Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
-
-
I think AH's main point was that Creationists like to label radiometric dating as flawed and unreliable when it shows things that are against their agenda. I wonder will they accept it this time round when it tells them what they want to hear.
Oops, there is me seeing creationists in the shadows again
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
robindch said:
I'm not sure whether you actually believe that or not. If you do, you are incredibly deluded. If you don't, you are a timewaster. Since I must assume the best of people, I'll go with the former.Why don't you read any of the articles you link to? The errors should be obvious to anybody who's got as far as the kind of thing you study as a teenager in school.
A eugenics-denialist too! My, you have got it bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yeah, no eugenics scientists then. All a big lie by creationists. A smear on Darwinists.
Got it in one
No, I don't wet my finger and put it out the window to see if it is dark.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
More like the Truth hurts when you prefer the lie.
Tried mixing oil and water yet to see if Mr McIntosh is being honest?
Not far into the more lengthy of his two Talk.Origins essays (“The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability”), Steiger attributes to “creationists” a:
wide-spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder.
...which he then attempts to dispute by means of a grossly erroneous generalization:
In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks.
The “order” found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy (i.e., reduced entropy). The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and no function. These are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of simple patterns.
Steiger fails to recognize the profound difference between these examples of low-energy molecular crystals and the high-energy growth process of living organisms (seeds sprouting into flowering plants and eggs developing into chicks). His equating these two very different phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics (as well as molecular biology) on his part, and he perpetuates this error in the balance of both his essays, as we shall see.
On the other hand, Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) has no problem recognizing the difference, having described it this way:
“‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’”
[Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]
Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference:
“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.”
[I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]
Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:
“As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings... The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however... The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.”
[C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]
Steiger’s blurring of the distinction between these two phenomena can logically be attributed only to either indefensible ignorance or a willful misrepresentation of the facts.
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp0 -
AtomicHorror responds to JC:
I see JC gave you all a good flogging with his evolutionary cat'o'nine tails. He skinned those cats personally.Will you please stop pasting massive blocks of text into this thread? It is adding nothing and is a nuisance.
But I PM'd him about the value of flogging dead horses. It seems they were taken to water, but refused to drink.
But seriously, it is the Spirit who speaks life into the dead - so we pray on that our witness will yet bear fruit:
Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10 And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.0 -
[
A eugenics-denialist too! My, you have got it bad.
Eugenics has as much to do with evolution as the crusades had to do with Christianity. Some people will use any excuse to force their issues on the world.
So, why are we talking about eugenics? Are you suggesting that a scientific theory demands some behaviour of us?0 -
I see JC gave you all a good flogging with his evolutionary cat'o'nine tails. He skinned those cats personally.
Yeah, he did great. I made a post and asked him to refute it and his response was to spam two pages of quotes from every source he could find that mentioned evolution. I reposted it and got more spam. Lots of pages cleared. When it became clear that I wasn't going to let it go, he pretended he couldn't understand what I'd written. You feel like taking a shot at it?But I PM'd him about the value of flogging dead horses. It seems they were taken to water, but refused to drink.
We drank a few times. It tasted like garbage every time. So we stopped drinking from that particular well. Does that not make sense?But seriously, it is the Spirit who speaks life into the dead - so we pray on that our witness will yet bear fruit:
Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10 And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.
Thank you. That was meaningless.0 -
-
-
-
-
It seems they were taken to water, but refused to drink.
We were brought to a dusty, dried-up river bed. Then we were informed that there was actually plenty of water there, even though none could be seen. We were even told that learned river experts continue to disagree on whether or not there is water flowing over the dusty, empty, dried-up river bed and that the fact that there was debate proved that there was water. (Even though the river experts who said that there was water, refused to actually look for any).
We tried to drink, looked high and low for H2O, but we couldn't get any to wet our parched lips. Not even a drop.
Where is the SCIENCE, wolfsbane?? :pac:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
So only a scientist can recognise science? Only a theologian can recognise theology? Only an author can recognise literature?
As I suspected, Elitism rules!
Total crap. We've told you loads of times that the ability to recognise good science is easily acquired. We've suggested that you could easily acquire it. So don't roll out the elitist thing please, science is right there for everyone to dissect. But every time we suggest you try that, you reply that you're not interested. You just like to point at stuff that looks like science and say "See? A debate!".0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement