Was the world created millions and millions of years ago, part 2?

[Marcia]

Yes but a song? Like how you get your children to remember something? It seems to me more literary than to be taken literaly.

It's not a song. Being literary does not in any way exclude being taken literally! .

This repetition makes it easier to memorize, which they were supposed to do.

It's amazing to me that people cannot accept God saying that He created everything in 6 days. It is so clear, so simple, a child would understand it.

We should not read the Bible through man's philosophies but vice-versa.

 

[Jarthur001]

This article shows your misconseption with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:

You again believe and trust what you wish, as do all evolutionist. You believe the simple words of biased misinformed evolutionist over the truth.

Lets break this down.

You posted..

Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness.

Yes it is always. You must read the 1st law to understand this. The 2nd law only limits the change, but the 1st law tells what this applys too.
dU = ∂Q - ∂W

Check out NASA page....

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1.html

Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

This is what can be seen in a lab any day you wish to check. This is what can be seen in life each day you care to look. Creators make things like, cars, houses, roads, and airplanes.

Case number 1...
If we were to look at the lot of a site where we are to build a house and before the building begins we have no supplies, we have no tools and the site is closed to all, we have a closed system. If we place one nail on that lot to use, we have opened the system. Where did that nail come from? It came from a Greater system outside of itself. Matter does not come from nothing. (1st law)

So in order to get to origins, (which is what we are talking about) we must expand our system to include that which is feeding the smaller system. So now the system is not the one lot, but the town where the supplies come from. As long as we keep everything within that town, we have a closed system.

Now the house in case one is up and done. No one moves into the house for 50 years. The lot is once again closed to all others. No one is allowed to walk in and do anything to the house, nor the lot. It just sets there. In 50 years we go back to the lot and what do we find? A brand new house, just as it was when it was built or a house that has degraded? Did it take care of itself? Did the roof look like a new roof or one that needs replaced? I think you know the answers to what is asked.

Cars, houses, roads, and airplanes.....all of those things always degrade. That is unless you have an open system feeding it. If you open the system, you must than include the source into a greater system to study origins.


You posted...

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system.

No system is fully closed, because it is all opened to God. That is the point. Who made the matter that was placed in the pool that lead to the "big Bang"? You see if the system was closed to all things, the evolutionist have a major problem with physics. If it is open to its cause, we have a supplier and creator, which I would say this is God.

Now I use the Big Bang only to show the logic is poor. I of course see many more holes than this on the big bang idea.

The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.

Again if were are to include the sun, we have now a greater system other than say just the earth. No matter how far out you wish to expand your system, you must include what you expand into a much greater system. If you have elements feeded a smaller system, you have not addressed the greater system.

This is why we close our doors and windows when we heat our homes. Our home is to small to heat the whole town. It must be closed to have it work. If we open the system, and heat or cold air feeds our smaller system, this shows us the larger system is greater then our home.

If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still?

This fails to take into account all that was feeding the tomato and its greater system. We have not only the sun, but water, and fertilizer and the ground itself feeding the tomato. If you remove these elements what do you have? You have death, not life. You have degrade. But to open these elements to our smaller system (tomato) to let them feed the tomato system, only means we have expanded our system greater than the tomato. We now have a system that includes rains, and the sun.

Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order

.
There is much more to it than just these simple words.

However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature;

Not really.

Sand dunes, tornadoes, lightning, bring disorder within a larger system. Please show me the path of a tornado and tell me that is order. Please show me the place where lightning has hit to form order. Do you see sand as more complex because the wind has blown on it and made one side higher than another? That is rather silly way to see complex matter.

In each of these cases we had a higher power control the elements being changed.

River beds? You must be joking. Are you saying river beds do not come from water degrading the earth?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am going to be as candid with you as I can inasmuch as I view your statements and positions. First, I agree that your (mis)understanding of Gen. 1 doesn't negate anything God has done for you. It doesn't mean you're not a Christian. It doesn't mean you don't love Jesus. It doesn't mean you aren't sincere in your devotion to understanding God's Word.

I do believe it means you are misguided and/or decieved.

It isn't that you disagree with the literal interpretation of scripture. It is that you are embracing a God-denying, bible undermining lie (evolution) in the process.

If you had said, "Hey guys, I think Gen. 1 is simply poetry. God is giving us His truth, but He doesn't necessarily want us to take it literally.", then we can have a conversation about genre and proper hermeneutics.

But that is not the road you took. You dismiss the Gen. 1 account based on your understanding of unproven scientific theories.

You have clearly subordinated the truth of scripture to your understanding of the scientific theories of men who have demonstrated distain for all the things of God, His Word, His Law, and His Grace found only in Jesus Christ.

As for as people insulting you....I believe you have dished out the insults as good as you got.

As I said before you compared me to a Mormon, I'm bailing out of this thread. Everyone is talking past each other anyway.

peace to youraying:

This is not entirely true. I have said I don't know how God created the universe and I also said I believe he created it just as he said giving and example of how I view that in post 208 which is just what you describe right above in your post. It is not the evolution view of creation. So you've misrepresented what I've said. You can only conclude (which is accurate) from what I said that I have not thrown evolution as a possibility but neither do I believe it has to be that. I have given as good as I got. I'll admit that because insults were first thown at me. However, I did not call you a mormon I said arguing with you is like arguing with a mormon. A mormon we can both agree believes in something so fictitious that any evidence to the contrary blows their argument out of the water. So they must ignore all evidence to the contrary to their view. Now I am not saying you are a mormon. Nor do I really mean your view is fictitous what I do mean is that there is validity to science and the discovery of how the world opperates to include aspects of Evolution. And the fact that you just ignore some of those things or dismiss them reminds me of how Mormons argue. So you can let that go. I have argued how I think from a writing aspect how Genesis may not mean what you think literally. So your statement above is not accurate to anything that I've stated. Its part truths.

 

[canadyjd]

Canadyjd: // 1. The moths you claimed supported evolution had NO MUTATION OF THEIR GENES. Will you admit that? //

This statement is largely meaningless. The point was NOT if or if not a mutation of the genes existed but that the genes are different. The moths were born with different genes (one meaning of 'mutation') the moths did not have their genes changed after they were concieved (another meaning of 'mutation').

That is simply untrue. The moths were not born with "different genes". The moths were born with genes that had always been apart of the DNA code God created them with.

TS argued that the genes had mutated based on the frequency of the color of the moths. That is an untrue statement.

Canadyjd: // 2. Gene mutations, (defective genes...i.e cancer, albinism, etc.), are always harmful to the species. The genes are not functioning the way God created them. //

This statement is largely useless. Gene mutations can be useful, and it is the few times that it is useful that make the difference. 999,999,999,999 in a trillion gene mutations are harmful to the INDIVIDUAL that has them. It is that trillionth that might be useful.

Pure speculation based on completely unsupported theories.

BTW, There are events recorded in the rocks where 80% to 98% of all species (kinds?) on earth at the time died out. Such events are totally unexplained by all Young Earth theories.

Pure speculation based on completely unsupported theories.

peace to youraying:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes it is always. You must read the 1st law to understand this. The 2nd law only limits the change, but the 1st law tells what this applys too.
dU = ∂Q - ∂W

You disregard the first aspect of the 1st law of thermodynamics

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed,
but only transferred from one system to another
and transformed from one form to another."

In other words provide enough energy you (an incomprehensible amount) can get matter. Change in Molecular structure when combining heat with work in a closed system you may be correct but obviously with an open system you have more variables. Your model relies heavily on a closed system or that is in equilibrium.

Which is where your case scenario is:

Case number 1...
If we were to look at the lot of a site where we are to build a house and before the building begins we have no supplies, we have no tools and the site is closed to all, we have a closed system. If we place one nail on that lot to use, we have opened the system. Where did that nail come from? It came from a Greater system outside of itself. Matter does not come from nothing. (1st law)

So in order to get to origins, (which is what we are talking about) we must expand our system to include that which is feeding the smaller system. So now the system is not the one lot, but the town where the supplies come from. As long as we keep everything within that town, we have a closed system.

Now the house in case one is up and done. No one moves into the house for 50 years. The lot is once again closed to all others. No one is allowed to walk in and do anything to the house, nor the lot. It just sets there. In 50 years we go back to the lot and what do we find? A brand new house, just as it was when it was built or a house that has degraded? Did it take care of itself? Did the roof look like a new roof or one that needs replaced? I think you know the answers to what is asked.

Cars, houses, roads, and airplanes.....all of those things always degrade. That is unless you have an open system feeding it. If you open the system, you must than include the source into a greater system to study origins

The problem of course is that the universe is operating is a rather large place no one area is entirely a closed state or in equilibrium with in it. There are always factors changing things.

No system is fully closed, because it is all opened to God. That is the point. Who made the matter that was placed in the pool that lead to the "big Bang"? You see if the system was closed to all things, the evolutionist have a major problem with physics. If it is open to its cause, we have a supplier and creator, which I would say this is God

I don’t disagree that God is the originator of all things nor do I believe that he’s not currently involved. You’re not arguing with an atheist.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Two things the World Order cannot overcome: THE BLOOD OF JESUS & THE TESTIMONY OF THE SAINTS.

Rev 12:9-11 Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
And the great dragon, that olde serpent, called the deuil and Satan, was cast out, which deceiueth all the world: he was euen cast into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Rev 12:10 Then I heard a loude voyce in heauen, saying, Now is saluation, and strength, and the kingdome of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast downe, which accused them before our God day and night.
Rev 12:11 But they ouercame him by that blood of that Lambe, and by that worde of their testimonie, and they loued not their liues vnto the death.

In verse 11 'him' is Satan, etc. from verse 9
In verse 11 'they' is the brethren (saints of God, those 'in Christ') from verse 10.

 

[Revmitchell]

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.
Rev 12:11 And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.



Just making it readable.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Rev 12:9 And the grett dragon that olde serpent called the devyll and Sathanas was cast out. Which desceaveth all the worlde. And he was cast into the erth and his angelles were cast out also.
Rev 12:10 And I harde a lowde voyce sayinge: in heve is nowe made salvacio and strengthe and ye kyngdome of oure God and the power of his Christ For he is cast doune which accused them before god daye and nyght.
Rev 12: 11 And they overcame him by the bloude of the lambe and by the worde of their testimony and they loved not their lyves vnto the deeth.


Just to muddy the waters a little.

 

[Marcia]

Someone on this thread said he was having trouble seeing the posts and asked me to start a part 3, so I will do that. We're up to a lot of pages anyway.

So I'm asking the mods to close this thread down and I'll start "Part 3, Earth Millions of Years Old?"