Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Bavarian Raven]

so basically the good book starts off saying its ok to merry your sis?

[Neoteny]

so basically the good book starts off saying its ok to merry your sis?

God checks that later though. And then he was all like, "Uh... yeah... I meant to do that."

[suggs]

Tears of joy. I love this thread. For pure intellectual rigour and an unswerving commitment to objective analysis, it shines like a theological beacon over this barren land of heathens.
Amen.
Or other cult phrase.

[AlgyTaylor]

To be fair, assuming that there were only 2 humans on earth and they were created by a god then they'd need to inbreed for a number of generations anyway.

Which makes the whole omniscience of God (never changes his mind) a bit odd. Because he'd need to change his mind from "inbreeding's OK" to "inbreeding's bad". Although perhaps he decreed that inbreeding was OK for so long and then it had to stop, that'd be possible.

Although it doesn't explain how he could be both omniscient AND omnipotent.

[suggs]

"Its not that i dont believe in Him, its more that i hate him".- Kingsley Amis.

[heavycola]

To be fair, assuming that there were only 2 humans on earth and they were created by a god then they'd need to inbreed for a number of generations anyway.

Which makes the whole omniscience of God (never changes his mind) a bit odd. Because he'd need to change his mind from "inbreeding's OK" to "inbreeding's bad". Although perhaps he decreed that inbreeding was OK for so long and then it had to stop, that'd be possible.

Adam and Eve had perfect DNA so it was OK for their kids to play hide the salami with each other. It's only because original sin has caused a constant degradation of human DNA that means it is 'immoral' for me to sleep with my sister. Who is hot, by the way.

Although none of this is mentioned in the bible, it can be proven because Abraham was 900 years old.

[AlgyTaylor]

To be fair, assuming that there were only 2 humans on earth and they were created by a god then they'd need to inbreed for a number of generations anyway.

Which makes the whole omniscience of God (never changes his mind) a bit odd. Because he'd need to change his mind from "inbreeding's OK" to "inbreeding's bad". Although perhaps he decreed that inbreeding was OK for so long and then it had to stop, that'd be possible.

Adam and Eve had perfect DNA so it was OK for their kids to play hide the salami with each other. It's only because original sin has caused a constant degradation of human DNA that means it is 'immoral' for me to sleep with my sister. Who is hot, by the way.

Although none of this is mentioned in the bible, it can be proven because Abraham was 900 years old.

Ah, I see. That'd explain why biblical characters lived 10x longer than we do. People in the middle ages probably lived longer than us too, it's just that they didn't record history as accurately as we do - or as accurate as god did back in the old bible days, of course.

[suggs]

AS long as we all agree that everything in the Bible is true.
After all, how could something written down HUNDREDS of years after the event be false.
"Dear God, Please Help Me."

[Napoleon Ier]

I gave up arguing with literalists a long time ago. So should you.

[suggs]

Every word is true!

[heavycola]

I gave up arguing with literalists a long time ago. So should you.

Nappy got pwned by the creationists!


Allright! :high-fives himself:

[suggs]

Yes, they pwned all of us, because God is on their side and He is Righteous and Just (and He's cool at Scrabble).

[Bavarian Raven]

Although none of this is mentioned in the bible, it can be proven because Abraham was 900 years old.

which is a physical impossibility, the human body CANNOT survive that long because cells can only replicate so many times...

[Neoteny]

Although none of this is mentioned in the bible, it can be proven because Abraham was 900 years old.

which is a physical impossibility, the human body CANNOT survive that long because cells can only replicate so many times...

Maybe they had supreme telomerase activity that has been degraded since then. The sad thing is, they think they don't need to cite any evidence, because it has all "degenerated away."

[Snorri1234]

To be fair, assuming that there were only 2 humans on earth and they were created by a god then they'd need to inbreed for a number of generations anyway.

Which makes the whole omniscience of God (never changes his mind) a bit odd. Because he'd need to change his mind from "inbreeding's OK" to "inbreeding's bad". Although perhaps he decreed that inbreeding was OK for so long and then it had to stop, that'd be possible.

Adam and Eve had perfect DNA so it was OK for their kids to play hide the salami with each other. It's only because original sin has caused a constant degradation of human DNA that means it is 'immoral' for me to sleep with my sister. Who is hot, by the way.

Although none of this is mentioned in the bible, it can be proven because Abraham was 900 years old.

Don't forget that for some people, we actually all came from Noah and his family. But then again Noah lived to be 950 years or something.

[Snorri1234]

Although none of this is mentioned in the bible, it can be proven because Abraham was 900 years old.

which is a physical impossibility, the human body CANNOT survive that long because cells can only replicate so many times...

Haven't you seen Heroes?

[Neoteny]

To be fair, assuming that there were only 2 humans on earth and they were created by a god then they'd need to inbreed for a number of generations anyway.

Which makes the whole omniscience of God (never changes his mind) a bit odd. Because he'd need to change his mind from "inbreeding's OK" to "inbreeding's bad". Although perhaps he decreed that inbreeding was OK for so long and then it had to stop, that'd be possible.

Adam and Eve had perfect DNA so it was OK for their kids to play hide the salami with each other. It's only because original sin has caused a constant degradation of human DNA that means it is 'immoral' for me to sleep with my sister. Who is hot, by the way.

Although none of this is mentioned in the bible, it can be proven because Abraham was 900 years old.

Don't forget that for some people, we actually all came from Noah and his family. But then again Noah lived to be 950 years or something.

Apparently the accumulation of lethal recessives hadn't occurred by that time. See! Science is fun!

[comic boy]

I gave up arguing with literalists a long time ago. So should you.

You shouldn't have,its one argument that you cannot lose

[unriggable]

My biggest, biggest problem with Creationism as a form of science is that it relies on proving a predetermined conclusion rather than what conventional science is supposed to do: observe and then conclude. That's the reason nobody takes Answers In Genesis seriously.

[MeDeFe]

That's also one of the reasons why it's not considered to be science.

[unriggable]

That's also one of the reasons why it's not considered to be science.

They never listen...

[Bavarian Raven]

of course they aren't going to listen...

[WidowMakers]

Well it has been a while.
I apologize for not responding sooner. With Christmas and New Years my break over that period was mainly used for relaxation and family time. And as of lately I have had some other CC duties to tend to. Now that these things are behind me I hope to try and get back to this thread and the others related, plus get back to my map making as well.

So again I am sorry for all the time that passed since I last posted. You might have thought I gave up or something but I am still here and am looking forward to discussing this further. J

Now I will first respond to Neoteny's post (from a while back. Again sorry for the long wait.).

Well Neoteny. I broke up your post into parts that way people could better follow my response. Neoteny wrote: 1)….Anyhow, I have already discussed thermodynamics sufficiently and your probability hypothesis is too painful for me to want to explain, though I suppose I could if anyone actually wants me to. I must have missed it but I do not remember seeing you write anything on thermodynamics or probability. But in brief I still don't understand the argument. Could you please explain how the issues below are NOT in violation of the laws of thermodynamics?. Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law.

The big bang does not necessarily postulate self-formation, and I wouldn’t call the increasing organization processes loosely-defined, but I suppose that’s a matter of taste. The second law you are referring to is that entropy in a system increases. As was said earlier, the earth is not a closed system. It would be naïve to suggest that the accumulated complexity established here on earth is comparable to the massive amounts of entropy from the sun and other stars. Our complexity is effectively countered by entropy elsewhere in the system, and there is no evidence that the entropy of the universe as a whole is decreasing.

So basically you are saying, while the sun loses energy, the earth increases in available energy? Well I would have to agree with you there. But I was not talking about the earth and the sun. I was talking about the universe as a system and how evolution requires random chance occurrences to produce more complex ordered systems. With out directed work on a system, the system will not increase in complexity over and over and over. Directed work can be intelligence deciding how to move, and interact or directed work can be in the form of instruction telling things how to behave.

We cannot just look at one single point in time and space to test whether or not evolution violates the physical laws of the universe, we need to look over all time (the supposed Big Bang…billions of years…now) and see how each evolutionary step stands up to the test.

Below is a list of the naturalistic evolutionary steps (everything came from nothing by random chance) that would have needed to take place in the universe. Again we are looking at the universe as a whole, not a little part.

1)Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.

2)Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.

3)Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.

4)Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.

5)Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter.

6)Micro-Evolution. The development of variations within the same kind of life.

7)Macro-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.

Just by looking at these steps you can see how each step hinges on the previous ones validity and accuracy. For if any step along the way was proven false, all steps after it regardless of how plausible or believable they may seem, would also be false. Lets look at each step.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1)Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.

To put in simply, cosmic evolution starts with the Big Bang. And simply put, there was nothing and then there was something. Before the big Bang there was not time/space as we know it. No universe. Nothing. Except a singularity, (A point of infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past). Where did this come from? I have heard some people say that with quantum physics, some particle can be “seen” to jump in and out of out our universe. But even if that is true, our universe as we see it now has space (physical dimensions) that the pre Big Bang state would not have had. How can we know for sure that this singularity could have actually existed before our space/time did?

And what about the laws of nature? Where did gravity come from? What about the laws of Thermodynamics? Why do atoms bond the way they do? Why is the speed of light what it is? Did these laws and principles exist before the Big Bang? And if they did why were they there when nothing was around to obey them? Plus matter and energy were created. That is a direct violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

But lets assume that it did happen and the big bang occurred. An infinitely dense point in space explodes sending out particles in every direction. Then you get to the next step…..

============================================
2)Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.
After the Big Bang the particles fly out in frictionless space at crazy speeds. Once these particles blew outward after an explosion in outer space, there would be no way to slow it. This is a key point. An explosion of matter would cause an outward spray of gas and energy. It would continue to move outward in space forever. Space is frictionless. There would be no way to slow the gas, nothing to stop it.

Currently that seems to be OK. No violation of the 2nd law here. Entropy is increasing as the universe becomes more disordered (expanding outward with no particular purpose or direction).

But wait.

Stellar evolution requires the super fast, straight moving gas to slow down and clump together to for clouds of gas and eventually stars. On earth, gas never clumps into a solid. Out in space, where everything is a near-vacuum, it would be totally impossible—impossible in the extreme——for this to occur. Throughout the voids of space between the stars is to be found various gases, the primary one of which is hydrogen. These gaseous compounds never move away from an area of vacuum into an area of congestion or density. Never, never, never. It just does not happen.

The hydrogen gas observed by astronomers through telescopes is gradually expanding. None of it is packing together. There are no exceptions! Slow expansion of gaseous matter in outer space is normal, and in accordance with physical laws. Gas floating in the vacuum of outer space cannot form itself into stars. Once a star is formed, it can hold itself together by gravity, but there is no way that gas in outer space can get the operation started. (All gas clouds in outer space are more rarified than that found in the most rarified vacuum-bottle pressures that man is able to produce on earth.)

Yes, once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star—or a planet, or anything else. It will remain just loose, floating gas.

So how do these stars form? For these particles to join, slow down, and clump together a decrease in entropy is required. Work must be applied to the system to increase the order of it. What and how is this work provided? How do these outward moving particles slow down, clump together and become more ordered randomly with no outside influence? They can’t. Again it is against the second law of thermodynamics.

So…….

1 - There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.
2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.
3 - The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin circling one another.
4 - There is no way to slow the particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed, and every kilometer would separate them farther from one other.
5 - There is no way to change the direction of even one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum [turning motion] would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.

But again lets assume that it happened and giant clouds of gas in the universe moving away from the center of the Big Bang, clumped together to make stars. Where did all of the elements we have now come from?

==========================================
3)Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.

Now that the stars have been formed the process of chemical element evolution can begin. Basically this is a process in which Hydrogen and Helium (the two elements from after the Big Bang) form to make larger elements from within stars.

Mass Gap stops heavy element formation within stars
The nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen or helium to change itself into any of the heavier elements. This is an extremely important point, and is called the “helium mass 4 gap“ (that is, there is a gap immediately after helium 4). Therefore exploding stars could not produce the heavier elements. (Some scientists speculate that a little might be produced, but even that would not be enough to supply all the heavier elements now in our universe.) Among nuclides that can actually be formed, gaps exists at mass 5 and 8. Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass 5. This first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only element that hydrogen can normally change into is helium. Even if it spanned this gap, it would be stopped again at mass 8. Hydrogen bomb explosions produce deuterum (hydrogen 2), which, in turn, forms helium 4. In theory, the hydrogen bomb chain reaction of nuclear changes could continue changing into ever heavier elements until it reached uranium;—but the process is stopped at the gap at mass 5. If it were not for that gap, our sun would be radiating uranium toward us!


Theoretically heavy elements can be produced
Only at extremely high temperatures, of order 100 million K, can this bottleneck be circumvented by a highly improbable reaction. At those temperatures, the fusion of two He-4 nuclei forms highly unstable Beryllium-8 at a fast enough rate that there is always a very small equilibrium concentration of Be-8 at any one instant.
The situation is somewhat like running water through a sieve. Normally the sieve holds no water because it drains out as fast as it is added. However, if the flow of water into the sieve is made fast enough, a small equilibrium amount of water will be in the sieve at any instant because even the sieve cannot empty the water fast enough to keep up with the incoming water.
This small concentration of Be-8 can begin to undergo reactions with other He-4 nuclei to produce an excited state of the mass-12 isotope of Carbon. This excited state is unstable, but a few of these excited Carbon nuclei emit a gamma-ray quickly enough to become stable before they disintegrate. This extremely improbable sequence is called the triple-alpha process because the net effect is to combine 3 alpha particles (that is, 3 He-4 nuclei) to form a C-12 nucleus.

BUT
We now know of 81 stable elements, 90 natural elements, and 105 total elements. It requires a sizable number of books to explain all that we have learned about their unusual properties and intricate orbits. Where did all those elements originate? It is theorized that explosions of large stars (super-novas) produced them. But, although it is thought that a small amount of heavier elements are made by high-thermal explosions within stars, yet (1) there is great uncertainty whether, aside from hydrogen and helium, such explosions could produce many light elements, much less those of the post-helium ("heavy") elements, and (2) there is no evidence that such explosions could produce enough of the heavier elements to provide for all the post-helium elements in the universe, much less in our own planets. The Big Bang theory simply does not account for the abundance and variety of heavier elements.

However for the sake of argument let's assume that these High temperature super nova explosions could produce the amount of heavy elements needed for the universe. How does all of this relate to ……..

==========================================
4)Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.

So now we have all of these different stars with all of these different elements, where do the planets come from. Well for Planetary evolution to work, they need to come from the stars. Basically all of the material to produce a planet would need to be expelled from a star. SO how does this happen?

1) NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS—For many years the nebular hypothesis was a leading theory. According to it, the sun and its planets supposedly condensed out of swirling eddies of cold, dark, interstellar clouds of gas and dust.

Issues:
A) Before any condensation of gas and dust could occur, the nebula would have diffused into outer space
B) What stopped the entire process? If it were not stopped, the entire mass of material would form one large body—without any planets and moons.
C) Since the sun has 99.5 percent of the mass in the solar system, and all the planets and moons only have 0.5 percent of it, what would have kept these small bodies from falling into the main body?
D) There is much interstellar material in the vicinity of our sun, but it is not condensing.
E) Our sun has an extremely small rotational motion—that is, it is turning slowly. This "angular momentum" is far too small to have evolved from a gas cloud. If our sun came from a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to have been a billion times as much as it is now, in order for our planets to be flung out and orbit it as fast as they do. How could it have lost all of its rotational motion?

2) FISSION THEORY—The "fission theory" says that our sun burst one day, and all our planets came from it. Then the moons shot out from each planet, stopped, turned sideways and began circling the planets they came out of. Our moon is said to have emerged from an explosion in the Pacific Ocean.

Issues:
A) Immense outward explosions would hurl material straight out into space; they would not circle and then form carefully balanced orbits.
B) If thrown off by the earth, the moon should circle our world over the equator, but, instead of this, it orbits our planet at a tilt of 18-28 to the earth's equator.

3) CAPTURE THEORY—The "capture theory" says that our planets and moons were wandering around in space and the planets were captured by the gravity of our sun, and the moons were captured by the planets.

Issues:
A) The mathematical probabilities are extremely low. Given the great distances between objects in space, the likelihood that objects would pass so close to one another is very little. Millions would have to pass near the sun or planets in order for one to pass closely enough.
B) We see no planets flying by us today! If it was occurring earlier, it should be happening with great regularity now. We have enough telescopes in place that we could easily observe such giant rocks whizzing through our solar system. They would be brilliant as they shot by, and many could easily be seen with the unaided eye
c) If they did pass near enough, gravity would crash into planets and suns, or they would merely fly past us; they would not pause and begin orbiting within our solar system.

With all of these theories, there are plenty of ways to show how the planetary evolution ignores the laws of nature. These things are just assumed to have accidentally happened and are justified by billions of years of chance. Does that really make sense?

Here are some more issues:

A)For the planets to be formed by being thrown from the sun, it would require much more angular momentum than the sun currently has to achieve this. Otherwise the planets would not have been able to break free of its gravitational pull.

Our sun is rotating rather slowly, but the planets are rotating far too fast in comparison with the sun. In addition, they are orbiting the sun far faster than the sun is itself turning. But if the planets did not orbit so fast, they would hurtle into the sun; and if the sun did not rotate slowly, it would fling its mass outward into space.

In order for the sun to originally have been part of the same mass as the planets and moons, it would have to rotate ten-million times faster. So if the sun did throw the planets out, why did it lose all of its angular momentum? Where did it go? And why have the planets not slowed down?

B) The ratio of elements in the earth is far too different from those found in the sun, and the same holds true for the other planets in comparison with the sun. How then could the earth and other planets be torn out of the sun (planetesimal theory) or come from the same gas cloud that produced the sun (nebular hypothesis)?

C) Both Uranus and Venus rotate backward, compared to all the other planets

D) Saturn has 17 major moons, yet none of them ever collide with the rings. The farthest one out is Phoebe, which revolves in a motion opposite to Saturn and its rings. How could that happen?

But let's assume that planets can form from stars and clouds of gas. We now have a planet filled with inorganic material. Now we will look at………

==========================================
5)Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter.
Here is the basic theory of how life came from nonlife.

(1) There was just the right atmosphere—and it was totally different from the one we now have.
(2) The ground, water, or ocean where life began had just the right combination of chemicals in it—which it does not now have.
(3) Using an unknown source of just the right amount of energy, amino acids then formed in sufficient quantities that—
(4) they could combine into lots of proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds).
(5) They then reformed themselves into various parts inside a main organism.
(6) They then developed a genetic code to cover thousands of different factors.
(7) At this point, they were ready to start reproducing young. —

Of course, this last point reveals that all the previous six had to occur within the lifetime of just one bacterium. Since microbes and bacteria do not live very long, this first one had to think and act fast.

I am not going to spend too much time on this. But basically we have non living matter, randomly forming itself into larger pieces that eventually forms life.

My question to everyone out there is why can’t we do this? Why can’t scientists, even in a lab with proper chemicals and test conditions, make life? If it happened randomly and we billions of years ago and we can now look at the smallest forms of life under a microscope, why can’t we make it?

Plus the organization of complexity and information does violate the physical laws. We do not see anyway today that randomly forming life takes place. Without outside influence and direction random energy inputs to any system do not increase the complexity.

==========================================
6)Micro-Evolution. The development of variations within the same kind of life.
This topic has been discussed in previous posts. Basically it is described as change within a group (species) by means of natural selection and mutation. This has been observed and there is no doubt that it happens. But evolutionists claim that given enough time and through the mechanism of microevolution we get…

==========================================
7)Macro-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.

We have also talked (and will talk more I am sure) about this subject. But again this has never been seen. People say that species are just a system constructed by humans to better catalog organisms and that evolution happens so slowly that it cannot be seen. And that since these small observable, microevolutions take place, they must eventually lead to macro evolution and different species.


Conclusion
Se regardless if you think that natural selection and mutations are the vehicle by which organisms evolve into one another, that theory is completely dependent on the other theories that are required to have happened before life even existed.

If planets did not form from stars, where did our planet come from? How did life begin? Explain all of the elements and their abundance in the universe even though there is no evolutionary mechanism to produce them in the amounts we see today?

Again if any one of these evolutionary steps is removed, the remaining steps are not possible. And as we have seen all of these steps from an overall universal perspective have an increase in order by random happenings and chance. With evolution there is no predetermined result or action. There is not outcome that was purposed. SO how does random chaos and chance, get reordered and organized into increased complexity without direction and without violating the physical laws of the universe?

WM

[WidowMakers]

Here is another response-

This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the evolutionists’ speculations concerning biological life and its origin. The story goes that—again, in violation of the second law—within the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule. Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and suitably matched molecular “community members” which formed what we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex of integrated machinery called the cell.

Not random. Natural selection.

No it is random. Anytime a random variable is put into a system and the system depends on that variable to produce an outcome, the outcome is random.

Lets look at a general example of natural selection. Let's say set of genetic code undergoes a random mutation. A new variable is now in the information system. If that genetic code is propagated through to the next generation (natural selection) the random information will be preserved. But it is still random. If it was not random then we should be able to predict the evolutionary paths of organisms before it takes place.
Can we predict the genetic paths of organisms? Can we show how an organism will look (genetically) in 20 years, 200 years, 2000 years? Why not? Again because it is random.

Mutations are random and those random variables go into the natural selection process.

It’s important to understand that when I say the mutational process is random, I mean that it is not directed. There is nothing determining where or what type of a mutation will occur. Mutations provide the new raw material on which natural selection acts (the pre-existing raw material, or original genetic code, is also used in natural selection).

We have no way of saying for sure whether or not a particular nucleotide will mutate because mutation is a random process.

Thus the outcome of the natural selection process produces a non predictable set of information and is thus random (cannot be predicted).

[Snorri1234]

Aww man, just when I'm about to go out, you pull me back in.

I'll try to read it tomorrow!