Can we really Believe the Creator's Word?

nicely put, Bob.

 

And, since, the evidence shows a billion year history of life on earth and a many billion year age of the earth and the universe, then the evidence causes many of us who look to the Bible for our spiritual guidance to interpret the first chapter of Genesis in a non-literal fashion.

 

"Evidence"???

That there has actually been(rolling eyes) *billions* of years???

Whew. What did PT Barnum say?

"Theres one born every minute?"

Mike

 

Heres something interesting...
--------------------------------------------------

THE FOSSIL RECORD

Creationism predicts that, since all kinds of life were created in much the present form, and at about the same time, we may find fossil evidence of extinctions, but there were never any "half-this-half-that" transitional creatures. The fossil record shows that this is true.

In fact, no verifiable transitional fossils have ever been found above the "Family" level, although there is good evidence that a number of new species have appeared. Almost all fossils can be identified and classified in the same way as those creatures living today. Most knowledgeable evolutionists now admit that this disproves Darwinism -- gradual change through survival of the fittest.

Gould and Eldredge proposed the "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory, that says that evolution occurred in sudden jumps, with long periods of stasis, or changelessness, between the quick spurts of evolutionary change. They have no evidence for this except for the millions of missing transitional fossils.

But a better explanation of all those "missing links" is that "In the beginning, God created ..."

THE FIRST TWO LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS

A) Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed -- only changed from one form to another.

B) Any such change causes an increase of entropy, that is, a decrease in complexity.

Notice that the second law prohibits any sort of gradual evolutionary improvement in living things -- that would be an increase in complexity. These two fundamental laws of science are defined only for closed systems, but no one has ever been able to imagine any other system for which these laws are not true over a long time span, unless there is outside intelligent energy input. Raw energy input (sunlight etc.) is not enough.

But evolutionists can't allow a theory requiring outside intelligence, for that would be supernatural intervention -- a Creator.

The second law of thermodynamics is a hindrance to evolution because the chemical processes involved in the origin of life from non-life are thermodynamically reversible, favoring non-life. The same problem applies to the problem of producing favorable mutations.

NOTE: The Fossil Record shows that evolution has never occurred, so far as any evidence shows. The Laws of Thermodynamics show that, theoretically, it could never have occurred.
--------------------------------------------------
Link...www.rae.org/bits04.htm

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Didn't the 2nd law of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems?
Earth being an open system (a steady stream of sunlight coming in from outside), that would mean that the 2nd law doesn't apply in this case.

...not that I truly care one way or the other, debates about evolution usually make my eyes glace over.

 

You are right, mioque. The official second law applies to closed systems. But thermodynamics is a limited field and we can see that a more general law of a net increase in entropy (disorganization) applies everywhere.

One point about the earth being an open system, which it is: the simple input of energy would increase the rate of entropy if there were not receivers designed to be able to receive and process it. Think photosynthesis.

 

mioque,

The author mentioned that...

God bless,

Mike

 

Then why do we not find all of the different kinds mixed together in such a way that indicates that they were formed in their present state and living together at the same time. We find only a very narrow slice of all known life and any given time in the fossil record. By what you are saying, creatures that in an old earth scenario lived a different times and should not be found together, should instead be actually found together in the fossil record. An ape and a dinosaur for example. The fossil record does not support recently created kinds.

I beg to disagree.

We have many examples of transitional forms. Look for example at the wonderful fossils coming out of China in recent years showing the bird transition from theropod dinosaurs. We have had Archaeopteryx for many years. Lately we have started filling in the others. We have Sinosauropteryx which is a small dinosaur covered in a very primitive, downy set of feathers. You then move on up to Caudipteryx and Sinornithosaurus which were theropods with more advanced feather. In this case they were relatively long feathers covering much of the body. But they were symetrical and therefore not suited for flight. Microraptor is a small theropod dinosaur. It was covered with asymettrical feathers, suitable for flight, on both its front arms and its rear legs. It does not seem possible of powered flight but the structure indicates an ability to glide well. Archaeopteryx is your half and half creature. It is a creature suited for powered flight and can very much be considered to be a bird. Yet at the same time it has dozens of traits that are well outside the range for any modern bird but are well within the range of theropod dinosaurs.

Please take a look at this. http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html? There you will find a long list detailing the transition to mammals from reptiles.

There are a number of fossils detailing the transition from lobe finned fish to amphibians including Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. The whale series is nice including Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and Dorudon.

I think a quote from Gould deals well with this and your previous statement. "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." From Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes.

PE explains why the transitions are lacking at the species level, though there are examples if you need them. Contrary to what you implied, PE explains why it is generally at the higher taxa where we DO have transitional examples.

Your premise is wrong so all that follows is wrong.

The type of disorganization that scientists mean when speaking of entropy is at the molecular level. Not what lay people think of when they think of disorder, though the comparison is sometimes made in order to help understand the concept. Entropy is simply a measurement of the amount of disorder at teh molecular level. Think of ice in a crystal versus water molecules bouncing around a liquid. Or think of a hot gas being more disorganized than a cool gas because the molecules are bouncing around more quickly. This has nothing to do with the general concept of order. It is a very specific property, like temperature or mass, of a system.

Not true. If you think it is, give us which step in evolution you think violates the second law and show the violation with math.

They are true with or without "intelligence." I may be intelligent (OK, some would disagree) but I cannot violate the second law. Can you?

False assertion. Prove it. Show your math!

Nope and nope.

Bob, you have been shown many times that you are the only one making that prediction. You have been shown why the statement is wrong. You have even been shown places where all the layers are found together in one spot. Give it up.

And this has to do with...?

 

I can't help but think that God is in His heaven laughing and laughing at this conversation.

The reason being that He did create the earth in 6 days, but for people who don't believe that He can LET them be deceived!!

God can do ANYTHING, even make the earth look to some as if it is billions of years old, if that's what they want to believe!!

Working for Jesus,

Tam;

 

Bob

You are right to not to take seriously any such silly arguments as you mention above. But if it is all an appearance of age, tell us why it is so carefully arranged to show a very old earth. Look at this:

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html

About halfway down is a chart plotting the age of the Hawaiian Islands volcanoes against their distance from the hot spot as measured by the Kilauea volcanoe. Notice the linear relationship showing the slow travel of the hot spot (or the surface over it) over the last 65 million years. The actual data points and references are at the bottom. I suppose that it was necessary to make the Hawaiian islands "look" old right down to the differing dates and degree of erosion (many of the western volcanoes have been eroded right back into the sea).

I suppose it was necessary for some reason to give us billions of years of history played out in the stars above us that never actually happened.

I suppose it was necessary to make the Atlantic seafloor "look" like it has been spreading for tens of millions of years, right down to a similar distance versus age relationship as seen with Hawaii.

I guess it was necessary to put DNA in our bodies and fossils in the ground that make it appear as if we evolved from apes when you say we really did not.

I guess all those varves and ice layers really are not from regular deposits.

It all just "looks" old.

 

I guess Jesus' body only looked like it was really dead.

I guess the Red Sea only looked like it was held back and the ground only felt like it was dry for the Isrealites to cross.

I guess the 10 lepers only looked like they were healed of leprosy after they came to Christ.

I guess Mary only thought she was a virgin when she became pregnant with the one called the Son of God.

I guess Daniel didn't smell like a piece of meat to the hungry lions.

I guess the walls of Jericho only looked like they fell down after the Israelite army followed all instructions and then went in and destroyed it.

I guess sin does not exist since it came into the world through one man who never existed... nor is there any need for salvation from nonexistent sin by another man who did what scientific investigation say is impossible.

 

Alcott, you raise a good point. Insisting that modern science is invalid can, indeed, cause people to give up on our religion. Better to let them keep their understanding of the age of the universe and the common descent of all life in order not to cut them off from their need for redemption through Jesus.

 

I don't get you, bud. Is the Bible right that through one man there is redemption from sin, but wrong in saying that sin entered the world in the first place through one man?

 

Alcott, my own interpretation of Genesis One and the history of life is that one individual was chosen from the candidate species and "ensouled", placed in the special garden, named Adam, and Eve was taken from his side.

So sin indeed entered the world in the first place through one man.

 

The entire Bible stands or falls on Genesis.

If Genesis is to be taken as anything but literal, then death and the Fall mean nothing because God was powerless in it.

But if the evolutionists' theories are correct, where was God during all of it? Was He, as yet, unformed? Maybe the Jewish people hadn't made Him up yet? Matbe the Bible's God isn't really God, but a rip-off of one of the ancient pagan religions?

No. God gave His record. He said that He created everything in six days (not ages).

If God has the power to create the entire universe, surely He had the brains to make a world that would be complete, as in ecosystems fully functioning, weather patterns that worked, tides that came and went, rollling mountains, full-grown trees, adult animals and not babies, etc...

The God of the Bible has that power, and He has that knowledge. He created everthing in six days, just like He said, because He cannot lie.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Paul,

But not death? So, God would still be a liar?