The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

monosharp wrote: »

You B]JC[/Bstill haven't given a single example or a single link to any evidence for creation whatsoever.

Are you going to ?

Let me give you something to go on. (I assume you will agree that evidence for a young earth would strongly support the creation model):
Evidence for a Young World
by Russell Humphreyshttp://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world

Polystrate fossils: evidence for a young earth
http://creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth

wolfsbane

Malty_T said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
In a scientific sense, any evidence that contradicts a theory surely has meaning. It may not invalidate the theory, but it shows it is open to debate.
Hmm, couple of of issues with astronomy today, should it be open to..

A Debate from astrology???

If astrology presented evidence that seemed to contradict modern astronomy and support astrology, then Yes. We must face the evidence no matter where it comes from. If only those who support the consensus may be heard, then we would have missed many great discoveries.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Oh good the 'Ben Stein' argument.

First JC. Make up your mind, are we debating the origin of life or the theory of evolution ? Anyone with any scientific knowledge knows they are not the same thing.

The theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life anymore then it explains gravity or thermodynamics. Why ? Because it doesn't try to.

Evolution explains the diversity of life, how life changes over time.
Abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.

So please, make up your mind. I will debate you on either issue.

....there is no evidence or logical support for either Abiogenesis or Spontaneous Evolution because they BOTH rely on the spontaneous production of new functional information ... and this is impossible for materialistic processes in the absence of applied intelligence!!!!

monosharp wrote: »

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming JC, its everywhere around us, its in us. The Earth is not 6000 years old and that evidence is also everywhere for everyone to see.

You are incapable of accepting it because of your faith.

...touché

....so where is this evidence for Spontaneous Evolution ???

monosharp wrote: »

Are you attacking the formation of the first organic compounds on Earth or the formation of the first primitive cells ?

... BOTH!!!

monosharp wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Please explain your problems with the Miller Urey experiment

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp

monosharp wrote: »

Thats because scientists make hypothesis about the origins of life. I and anyone else will tell you we don't know how life started but there are many hypothesis.

...So Evolutionists haven't a clue about how life started ... or how it could possibly spontaneously develop ... but Creation Scientists DO!!!!

monosharp wrote: »

Dawkins said evidence for evolution and you said evidence for abiogenesis.

They are not the same thing.

...Prof Dawkins has no evidence for evolution ... and you have admitted there is no evidence for Abiogenesis ... so there is no evidence for either idea!!!!

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Because you are incapable of accepting it like I already showed in my last post. Fundamentalists cannot accept anything which goes against their beliefs.

..touché!!!

monosharp wrote: »

Creationists have trouble with big numbers.

Please see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html for an example.

...this shows that it is the Evolutionists who are 'mathematically challenged'!!!:eek::D:)

monosharp wrote: »

Big numbers.



Of course there is no non-functioning stage except in the imagination of people like Michael Behe alongside talking snakes of course.



This is of course the intermediate forms as you would define them, which is far away from reality. Might I suggest a simple google for fossils ? Or maybe a beginners biology book ?

Again this is a problem of big numbers. Every single organism alive is an intermediate between something and something else.

Are you identical to your parents ? Of course not.



Irreducible complexity which has been disproven and shown for the poor excuse for science that it was.



How nice. Again, that is not the same thing as evolution.

Scientists don't know how life started but there are many hypothesis.

Please check out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

For a possible explanation of how the first organic compounds formed.

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

for a simple overview of the current ideas floating around in the scientific community.

Warning: 'God did it', isn't one of them.



What are you trying to disprove here ? Jesus' resurrection ? :pac:



Of course you have. Fossilization is a very rare occurrence and has left us with billions of gaps.



Perfection ? Your talking as a scientist now are you ?



Show me this evidence.



Noahs Ark eh ? :rolleyes:

Show me this evidence.



Evidence ?



Evidence ?



Of course you haven't. The big number problem again. It takes millions of years JC. A million years is a very long time, I will try explain it to you.

Christianity is about 2000 years old. So if we have 500 times as long as Christianity existed, thats a million years.

Thats 1,000,000. People live for about 90 years. You see the difference there do you ?



Ironically because of their religion.



Ok so lets decide on what happened and then fit the evidence around that shall we ? Do we all have to be Christians or can I propose the theory of aboriginal dream time creation ? I think you'll find theres far more evidence to support it then the Genesis account.



Thats your limitation, not ours. Leave your fundamentalist beliefs aside and then you can join the rest of us in reality.

....all of the above amounts to little more than 'trust me I'm a (mathematically and logically challenged) Evolutionist'!!!:eek::D:)

Turtwig

Right, apologies in advance if this sounds harsh (it's been a long day)
This thread seems to be going nowhere, just attacking other viewpoints and not rigorously discussing anything..dodging questions and unclear definitions seems to be order of the day.

JC, Wolfsbane, it seems pretty simple to me, ye want creationism to be classed as a science. I have no problem with this if it can prove itself as a form of science. So the requirement is simple.

Show us that it is science.

Show us some technical papers ( I understand none can be published peer reviewed, but show us the non published ones)
Discuss these papers. Explain the theory and why the paper is relevant. Outline your views on the data and the definitions presented. Discuss the possible sources of errors and try to quantify them. Outline where you think future studies could go, where you think they should go next, or whether you think they've reached a dead end.

Until that time, I'm out of this thread.

Regards,
Malt

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I see what you are getting at - but you ignore the fact that the vast increase in complexity between non-life and today's biosphere requires entropy on earth to be opposite from that we see in operation in nature today.

No it doesn't, it requires a high energy source, which we have in the form of the sun.

The solar system is moving from a point of hot useful energy to a point of cool used up energy. All chemical reactions facilitate this change, including the chemical reactions that make up life.

The solar system will eventually, when it has run out of energy, end up in a cold state, the chemical reactions will cease and things will slow move into high disorder and low entropy.

But we are billions of years away from that point.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But there was no intelligence in your universe until long after it formed into galaxies, planets, plants and animals. There was no-one to arrange the pages, or even to put the information on the pages.

That is utterly irrelevant to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law doesn't states nothing about intelligence.

wolfsbane wrote: »

True - If a car is just a collection of iron atoms, then you are right - my car is becoming more complex by the minute. But if it is a complex structure that has thousands of inter-related functions, then rusting is an act of entropy, not a reversal of it.

Rust is an act of entropy, because it uses energy. But in doing so it can increase complexity, but that isn't a probably because it is only Creationists who seem to think that is what entropy is all about.

Life is a complex set of chemical reactions, it uses a huge amount of energy, and as such is also an act of entropy.

Life takes hot useful energy from the sun and by using it for the chemical reaction converts it into useless cold energy. Life is not only not in conflict with entropy but is in fact a very good example of the process.

wolfsbane wrote: »

And it falls under the rule of entropy in heading to death and disintegration.

Death has nothing to do with entropy, the chemical reactions continue so long as there is energy from the source (the sun). From the point of view of entropy the universe sees no difference between your atoms being in your bodies chemical reaction and them being used as fertiliser for poppies.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I repeat: Life is not a mere collection of atoms, each of which may breakdown/combine with others into a more stable structure. It is a vast complexity of information that could not have amounted if the 2 Law applied. The 2nd Law applies, so Life did not evolve.

There is nothing that is correct with that statement :rolleyes:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a statement about heat and energy. It is not a ideology, nor is it a statement about information. Saying you think life is special has nothing to do with the 2nd law.

Wolfsbane you apparently have no idea what you are talking about, nor do you seem particularly interested in listening. I'm wondering what is the point

wolfsbane wrote: »

They are not lying, nor are many evolutionists. They both are advancing plausible explanations for all the evidence they face.

They are lying about what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says. And you are apparently falling for it hook line and sinker.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationists have a strong model, but it is not strong enough to shut out all scientific debate.

Well then it should be no problem for you to give a ton of examples of things their "strong" models have successfully predicted.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

So here is a creationist who has made successful predictions:
Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/329/

That wasn't a successful prediction because what Humphrey's leaves out was that a) his guess was so large that it basically said the field would be between Earth's and Saturns, which is a pretty safe bet and he didn't actually get the result right, he just got far closer than traditional scientific models and b) far more importantly Humphrey fails to mention that his model failed to predict anything else about Uranus. His model got everything else wrong about Uranus.

It would be like saying I predict the next person who walks into the room would be a tall red haired girl wearing a green dress and claiming to have made a successful prediction if a short blonde haired girl wearing jeans and a t-shirt walked in. :rolleyes:

He is perfectly correct that the scientists got it wrong as well, though strangely they didn't continue to pretend that they did get it correct. They, realising they were wrong, changed their model. Humphrey's continued to claim a "successful" prediction.

Thanks though, a good case of the difference between proper science and Creationist dishonesty.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Right, apologies in advance if this sounds harsh (it's been a long day)
This thread seems to be going nowhere, just attacking other viewpoints and not rigorously discussing anything..dodging questions and unclear definitions seems to be order of the day.

JC, Wolfsbane, it seems pretty simple to me, ye want creationism to be classed as a science. I have no problem with this if it can prove itself as a form of science. So the requirement is simple.

Show us that it is science.

Show us some technical papers ( I understand none can be published peer reviewed, but show us the non published ones)
Discuss these papers. Explain the theory and why the paper is relevant. Outline your views on the data and the definitions presented. Discuss the possible sources of errors and try to quantify them. Outline where you think future studies could go, where you think they should go next, or whether you think they've reached a dead end.

Until that time, I'm out of this thread.

Regards,
Malt

....yes we are going around in circles ... we show you devastating evidence against Spontaneous Evolution and in favour of Direct Creation .... and the Evolutionists curl-up into an intellectual 'ball' and start claiming that Creation Science isn't science ... while still being unable to produce even one crumb of evidence in favour of Spontaneous Evolution...
...and when all else fails, they fall back on the defence that Evolution cannot be seen in action because it takes millions of years to produce any noticable effects ....
....I'd say the Evolutionist Emperor is 'buck naked' on this one alright ... and I suppose the only thing you can do if you are an Evolutionist, is to abandon the thread if you want to 'keep the faith' in Evolution!!!!!

:eek::eek:WARNING : THIS THREAD IS BAD FOR YOUR EVOLUTIONIST FAITH:eek::eek:

monosharp

J C wrote: »

....there is no evidence or logical support for either Abiogenesis or Spontaneous Evolution because they BOTH rely on the spontaneous production of new functional information ... and this is impossible for materialistic processes in the absence of applied intelligence!!!!

Oh look, your answer to everything is your opinion. What great evidence :rolleyes:

....so where is this evidence for Spontaneous Evolution ???

Well first you have to define what you mean by spontaneous evolution because 99% of the rest of the scientific world doesn't use such terminology.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp

Your using someone elses opinion as evidence ? :rolleyes::pac:

...So Evolutionists haven't a clue about how life started ... or how it could possibly spontaneously develop ... but Creation Scientists DO!!!!

Scientists have a great many theories about the origins of life but none have enough evidence behind them to be considered accepted. At this point in time we don't know how life started.

Creation Scientists are religious fundamentalists with little idea how science works. They 'think' they know something based on their varying religious creation myths, not based on science.

As you still haven't even proposed a single piece of evidence to support your particular myth.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

....yes we are going around in circles ... we show you devastating evidence against Spontaneous Evolution and in favour of Direct Creation .... and the Evolutionists curl-up into an intellectual 'ball' and start claiming that Creation Science isn't science ... while still being unable to produce even one crumb of evidence in favour of Spontaneous Evolution...
...and when all else fails, they fall back on the defence that Evolution cannot be seen in action because it takes millions of years to produce any noticable effects ....
....I'd say the Evolutionist Emperor is 'buck naked' on this one alright ... and I suppose the only thing you can do if you are an Evolutionist, is to abandon the thread if you want to 'keep the faith' in Evolution!!!!!

:eek::eek:WARNING : THIS THREAD IS BAD FOR YOUR EVOLUTIONIST FAITH:eek::eek:

I take it you have nothing to discuss then?

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Oh look, your answer to everything is your opinion. What great evidence :rolleyes:



Well first you have to define what you mean by spontaneous evolution because 99% of the rest of the scientific world doesn't use such terminology.



Your using someone elses opinion as evidence ? :rolleyes::pac:



Scientists have a great many theories about the origins of life but none have enough evidence behind them to be considered accepted. At this point in time we don't know how life started.

Creation Scientists are religious fundamentalists with little idea how science works. They 'think' they know something based on their varying religious creation myths, not based on science.

As you still haven't even proposed a single piece of evidence to support your particular myth.

....monosharp then sticks finger in both ears and runs around in ever decreasing circles of denial!!!!

....while furiously talking about all of the evidence that supposedly exists for Spontaneous Evolution .... but failing to produce any!!!!

....finally falls flat on his face and starts kicking his legs in the air ... and beating the ground with his fists while repeating the mantra that Creation Science isn't science and Creation Scientists aren't scientists!!!!!

...pull yourself together Man!!!!:eek::D:)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

I take it you have nothing to discuss then?

...yes, it's all over for Evolution, including the shouting!!!:D:):eek:

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...yes, it's all over for Evolution, including the shouting!!!:D:):eek:

JC,

This makes no sense whatsoever, you're last two posts have hardly been constructive. You're on the side of the minority, it's in your interest to convince us by understanding our position and communicating to us, not just idly making statements about stuff. You WANT creation classed as science, then show us the science, so we can discuss it the way science should be treated.

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me give you something to go on. (I assume you will agree that evidence for a young earth would strongly support the creation model):

Why would evidence for a young earth support the creation model ? Evidence for a young earth would be evidence for a young earth.

Evidence for a Young World
by Russell Humphreyshttp://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world

Wolfsbane do you really consider that evidence ? Honestly ?

This is exactly why creationism is not science. YECs attack everything that doesn't agree with their beliefs and they only accept science which doesn't disagree with their beliefs.

That is not science in any form. Its fundamentalist lunacy.

What you have just linked is complete nonsense. There is no scientific explanation for their belief's its not even scientific sounding, its complete utter rubbish.

Please read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_millennium_BC#20.2C000.E2.80.9315.2C000_BCE

The Earth has existed for a lot longer then 10,000 years and this is absolutely irrefutable. Anyone denying this belongs in the same group as flat earthers, its beyond ignorant. Its self delusion on an epic scale.

I'm not saying the Earth is exactly 4.x billion years old. The exact age of the age is absolutely refutable, but to suggest its only 6 or 10,000 when we have physical proof everywhere around us that its far far older is absolutely pathetic.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

....while furiously talking about all of the evidence that supposedly exists for Spontaneous Evolution .... but failing to produce any!!!!

You still haven't defined what you 'think' it is. How can I give you evidence for something when I don't know what your talking about exactly because you seem to lump every piece of scientific evidence from evolution to astronomy into 'evolution'.

Either define what 'Spontaneous Evolution' is or use some real world terminology.

What do you want to debate ? Abiogenesis ? Evolution ? Geology ?

Choose a topic. Explain your evidence against the claims it makes and then I will answer you.

e.g > The evidence for organic compounds forming from inorganic material is incorrect because ....

Is that too mature for you ? Or would you like to go back to simply constantly repeating your nonsensical opinion and holding it up as 'evidence'. :pac:

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

JC,

This makes no sense whatsoever, you're last two posts have hardly been constructive. You're on the side of the minority, it's in your interest to convince us by understanding our position and communicating to us, not just idly making statements about stuff. You WANT creation classed as science, then show us the science, so we can discuss it the way science should be treated.

..We don't want Creation Science to be classed as science ... because it already is science, complete with a range of eminently qualified conventional practitioners and a peer review system!!!!

...and as it can be impossible to convince somebody of something to which they have closed their minds - we're not particularly preturbed at the obstinate refusal of some evolutionists to recognise the dire scientific predicament in which Spontaneous Evolution finds itself!!!:D:eek:

J C

monosharp wrote: »

You still haven't defined what you 'think' it is. How can I give you evidence for something when I don't know what your talking about exactly because you seem to lump every piece of scientific evidence from evolution to astronomy into 'evolution'.

Either define what 'Spontaneous Evolution' is or use some real world terminology.

What do you want to debate ? Abiogenesis ? Evolution ? Geology ?

Choose a topic. Explain your evidence against the claims it makes and then I will answer you.

e.g > The evidence for organic compounds forming from inorganic material is incorrect because ....

Is that too mature for you ? Or would you like to go back to simply constantly repeating your nonsensical opinion and holding it up as 'evidence'. :pac:

.....you are the guys who now have to convince your own people that there is any evidence for Spontaneous Evolution!!!

Prof Dawkins has admitted that he hasn't done this in the past ... and he doesn't seem to have done it with his new book either!!!

My own assessment, is that he didn't do so because there is no evidence for Spontaneous Evolution!!!

...so 'show me the money' monosharp???!!!:eek::D

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

See my last to Wickie. Intelligent input does not contradict entropy.

Why?

wolfsbane wrote: »

But evolution requires a constant increase in complexity over billions of years, without intelligent input.

Do you know what crystallisation is? The arranging of trillions upon trillions of atoms and molecules into stiff, ordered crystal latices. This is an event, completely unhindered by intelligent input, that occurs over billions of years and results in massive ordered crystals in complex arrangements:

(from here)
How do you explain this contradiction of entropy occuring?
Its very simple. It boils down to what you keep forgetting about entropy and that is the issue of closed systems. The crystals are not in a closed system, they can exchange energy with other systems and so while their entropy is decreasing, another open systems entropy is increasing at the same or greater rate, thus keeping to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Likewise for evolution. The cells undergoing evolution arent in closed systems, they get and give energy from many different places, which themselves also get and give energy to many other places, ultimately it all boils down to the fact that we have a sun pumping out incredible amounts of energy while increasing its own entropy, which allows the things on earth to use that energy to decrease their entropy by changing into lower energy configuration.
Basically entropy is not just measured on a cellular level, or on the animal level or even the planetary level. Its measured on the solar or even galactical level, and on the solar level, evolution doesn't contradict entropy.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

.....you are the guys who now have to convince your own people that there is any evidence for Spontaneous Evolution!!!

Are you incapable of answering questions ?

Please define what you mean by spontaneous evolution.

Prof Dawkins has admitted that he hasn't done this in the past ... and he doesn't seem to have done it with his new book either!!!

Argument from ignorance.

My own assessment, is that he didn't do so because there is no evidence for Spontaneous Evolution!!!

Please define what you mean by spontaneous evolution.

...so 'show me the money' monosharp???!!!

If you ever gave me a half coherent question then I might just do that.

Are you purposely ignoring mine and others requests for any evidence or even for a simple definition of what you 'think' is a evolutionary idea in case we will answer you ? :pac:

Copied and pasted from my last post since you obviously ignored it.

Either define what 'Spontaneous Evolution' is or use some real world terminology.

What do you want to debate ? Abiogenesis ? Evolution ? Geology ?

Choose a topic. Explain your evidence against the claims it makes and then I will answer you.

e.g > The evidence for organic compounds forming from inorganic material is incorrect because ....

Is that too mature for you ? Or would you like to go back to simply constantly repeating your nonsensical opinion and holding it up as 'evidence'.

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

..We don't want Creation Science to be classed as science ... because it already is science

Single example plz.

bus77

Riddle me this, riddle me that. Two party's before a Judge, each with evidence of lineage. What issue be before the Judge?

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why?


Do you know what crystallisation is? The arranging of trillions upon trillions of atoms and molecules into stiff, ordered crystal latices. This is an event, completely unhindered by intelligent input, that occurs over billions of years and results in massive ordered crystals in complex arrangements:

(from here)
How do you explain this contradiction of entropy occuring?
Its very simple. It boils down to what you keep forgetting about entropy and that is the issue of closed systems. The crystals are not in a closed system, they can exchange energy with other systems and so while their entropy is decreasing, another open systems entropy is increasing at the same or greater rate, thus keeping to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Likewise for evolution. The cells undergoing evolution arent in closed systems, they get and give energy from many different places, which themselves also get and give energy to many other places, ultimately it all boils down to the fact that we have a sun pumping out incredible amounts of energy while increasing its own entropy, which allows the things on earth to use that energy to decrease their entropy by changing into lower energy configuration.
Basically entropy is not just measured on a cellular level, or on the animal level or even the planetary level. Its measured on the solar or even galactical level, and on the solar level, evolution doesn't contradict entropy.

...why am I wasting my time????!!!

...anyway, the difference between a quartz crystal and a living organism should be OBVIOUS to anybody even including the most 'logically chellenged' Evolutionists, like yourself, Mark. Quartz Crystals are inanimate structures while living organisms are animate creatures ... but ultimately the difference technically is specificity!!!

...a quartz crystal is complex and it's formation is the DIRECT product of the basic laws of Physics and Chemistry.

...a living creature exhibits complex specificity and is therefore the ultimate product of INTELLIGENCE!!!:D:):eek:

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Are you incapable of answering questions ?

Please define what you mean by spontaneous evolution.

...I have answered EVERY question EVER put to me on this thread, comprehensively and conclusively!!!!
....spontaneous evolution is materialistic evolution ... and it is a load of codswallop!!!!:D:eek:

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.....you are the guys who now have to convince your own people that there is any evidence for Spontaneous Evolution!!!

Prof Dawkins has admitted that he hasn't done this in the past ... and he doesn't seem to have done it with his new book either!!!

My own assessment, is that he didn't do so because there is no evidence for Spontaneous Evolution!!!

monosharp
Argument from ignorance.

...how does a statement of FACT by me become an 'argument from ignorance' for you ... or has plain English as well as logic ceased to have any meaning for you?


...so can ANYBODY give even one shred of evidence for, even the theoretical existence of Spontaneous Evolution???

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...anyway, the difference between a quartz crystal and a living organism should be OBVIOUS to anybody even including the most 'logically chellenged' Evolutionists, like yourself, Mark. Quartz Crystals are inanimate structures while living organisms are animate creatures

Which has nothing to do with entropy

Both are ordered structures, which take their order through the laws of chemistry by using energy, energy that is converted from useful "hot" energy into useless "cold" energy, thus fulfilling the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Energy that comes from the sun, thus turning the suns energy from a hot state to a cold state.

If Creationists weren't lying about what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says then it would be impossible for a crystal to form. It is possible for a crystal to form without breaking the universe, ergo Creationists are lying to you guys about what the 2nd law states.

J C wrote: »

...a quartz crystal is complex and it's formation is the DIRECT product of the basic laws of Physics and Chemistry.

...a living creature exhibits complex specificity and is therefore the ultimate product of INTELLIGENCE!!!:D:):eek:

Again nothing to do with entropy.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...I have answered EVERY question EVER put to me on this thread, comprehensively and conclusively!!!!

LMAO, since I joined this thread you have never answered any question that involved more then a 'yes' or a 'no' answer and even then most of the time you refuse to answer.

....spontaneous evolution is materialistic evolution ... and it is a load of codswallop!!!!:D:eek:

Please define materialistic evolution or use real world terms.

If we are to discuss something then you have to tell me what we are discussing first and not use your own made up language.

robindch

J C wrote: »

...why am I wasting my time????!!!

Do tell us!

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Which has nothing to do with entropy

Both are ordered structures, which take their order through the laws of chemistry by using energy, energy that is converted from useful "hot" energy into useless "cold" energy, thus fulfilling the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Energy that comes from the sun, thus turning the suns energy from a hot state to a cold state.

If Creationists weren't lying about what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says then it would be impossible for a crystal to form. It is possible for a crystal to form without breaking the universe, ergo Creationists are lying to you guys about what the 2nd law states.

Again nothing to do with entropy.

...I never said that it had anything to do with entropy... I said that the diference between inanimate crystals and living organisms is related to the TYPE of information found in their structures ... Complex Specified Information in the case of living organisms (which is an infallible 'fingerprint' of intelligent action) ... and Complex Information in the case of crystals (which are produced by the DIRECT application of the Laws of Physics and Chemistry)!!!!

The Laws of Thermodynamics basically state that all energy is ultimately 'running down' in the Universe. Some transcendent 'power' therefore must have 'powered up' the Universe ... and that 'Transcendent Power' was God...and that is why entropy is an important issue for the Creation Physicist!!!:cool::eek::D

...and NO ... a 'Big Bang' from NOTHING doesn't 'cut the mustard' on this one!!!!:eek::D

..all the 'Big Bang' proves is the incredible lengths to which Materialists will go to deny God!!!:eek::)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

I said that the diference between inanimate crystals and living organisms is related to the TYPE of information found in their structures

Which, aside from being nonsense, is also irrelevant to the point Mark was making or the discussion he was having with Jakkass about entropy.

Please keep up :rolleyes:

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...I never said that it had anything to do with entropy

That seems odd, given that we're talking about entropy.

Are you trying to change the subject again?

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...I never said that it had anything to do with entropy... I said that the diference between inanimate crystals and living organisms is related to the TYPE of information found in their structures ... Complex Specified Information in the case of living organisms (which is an infallible 'fingerprint' of intelligent action) ... and Complex Information in the case of crystals (which are produced by the DIRECT application of the Laws of Physics and Chemistry)!!!!

The Laws of Thermodynamics basically state that all energy is ultimately 'running down' in the Universe. Some transcendent 'power' therefore must have 'powered up' the Universe ... and that 'Transcendent Power' was God...and that is why entropy is an important issue for the Creation Physicist!!!:cool::eek::D

...and NO ... a 'Big Bang' from NOTHING doesn't 'cut the mustard' on this one!!!!:eek::D

..all the 'Big Bang' proves is the incredible lengths to which Materialists will go to deny God!!!:eek::)

You have been corrected on this before. I'm tempted to report this kind of behaviour.