22) What does science now say about the earth? It now says that the earth is not a flat disk but...hmmm...ROUND...

The same word is translated "circuit" in Job 22:14.

But in Isaiah 40:22 almost all authorities are agreed that it means circle, most likely in reference to the horizon, which indeed appears circular.

I don't believe "sphere" is the idea Isaiah was trying to convey. God was pretty good at saying precisely what He meant.

So, you can still say that the Bible said the earth is round without having to suppose a weakness in the text itself.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
We engineers used to call the above "semantic engineering". Politicians and talking heads call it "spin, spin, spin."

By the way I don't need to show a connection between information and thermodynamics, Tribus and Asimov have already done it.

Tribus: It is certain that the conceptual connection between information and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is now firmly established. Myron Tribus and Edward C. McIrvine. Energy and Information, Scientific American, vol 224 [September 1971], page 52; as quoted in The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 134, Volume 2.

Asimov: Isaac Asimov, an evolutionist, confirms that all these different ways of looking at the Second Law are really equivalent to each other:

That is one way [that is, decreasing availability of energy] of stating what is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is one of many ways; all of them are equivalent although some very sophisticated mathematics and physics are involved in showing the equivalence. Asimov, In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics, page 8; as quoted in The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 135, Volume 2.

It is your task to prove they are wrong since you cannot deny that evolution requires an increasingly complex transfer of information and we see that in Informational Thermodynamics entropy is defined As a measure of the increasingly confused information in the transmission of the coded message through a system.

Regardless of whether one accepts the indentity between commnunications entropy and thermodynamics entropy . . . it doesn't matter.

Because the theory of evolution never at any point requires any kind of opposition to the second law of thermodynamics.

Why not, you ask, since increased order appears down the line of inheritance?

Because, I reply, the living organisms along the way have contrived to take the increased entropy and move it away from themselves to the environment. Entropy has certainly been increased by all living things, but they all take the extra entropy and move it out to the environment, and this is how they manage to stay alive.

Nothing will ever stop the 2nd law of thermodynamics from being in force except some supernatural intervention (and I'm looking forward to that when I get resurrected) and there is no such thing as an intelligent design exception to the law . . . its just that evolution never violates the law because extra entropy is, as predicted, created along the way, but it is simply moved away from the living organism.

 

[OldRegular]

I repeat once again, evolution is not a science, it is an atheistic philosophy, even a religion for some.

Also the increasing order claimed for evolution is a violation of the 2nd law. Even the honest evolutionists will admit this fact.

 

[UTEOTW]

"It can't be verified, therefore, it is incorrect to call it a theory."

Avoiding the question. What observations should we expect to see if evolution were true? Please keep it to observations that actual evolution would predict and not a caricature.

"Your last statement is false. Creation itself explains the diversity of observations!"

Only with arbitray and capricious answers.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3019/4.html#000047
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3019/3.html#000042

 

[Plain Old Bill]

UTEOTW,
Just what is it you believe about creation/evolution? I'm not trying to be mean spirited.I've seen your entries elsewhere so I believe you are a believer,you just confuse me sometimes.So I am sure you confuse others as well.I think if we knew what you really believed we would have a better idea of how to understand you and what you say.I am hoping you believe there was an original sin.

 

[Charles Meadows]

I repeat once again, evolution is not a science, it is an atheistic philosophy, even a religion for some.

Evolution is neither a religion nor a school of philosophy. It is a group of theories.

Also the increasing order claimed for evolution is a violation of the 2nd law. Even the honest evolutionists will admit this fact.

These are the type of statements which cost creationists credibility. Evolution on earth (if it occurred) would not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
I repeat once again, evolution is not a science, it is an atheistic philosophy, even a religion for some.

Evolution is neither a religion nor a school of philosophy. It is a group of theories.

Also the increasing order claimed for evolution is a violation of the 2nd law. Even the honest evolutionists will admit this fact.

These are the type of statements which cost creationists credibility. Evolution on earth (if it occurred) would not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

You are wrong on both counts.

Evolution is an atheistic philosophy.

Creation is a theistic philosophy.

And never the twain shall meet!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

We turn now from our ordinary programing to listen in on the private counsels of the spiritual enemies of all mankind. Be quiet, we don't want to be overheard.

Satan: So tell me, Beelzebub, how goes our plan to divide mankind by making them choose between evolution or spirituality?

Beelzebub: It's going OK so far, your lowness, but there are some who keep repeating that they are not really in conflict.

Satan: Thanks to our earnest efforts, the spirit of the age is against them. All that is necessary is to inflame some of our most trusted partisans into ever more loudly calling out the other side. This will keep each side blind to the truths the other possesses.

Beelzebub: It shall be done, your lowness. But there are some who keep saying that G- excuse me I mean to say spiritual matters and evolution are not enemies. Any particular orders?

Satan: At this time, lets just keep trying to shout them down. Hopefully, the day will come when more stringent persecutions can be used . . . how's the extremist political candidate program going?

Beelzebub: progress has been made.

Satan: Good. Keep up the bad work.

 

[yeshua4me2]

earth is a closed system, what about sunlight, it adds energy to the system. well when has adding raw energy to a closed system ever decreased entrophy? the only way this happens is IF there is a mechanism to convert the energy to a useable form (i.e. photosynthesis). But in order for this to work there would have to be life BEFORE the closed system would open (the earth). and if there is life the has to be systems already in place to support that life. this clearly points to special creation, i may not be right but this makes sense to me.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Yeshua4Me,

No - you're a bit off. But that's OK.

Why do we have to be able to explain things all the time anway?

I have no problem at all with the young earth theories. My arguments are with those who are willing to put forth obviously wrong explanations (like the second law thing) as long as they are ANTI-evolution.

 

[TexasSky]

Charles,

Excuse me, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics DOES apply as the UNIVERSE is a closed system.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Sky,

This one is a non-issue.

The second law, if applied to the universe would mean that all the evolution we would ever want could occur on earth by chance, but the entropy of the universe as a WHOLE would increase.

The second law does not touch on evolution, yeah or nay.

 

[TexasSky]

Charles,

I disagree.

Big Bang claims that a pure catalystic reaction of unknown gases resulted in an explosion that set the entire Universe into motion, and that in that explosion it created perfect order (by chance) out of total disorder (an uncontrolled explosion.)

Yet, thermodynamics teaches that order deteriorates to disorder unless an outside force is applied.

Since evolution is about the universe, and the creation of the earth is about evolution, you cannot say, "Oh, well, big bang only applies to the Universe, not to the earth."

 

[OldRegular]

Thermodymanicist Arnold Sommerfeld author of Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics [Academic Press, 1955] writes [page 155]: The statement in integral form, namely that entropy in an isolated system cannot decrease, can be replaced by its corollary in differential form, which asserts that the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of whether the process under consideration is irreversible or not.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Charles,

Excuse me, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics DOES apply as the UNIVERSE is a closed system.

TexasSky, the universe is expanding. You know what happens to expanding things? They get a lower temperature. The universe as a whole has expanded so much that its current temperature is about 2-3 degrees above absolute zero. It started much higher.

To translate into terms about entropy: The entropy of the entire universe does, indeed, increase over time. But the amount of space to spread the entropy around in is increasing faster than the entropy, thanks to the expansion of the universe. Therefore, a given cubic mile of universe today contains much less entropy (on average, not counting special places like stellar interiors) than a cubic mile of space would have contained 7 or 8 billion years ago. But, nevertheless, the total entropy for the whole universe has, indeed increased.