# Entropy

186 replies to this topic

### #141 Ron

Ron

• Member
• 6,530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 April 2012 - 05:57 AM

i) Given enough time, an indefinate number of mutations can become established, to the point of a great change in the organism.

The above is nothing more than a hypothetical inference that contains absolutely no empirical scientific substantiation. It can be found to be as inane as the statement “If you give a million monkeys a million typewriters, in a million years they could type out a play by Shakespeare".

The easiest reply to destroy (refute) such nonsense is to simply say “prove it”, “show me the empirical evidence”.

The term “Given enough time” can ONLY be validated inductively. Otherwise, it is nothing more than presupposed (a priori) opinion.

As an aside “indefinite” alludes to “infinitude”, which is theoretical at best. So I would desire you to provide how “indefinite number of mutations” CAN “become established” in the physical realm.

### #142 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 7,000 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
• Age: 25
• (private)
• Creationist
• Australia

Posted 09 April 2012 - 06:44 AM

The best way to describe what you are trying to say, in a scientific manner, is that everything has a tendency to converge towards a state of greater multiplicity if there are no outside sources influencing the process. However this is not always the case.

The second law is actually dU = dE - TdS where U is the free energy, E is enthalpy, T = temp and S is entropy. For water: ice won't always melt towards a liquid and a liquid won't always evaporate towards a gas (increasing entropy). In fact if you take away the sun's influence (or diminish it) earth will freeze over, decreasing the entropy of all water. However the entropy in the universe will still increase because water freezing is an exothermic reaction: it will release heat to the surroundings which will increase the entropy of the surroundings.

It is interesting to see you write that 'the emergence of life of cellular systems' would violate this tendency. You do not even know the reactions involved in this process. You are assuming things here.

BTW evolution doesn't violate this tendency or law or whatever any more than us reproducing does (ie it doesn't in any way).

Did you read what I said?

So you propose creating a cell from random chemicals is not an increase in order, (thus a decrease in entropy).

The same is said for cellular systems.

A person reproducing does so because there is information guiding the process... DNA code... Whereas with evolution you merely have nature, which as I said the natural tendency of the universe is to decay..... Hence by rights of logic, the evolution of a single cell shouldn't occur since it defies the very nature of nature itself... (such a thing would invoke a supernatural event as the null hypothesis since there is no other explanation, nature cannot break natural laws / tendencies)

### #143 Athelas

Athelas

Member

• Banned
• 138 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Brussels, Belgium
• Age: 31
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Brussels, Belgium

Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:03 AM

A person reproducing does so because there is information guiding the process... DNA code... Whereas with evolution you merely have nature, which as I said the natural tendency of the universe is to decay..... Hence by rights of logic, the evolution of a single cell shouldn't occur since it defies the very nature of nature itself... (such a thing would invoke a supernatural event as the null hypothesis since there is no other explanation, nature cannot break natural laws / tendencies)

The nature of the universe, as a system, has a tendency to increase its entropy. I would no longer use the word 'decay' as I'm no longer sure that's even valid (yes, I have been studying thermodynamic processes in the past couple of days, as well as information theory).

I'm sorry but you are abusing 'information' to make your claims sound more substantiated but they are simply not true. A human reproducing, the entire process of eating food to making the baby grow, will stay true to the law of increasing entropy. DNA code, seen from the point of entropy in the universe, doesn't care whether there is a beneficial mutation or a 'bad' mutation. This does not make one bit of difference for the universe's entropy. Thus the second law cannot disprove evolution in any way possible. So either you can reproduce and the second law doesn't disprove evolution, or reproducing cannot happen. It is really that simple.

The whole entropy argument is based on not knowing what it means. There is no way, in any field you can think of, that evolution defies a law of entropy, not in thermodynamics, not in genetics, not in information theory.

Abiogenesis is another matter but like I said, we do not know which processes are possibly involved.

### #144 Ron

Ron

• Member
• 6,530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:06 AM

Abiogenesis is another matter but like I said, we do not know which processes are possibly involved.

Just to make it clear, abiogenesis would require far more faith than the Creation model (logically, rationally and scientifically).

### #145 Teejay

Teejay

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,583 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 78
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Texas

Posted 09 April 2012 - 08:08 AM

[quote] name='Paul of Eugene OR' timestamp='1333937501' post='82980']
This question puzzles me because as I consider the theoretical operation of evolution dynamics I don't see where the entropy objection comes into play.

Here are the basic steps of evolution, according to the theory:

a) A species reproduces successfully in a given environment. (We see that happening, don't we? Must be ok so far)

b - There are limits to the environment so some potential members of the species die without leaving descendants, others don't. (We see that happening, don't we? No species keeps growing its population indefinitely, there are ALWAYS limits)[/quote]

Paul, I'm glad you defined exactly the evolution theory you believe in. On ToL, no matter which evolution theory I argued against, I was told "that's not evolution." It was like pinning a gnat to a flea.

What do you mean by "some potential"? If they die, are they not members of the species? And when they die, information in the genome can be lost. If every dog (wolves included) in the world died but two English Bulldogs (male and female) all the information in the world's dog population would be lost, nevery to be heard from again--unless God decided to write a replacement program. Information is not physical and any new information can't come from matter because matter does not have it to give nor is it capable of writing it.

[quote]c) Members of the species will vary against others of their own kind as to how well they are able to reproduce, birthing the next generation.
(Aren't some of us smarter than others, faster than others, sexier than others, etc etc?)[/quote]

When it comes to a herd of cattle or a school of fish, why can't the luckier ones survive? If the luckier ones survive, why would the luckier be bigger or faster? Recently, studies have shown that the fish in our lakes and streams are getting smaller. And they now think it is because fishermmen are not allowed to keep fish unless they are over a certain size. So all the fish with the big genes are being eaten while the smaller fish are left in the lake. In the 50's I was living in France. Charles DeGaule and I were the biggest guys in the country. I could stand in the back of the crowd and watch a parade over the heads of the crowd. I asked a French friend why all the runts in France. He told me that during the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon would put the bigger guys up front to scare the enemy. But the big guys became cannon fodder.

[quote]d) members of the species with better abilities to reproduce will be preferentially represented in the next and following generations.
(Kind of a tautology almost, but doesn't it make sense? Better reproducers will reproduce more?)[/quote]

All you're talking about here is that the biggest wolf will become leader of the pack and reproduce with the biggest wolf. God put this in place so that the pack would be healthy and fit. But the wolf was a wolf when God made it, and it is still a wolf today. It will never be anything other than a wolf. Information in the DNA can be lost, but no natural processes will ever produce any NEW information in the DNA.

[quote]e) Mutations come along
(Surely nobody thinks this is ruled out)

f) Mutations sometimes help and sometimes hinder reproductive fitness
(Helpful mutations have been demonstrated time and again, including the rare but demonstrated reversal of a harmful mutation)

g) Given the automatic, natural selection the bad mutations come to be represented less and less in the population and the good mutations come to be more and more represented in the population (down the line, in following generations, of course)

h) Once a new good mutation is established, the whole thing can happen again over and over.[/quote]

Some facts: Mutations occasionally have some survival value in that they improve the organism under certain circumstances. This is true. But it is not relevant to the argument. Fact: Mutations have never, never, never been observed to add brand-new information. Sometimes mutations will cause a section of DNA to get duplicated, but this is not a creation of new information.

[quote]i) Given enough time, an indefinate number of mutations can become established, to the point of a great change in the organism.[/quote]

But you will not get a new organism. God said that all will produce after it's own kind. And that's exactly what we see happening in the real world. If what you see in reality does not agree with your worldview, then your worldview is faulty. The only remedy is to get a new pair of creation eye-glasses.

[quote]OK that's the theory. Perhaps some might believe this theory is bogus . . . . but that's not the point of this thread. This thread is about entropy.

Where in these steps is there anything against the laws of thermodynamics? Please specify the step and why.

Added in edit . . . guess what, I accidently found a smiley quote. What do you get when you type "b" followed by ")"? You get [/quote]

Be glad to. I posted this before.

The First Law says that matter or energy can't be created or destroyed. What this actually means is that we humans can't create matter without using energy and we can't get energy without matter. We need both. There is no new energy or matter coming into existence. Why? Because God created all that exists and rested on the seventh day. What's here is here. So a simply way definition is that a rock can't create itself from nothing.

The Second Law says that the amount of energy in the universe is finite and not infinite. Industrialist during the Industrial Revolution paid scientists big bucks (or pounds and francs) to get the biggest bang for their buck and get the most energy from the least amount of burning matter. Actually what they were hoping for was a perpetual motion machine--a machine that would capture the original heat and use it again. But that darned Second Law is insurmountable. Some the energy was always lost never to be useable again. Scientist now agree that a fire will not burn forever. But it gets worse for the evolutionist. Everything is going from order to disorder. I'm about to be 77 years old, and I can attestest to this fact. I used to be able to leap tall buildings with a single bound; now I trip over curbstones.

Recall I said that if your worldview does not match what you see in reality, you need to rethink your worldview. What we see in reality is not an upward order from disorder. We see disorder from order. All "goes back to the dust of the earth" which is what God said in Genesis. Left to itself, without God's intervention, this universe will die (Times Arrow). Matter is finite. But us humans are not finite. While our physical bodies will go back to the dust of the earth, we will live eternally in the spirit. I submit that an atheist can't imagine not being. God put eternity future into our hearts.

Evolution is not possible scientifically or logically.

TeeJay

### #146 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 7,000 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
• Age: 25
• (private)
• Creationist
• Australia

Posted 09 April 2012 - 09:19 AM

Just to make it clear, abiogenesis would requite far more faith than the Creation model (logically, rationally and scientifically).

Thats kinda my point

A supernatural agent is the null hypothesis, and considering that abiogenesis defies what nature does... Then we must accept the null hypothesis.

The nature of the universe, as a system, has a tendency to increase its entropy. I would no longer use the word 'decay' as I'm no longer sure that's even valid (yes, I have been studying thermodynamic processes in the past couple of days, as well as information theory).

I'm sorry but you are abusing 'information' to make your claims sound more substantiated but they are simply not true. A human reproducing, the entire process of eating food to making the baby grow, will stay true to the law of increasing entropy. DNA code, seen from the point of entropy in the universe, doesn't care whether there is a beneficial mutation or a 'bad' mutation. This does not make one bit of difference for the universe's entropy. Thus the second law cannot disprove evolution in any way possible. So either you can reproduce and the second law doesn't disprove evolution, or reproducing cannot happen. It is really that simple.

The whole entropy argument is based on not knowing what it means. There is no way, in any field you can think of, that evolution defies a law of entropy, not in thermodynamics, not in genetics, not in information theory.

Abiogenesis is another matter but like I said, we do not know which processes are possibly involved.

Decay is a valid word since that is what happens over time. In class were were told that anything left alone over time would decay and such decay is entropy.

If you leave your car out for 100 years it will rust = decay = break down of the car body = increasing randomness (as the molecules are no longer ordered into the car body shape they are now random rust / iron particles.

How am I abusing information? I believe I made this point a long time ago that information or intelligence is required for most times when decreases of entropy are involved... For example creating the car that decayed over 100 years...

We see entropy with DNA as well... which is the sum of the mutations that occur to it. Mutations = random genetic changes = increasing randomness = entropy

Yet most, (if not all), such changes are detrimental and bring about either instant cell death, (unzipping the DNA) or a genetic disease.

Did I say it was defying the law... No I said it was defying the prerogative of the universe. IF the prerogative of the universe, that is the prerogative of nature, is to decay over time then evolution via random changes cannot occur according to that prerogative. The same is said for abiogenesis.

So in a sense you are believing in a supernatural event since to"evolve" would be outside the bounds of what nature is, (its prerogative)... Thus by definition is supernatural

..... The evolutionist's faith is realised

### #147 jason777

jason777

Moderator

• Moderator Team
• 2,670 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
• Age: 40
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:29 AM

f) Mutations sometimes help and sometimes hinder reproductive fitness
(Helpful mutations have been demonstrated time and again, including the rare but demonstrated reversal of a harmful mutation)

No truly advantageous allele has ever been observed.

"adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed. More parsimonious explanations include ‘incomplete’ sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and ‘soft’ sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time."

http://www.nature.co...ature09352.html

i) Given enough time, an indefinate number of mutations can become established, to the point of a great change in the organism.

And those changes have been calculated using Mendel's accountant and it confirms genetic entropy.

"Mendel's Accountant can simulate, with unprecedented biological accuracy, the result of this accumulation. Assuming a population size of 2,000 individuals, assuming that each mother has six children, and using the rate of 60 mutations per generation in the algorithms, the simulation shows the extinction of the human race after only 350 generations. This also assumes that natural selection would have been effective at removing the least fit from the population every generation.

If this result is anywhere close to correct—that humanity's genetic mutations would have led to extinction within 350 generations—how could that possibly fit within evolution's long ages? But if the total age of the world is about 6,000 years, as is consistent with biblical history, then mankind has been here for fewer than 300 generations. Thus, the latest and most accurate research into human genetics confirms a straightforward reading of the biblical account of origins and human history."

http://www.icr.org/a.../view/5722/369/

Enjoy.

### #148 Paul of Eugene OR

Paul of Eugene OR

Junior Member

• Banned
• 23 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 70
• no affiliation
• Theistic Evolutionist
• Eugene, Oregon

Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:56 AM

The above is nothing more than a hypothetical inference that contains absolutely no empirical scientific substantiation. It can be found to be as inane as the statement “If you give a million monkeys a million typewriters, in a million years they could type out a play by Shakespeare".

The easiest reply to destroy (refute) such nonsense is to simply say “prove it”, “show me the empirical evidence”.

The term “Given enough time” can ONLY be validated inductively. Otherwise, it is nothing more than presupposed (a priori) opinion.

As an aside “indefinite” alludes to “infinitude”, which is theoretical at best. So I would desire you to provide how “indefinite number of mutations” CAN “become established” in the physical realm.

I realize it is an article of faith to you that accumulating benefits must have a limit, but there is no natural law to that effect. What could impose such a limit? Its kind of like saying that if I give you a penny a day ever day, you will never get a million dollars, no not even in a million years.

The monkeys typing are a far different scenario from the evolution theory. Because they don't preserve what resembles Shakespeare and build on it for their next typing. There is no connection between one monkey produced page and the next. But in evolution theory, with reproductive success preserved through natural selection, there is a preservation and a building on what has worked in the past. The analogy with monkeys typing is therefore fundamentally flawed.
• Athelas likes this

### #149 Paul of Eugene OR

Paul of Eugene OR

Junior Member

• Banned
• 23 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 70
• no affiliation
• Theistic Evolutionist
• Eugene, Oregon

Posted 09 April 2012 - 11:18 AM

Paul, I'm glad you defined exactly the evolution theory you believe in. On ToL, no matter which evolution theory I argued against, I was told "that's not evolution." It was like pinning a gnat to a flea.

What do you mean by "some potential"? If they die, are they not members of the species? And when they die, information in the genome can be lost. If every dog (wolves included) in the world died but two English Bulldogs (male and female) all the information in the world's dog population would be lost, nevery to be heard from again--unless God decided to write a replacement program. Information is not physical and any new information can't come from matter because matter does not have it to give nor is it capable of writing it.

by "some potential" I thinking of limits to population. Maybe the grasslands grow enough grass for a thousand gazelles, but not enough for two thousand gazelles. So when the population grows to a thousand, there is no more potential for more to be supported by that grass, and some gazelles are going to die! But only some. Not all

When it comes to a herd of cattle or a school of fish, why can't the luckier ones survive? If the luckier ones survive, why would the luckier be bigger or faster? Recently, studies have shown that the fish in our lakes and streams are getting smaller. And they now think it is because fishermmen are not allowed to keep fish unless they are over a certain size. So all the fish with the big genes are being eaten while the smaller fish are left in the lake.

Well, that's a great example of evolution in action. There is of course some random component to such a selection process . . . surely the fishermen don't get EVERY big fish in the lake . . . but there is a driving overall hazard associated with being bigger and that's enough to affect the average size of the next and following generations.

In the 50's I was living in France. Charles DeGaule and I were the biggest guys in the country. I could stand in the back of the crowd and watch a parade over the heads of the crowd. I asked a French friend why all the runts in France. He told me that during the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon would put the bigger guys up front to scare the enemy. But the big guys became cannon fodder.

Ooo, another example! But of course, size is also affected by having better nutrition, modern times allow more consistent nutrition, so lets just note that one as an interesting but unproved idea.

All you're talking about here is that the biggest wolf will become leader of the pack and reproduce with the biggest wolf. God put this in place so that the pack would be healthy and fit. But the wolf was a wolf when God made it, and it is still a wolf today. It will never be anything other than a wolf. Information in the DNA can be lost, but no natural processes will ever produce any NEW information in the DNA.
Some facts: Mutations occasionally have some survival value in that they improve the organism under certain circumstances. This is true. But it is not relevant to the argument. Fact: Mutations have never, never, never been observed to add brand-new information. Sometimes mutations will cause a section of DNA to get duplicated, but this is not a creation of new information.

Sure they have, over and over in controlled experiments, bacteria are shown to have new genes that allow them to defeat antibiotics that they didn't even have before. Genes there that weren't there = mutation. Helping them live in environment that used to kill them = new information in their genes.

But you will not get a new organism. God said that all will produce after it's own kind. And that's exactly what we see happening in the real world. If what you see in reality does not agree with your worldview, then your worldview is faulty. The only remedy is to get a new pair of creation eye-glasses.

"kind" is to vague a word to use to deny evolution with. After all, since the first mammal, all mammals have been "mammal kind" including us . . .

The First Law says that matter or energy can't be created or destroyed. What this actually means is that we humans can't create matter without using energy and we can't get energy without matter. We need both. There is no new energy or matter coming into existence. Why? Because God created all that exists and rested on the seventh day. What's here is here. So a simply way definition is that a rock can't create itself from nothing.

No matter or energy is destroyed in the ordinary process of living, not even in evolution. Why are you even mentioning this?

The Second Law says that the amount of energy in the universe is finite and not infinite. Industrialist during the Industrial Revolution paid scientists big bucks (or pounds and francs) to get the biggest bang for their buck and get the most energy from the least amount of burning matter. Actually what they were hoping for was a perpetual motion machine--a machine that would capture the original heat and use it again. But that darned Second Law is insurmountable. Some the energy was always lost never to be useable again. Scientist now agree that a fire will not burn forever. But it gets worse for the evolutionist. Everything is going from order to disorder. I'm about to be 77 years old, and I can attestest to this fact. I used to be able to leap tall buildings with a single bound; now I trip over curbstones.

Nothing can repeal the second law . . . but your kids are doing a new variation on your genetic structures. As for the energy we use, it all comes from the sun, and of course our sun will eventually die, but aren't we hoping for an alternate set of laws to live in by the time that happens?

Recall I said that if your worldview does not match what you see in reality, you need to rethink your worldview. What we see in reality is not an upward order from disorder. We see disorder from order. All "goes back to the dust of the earth" which is what God said in Genesis. Left to itself, without God's intervention, this universe will die (Times Arrow). Matter is finite. But us humans are not finite. While our physical bodies will go back to the dust of the earth, we will live eternally in the spirit. I submit that an atheist can't imagine not being. God put eternity future into our hearts.

That's not true either; we see order being formed all the time naturally, from snowflakes to river systems to continents . . . water forms level, orderly surfaces spontaneously . . .

Your mantra needs to be adjusted to say something other than "we see disorder from order".

Have you noticed the wonderful patterns formed by hurricanes? Such a beautiful spiral! Order from disorder before you very eyes.

Find a mantra that doesn't have such obvious counter examples and we'll consider it.

Evolution is not possible scientifically or logically.

TeeJay

Well, yes, it really is. God made the laws of the universe to allow for evolution, and I suspect He did that on purpose.

### #150 Athelas

Athelas

Member

• Banned
• 138 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Brussels, Belgium
• Age: 31
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Brussels, Belgium

Posted 09 April 2012 - 03:12 PM

If you leave your car out for 100 years it will rust = decay = break down of the car body = increasing randomness (as the molecules are no longer ordered into the car body shape they are now random rust / iron particles.

Rust is the oxidation effect of iron by a gas (di-oxide). The resulting rust (iron-oxide) has lower entropy. So here your decay would actually mean that entropy decreased.

How am I abusing information? I believe I made this point a long time ago that information or intelligence is required for most times when decreases of entropy are involved... For example creating the car that decayed over 100 years...

You are abusing information because it really has nothing to do with the argument of entropy. Yes you have made that statement before, and quite frankly, it is wrong. Entropy decreases all the time, without intelligence or even informtion involved, while the overall entropy of the universe does increase.

We see entropy with DNA as well... which is the sum of the mutations that occur to it. Mutations = random genetic changes = increasing randomness = entropy

Now, you are talking about Shannon entropy, which isn't required to adhere to the law of entropy. Therefor it can't break it. Entropy btw is the sum of the average uncertainties for each base pair.

Did I say it was defying the law... No I said it was defying the prerogative of the universe. IF the prerogative of the universe, that is the prerogative of nature, is to decay over time then evolution via random changes cannot occur according to that prerogative. The same is said for abiogenesis.

The problem with that statement is that not all chemical reactions need to increase entropy themselves. It is perfectly possible that a chemical reaction decreases the entropy of its involved atoms while releasing enough heat to cause an overall increased entropy in the universe.

My point is that the "prerogative" is not able to say if evolution can occur or not. It definitely allows humans to reproduce, it allows mutations to occur. It allows entropy to decrease as long as the overall entropy will increase and it doesn't say anything about Shannon entropy. I'm sorry but the entropy argument is dead in the water.

So in a sense you are believing in a supernatural event since to"evolve" would be outside the bounds of what nature is, (its prerogative)... Thus by definition is supernatural

..... The evolutionist's faith is realised

It's nice to know nature is getting its own prerogatives now

I'm definitely not saying evolution occured. I simply stated that neither the second law nor that prerogative can really say anything about evolution.

### #151 Athelas

Athelas

Member

• Banned
• 138 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Brussels, Belgium
• Age: 31
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Brussels, Belgium

Posted 09 April 2012 - 03:20 PM

Just to make it clear, abiogenesis would require far more faith than the Creation model (logically, rationally and scientifically).

I don't believe in 'more faith' statements unless you can provide me a way to make sense of the 'more' before 'faith'. I've seen countless people fail at that attempt but I'm restating it now as you always seem to know what you are writing and for good reasons.

### #152 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 7,000 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
• Age: 25
• (private)
• Creationist
• Australia

Posted 09 April 2012 - 05:15 PM

Rust is the oxidation effect of iron by a gas (di-oxide). The resulting rust (iron-oxide) has lower entropy. So here your decay would actually mean that entropy decreased.

You are abusing information because it really has nothing to do with the argument of entropy. Yes you have made that statement before, and quite frankly, it is wrong. Entropy decreases all the time, without intelligence or even informtion involved, while the overall entropy of the universe does increase.

Now, you are talking about Shannon entropy, which isn't required to adhere to the law of entropy. Therefor it can't break it. Entropy btw is the sum of the average uncertainties for each base pair.

The problem with that statement is that not all chemical reactions need to increase entropy themselves. It is perfectly possible that a chemical reaction decreases the entropy of its involved atoms while releasing enough heat to cause an overall increased entropy in the universe.

My point is that the "prerogative" is not able to say if evolution can occur or not. It definitely allows humans to reproduce, it allows mutations to occur. It allows entropy to decrease as long as the overall entropy will increase and it doesn't say anything about Shannon entropy. I'm sorry but the entropy argument is dead in the water.

It's nice to know nature is getting its own prerogatives now

I'm definitely not saying evolution occured. I simply stated that neither the second law nor that prerogative can really say anything about evolution.

No we were told that rust is the increase of entropy, you are going from a solid metal to separate singular particles,

Care to state examples?

Again I haven't said that the Law of Entropy is broken I said that the natural state of nature is defied by evolution, please stop putting words into my mouth.

Care to state examples?

I have no idea where you are going with that and how it applies to what I have said... Humans reproducing do so via DNA code, with no DNA, (no coded blueprints), then there is no reproduction...

Ok, I'll use, natural state. The nature state of the universe is to decay, you have provided no evidence to claim any different. Hence as I said by rights of logic evolution cannot occur in a world where the natural state is to decay.

Here is a fresh look at what entropy is, (notice how iron oxidising is classed as increasing entropy.....)

"
The second law is based on human experience. It doesn’t come from complicated theory and equations. So, think of these experiences that you have had: A rock will fall if you lift it up and then let go. Hot frying pans cool down when taken off the stove. Iron rusts (oxidizes) in the air. Air in a high-pressure tire shoots out from even a small hole in its side to the lower pressure atmosphere. Ice cubes melt in a warm room.
What’s happening in each of those processes? Energy of some kind is changing from being localized ("concentrated" in the rock or the pan, etc.) to becoming more spread out. Look at those examples again to see how that statement fits them all.
OK? That’s it — a simple way of stating fundamental science behind the second law:
Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered from doing so.
But what about “entropy” and “universe” that is in so many textbooks and may be in yours? We’ll see what entropy is in a minute. But the “universe” just means “the system you’re looking at PLUS its surroundings, i.e., everything that’s close around it”. System plus surroundings. If that “system plus surroundings” bothers you, or if you want details of three of the processes mentioned above, read the next paragraphs.
If not, skip down to “What Is Entropy, REALLY?
• The rock has potential energy localized in it when you lift it up above the ground. Drop it and that PE changes to kinetic energy (energy of movement), pushing air aside as it falls (therefore spreading out the rock’s KE a bit) before it hits the ground, dispersing a tiny bit of sound energy (compressed air) and causing a little heating of the ground it hits and the rock itself. The rock is unchanged (after a minute when it disperses to the air the small amount of heat it got from hitting the ground). But the potential energy that your muscles localized in by lifting it up is now totally spread out and dispersed all over in a little air movement and a little heating of the air and ground. [System: rock above ground, then on ground. Surroundings: air plus ground.]
• The iron atoms in a hot frying pan are vibrating very rapidly (like ‘dancing in place’ fast) and therefore the motional energy in the hot pan is localized. That motional energy will spread out — if it can. Whenever the less rapidly moving molecules in the cooler air of the room hit the hot pan, the fast-vibrating iron atoms transfer some of their energy to the air molecules. The pan’s localized energy thus becomes dispersed, spread out more widely to molecules in the room air. [System: pan. Surroundings: room air.]
• Iron in nails or other objects doesn’t have to be hot (i.e., with very fast moving atoms or molecules) to have ‘localized energy’ within it in a chemical sense: Iron atoms plus oxygen molecules of the air have more energy localized within their BONDS than does iron rust (iron oxide). (That’s why iron reacts with oxygen — to release energy from their higher energy bonds and form the lower energy bonds in iron oxide, with all that difference in energy being dispersed to the surroundings as ‘heat’ i.e., the reaction is exothermic and makes molecules in the surroundings move faster . But don't forget that even substances with lots of energy in their bonds are hindered — extremely! — from immediately spreading out that energy. It takes much energy to break the bonds just before or as they react, even though far more energy may be then given out as the result of the reaction as the new bonds form.) Therefore, even in moist air that speeds up the process, iron spontaneously (but not very rapidly) reacts with oxygen and each spreads out some of its bond energy to the surroundings when the iron and oxygen form iron oxide. [System: iron and oxygen, iron oxide. Surroundings: the nearby air and any moisture or salt in the air plus any object in contact with the rusting iron.]"
http://entropysite.o...s_approach.html

From this, if we take this more simple approach if the natural state of energy is to disperse if able to, how was energy first localised to "evolve" the first cell... How was energy localised to form the first strand of DNA code. etc.

EDIT: For the record.. Iron oxisisng

Fe(s) = Fe(aq)2+ + 2e-

The iron is moving from a pure solid state to one that is not so, a Fe ion (bonded with an oxygen).

Just because you claim something doesn't make it valid....

Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.

All natural processes tend toward increasing disorder. And although energy is conserved, its availability is decreased. (As I was saying the natural state of the universe tends towards decay)

Nature proceeds from the simple to the complex, from the orderly to the disorderly, from low entropy to high entropy.

The entropy of a system is proportional to the logarithm of the probability of that particular configuration of the system occuring. The more highly ordered the configuration of a system, the less likely it is to occur naturally - hence the lower its entropy.

http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html
(extra = mine)

### #153 Teejay

Teejay

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,583 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 78
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Texas

Posted 09 April 2012 - 06:03 PM

[quote] name='Paul of Eugene OR' timestamp='1333994208' post='83007'] I realize it is an article of faith to you that accumulating benefits must have a limit, but there is no natural law to that effect. What could impose such a limit? Its kind of like saying that if I give you a penny a day ever day, you will never get a million dollars, no not even in a million years. The monkeys typing are a far different scenario from the evolution theory. Because they don't preserve what resembles Shakespeare and build on it for their next typing. There is no connection between one monkey produced page and the next. But in evolution theory, with reproductive success preserved through natural selection, there is a preservation and a building on what has worked in the past. The analogy with monkeys typing is therefore fundamentally flawed. [/quote]

Paul, your anaology of a penny a day is a possible scenario--if you lived long enough. But there are some things that are impossible and we should not believe in them.

enough time it will happen. This is an arbitrary faith statement that should not be allowed.

Laws of Probability or Large Numbers.

Ten to the fiftieth power: If the chances of something happening is greater than this number, then this event will never happen. Mathematicians calculate the probability of a single protein coming by random chance to be ten to the one hundredth and ninety-first power. Here we have proven Romans 1:19-20, “… because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Evolutionists agree:

The simplest living cell could not have arisen by chance. Johnyoo McFadden (Evolutionist and professor of Molecular Biology and Quantum Physics), Quantum Foundation, 2000, p. 85. Note. This atheist professor knows the truth of God but still rejects Him.

The origin of life is also a stubborn problem with no solution in sight… Franklin M. Harold, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Colorado State U, “The Way of the Cell,” 2001, p. 235

If evolution is unable to explain the origin of life through naturalistic means, then it is without foundation. Why should I accept evolution when atheists can’t produce the evidence? It’s logical and reasonable to believe that God, not unknown events, created life.

DNA NECESSARY TO BUILD FIRST CELL

“By the 1970’s most researchers had rejected the idea that the information necessary to build the first cell originated by chance alone. To understand why, consider the difficulty of generating just two lines of a Shakespearean play by dropping scrabble letters onto a table top [even if you have just the right letters]. Then consider that the specific genetic instruction required to build the proteins in even the simplest one-celled organism would fill hundreds of pages of printed text.

“Of course, serious origin of life biologists didn’t believe that life had arisen by chance alone. Instead they envisioned Natural Selection acting on random variations among chemicals to produce the first life. But there was a problem with this proposal.

By definition, Natural Selection could not have functioned before the first living cell; for it can only act on organisms capable of replicating themselves—cells equipped with genetic DNA that can pass on their genetic changes to future generations. Without DNA there is no self-replication. But without replication there is no natural selection. So you can’t use Natural Selection to explain origin of DNA, without assuming the existence of the very thing you are trying to explain.
TeeJay

### #154 JayShel

JayShel

Former Atheist

• Moderator Team
• 777 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Florida
• Age: 36
• Christian
• Creationist
• Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 09 April 2012 - 07:15 PM

You are correct Teejay, in addition any ad hoc theory of abiogenesis faces hurdle upon hurdle:

• Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur (1) and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). (2)
• In the absence of enzymes, there is no chemical reaction that produces the sugar ribose (1), the "backbone" of RNA and DNA.
• Chemical reactions in prebiotic soups produce other sugars that prevent RNA and DNA replication (1).
• Pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) do not form under prebiotic conditions and only purine (adenine and guanine) nucleosides are found in carbonaceous meteorites (1) (i.e., pyrimidine nucleosides don't form in outer space either).
• Even if a method for formation of pyrimidine nucleosides could be found, the combination of nucleosides with phosphate under prebiotic conditions produces not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA polymerization and replication (1).
• Purine and pyrimidine nucleotides (nucleosides combined with phosphate groups) do not form under prebiotic conditions (3).
• Neither RNA nor DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes. In theory, an RNA replicase could exist and code for its own replication. The first synthesized RNA replicase was four times longer than any RNA that could form spontaneously (4). In addition, it was able to replicate only 16 base pairs at most, so it couldn't even replicate itself (5).
• Enzymes cannot be synthesized in the absence of RNA and ribosomes.
• Nucleosides and amino acids cannot form in the presence of oxygen, which is now known to have been present on the earth for at least 4.3 billion years ago (6), although life arose at least ~3.5 billion years ago (7).
• Adenine synthesis requires unreasonable HCN concentrations. Adenine deaminates with a half-life of 80 years (at 37°C, pH 7). Therefore, adenine would never accumulate in any kind of "prebiotic soup." The adenine-uracil interaction is weak and nonspecific, and, therefore, would never be expected to function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup." (8)
• Cytosine has never been found in any meteorites nor is it produced in electric spark discharge experiments using simulated "early earth atmosphere." All possible intermediates suffer severe problems (9). Cytosine deaminates with an estimated half-life of 340 years, so would not be expected to accumulate over time. Ultraviolet light on the early earth would quickly convert cytosine to its photohydrate and cyclobutane photodimers (which rapidly deaminate) (10).
• Mixture of amino acids the Murchison meteorite show that there are many classes of prebiotic substances that would disrupt the necessary structural regularity of any RNA-like replicator (11). Metabolic replicators suffer from a lack of an ability to evolve, since they do not mutate (12).
[SOURCE]

The first point deals with homochirality necessary for abiogenesis , and how it breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

This argument has nothing to do with the closed/open system question. The second law of thermodynamics states that heat flows from hot bodies to cold bodies. This law also affects the formation of enantiomers in chemical reactions capable of producing stereoisomers. Since the formation of both left- and right-handed enantiomers requires the exact same amount of energy, both enantiomers are produced in identical amounts. Any deviation from this result is highly unlikely (much less likely than the scenario of starting your car on a hot California day and having freeze over while running).
Some researchers have cited the possibility of differential synthesis of one enantiomer over another in the presence of circularly polarized light. There are a couple problems with this theory. First, there is no source of this kind of light in the vicinity of our solar system. Second, the demonstration of circularly polarized light was found only in the infrared region of the spectrum. Light must be of much more energetic wavelengths (ultraviolet). Third, if stereoisomers were formed, the energy of the light would break them down within a short period of time.

Therefore, it is not just "highly statistically unlikely" like evolutionists and atheists like to claim, but a ham slice short of "impossible". If there is anything agnostics sould be sure of, it is that abiogenesis is 99.9999~% unlikely given ANY amount of time and circumstances. Still there are those brave enough to bet their eternal life on the hope that this conundrum will one day be solved. Now that is some strong faith!

### #155 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 7,000 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
• Age: 25
• (private)
• Creationist
• Australia

Posted 09 April 2012 - 07:20 PM

In addition, the processes proposed to create the "building blocks of life", amino acids, face hurdle upon hurdle:

Yes Chirality is a huge problem for abiogenesis. Not only is DNA chiral but so are proteins and RNA, hence the RNA world hypothesis is not immune to this set back.
• Remnant of The Abyss likes this

### #156 Athelas

Athelas

Member

• Banned
• 138 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Brussels, Belgium
• Age: 31
• no affiliation
• Agnostic
• Brussels, Belgium

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:21 AM

No we were told that rust is the increase of entropy, you are going from a solid metal to separate singular particles,

Rust is the reaction of di-oxide (a gas) with a solid, iron, to form iron-oxide. So you are actually combining a gas (higher entropy than a solid) and a solid, to result in a solid. You will have a decrease in entropy in your system.

4Fe + 3O(2) = 2Fe(2)O(3)

You were told wrong.

Care to state examples?

I've already provided you with the example of water which turns from gas to liquid to solid (decrease of entropy) as well as rust. But I guess any exothermic reaction will decrease the entropy of the system because of the enthalpy change being larger than the entropy change in the Gibbs equation.

Ok, I'll use, natural state. The nature state of the universe is to decay, you have provided no evidence to claim any different. Hence as I said by rights of logic evolution cannot occur in a world where the natural state is to decay.

"The natural state" is not something I need to contradict, now do I? If it were a law like the second law which does say that the overall entropy in the universe has to remain the same or increase, then I will gladly argue about it. However, what exactly is a natural state? What do you mean by decay? I'm sorry but this just seems like you are trying to use different terminology to make the same claims. And that terminology only allows for a broader meaning so I'm not going to get into this. I've already explained my case. I disagree that this 'natural state' can make any claims about evolution.

Iron in nails or other objects doesn’t have to be hot (i.e., with very fast moving atoms or molecules) to have ‘localized energy’ within it in a chemical sense: Iron atoms plus oxygen molecules of the air have more energy localized within their BONDS than does iron rust (iron oxide). (That’s why iron reacts with oxygen — to release energy from their higher energy bonds and form the lower energy bonds in iron oxide, with all that difference in energy being dispersed to the surroundings as ‘heat’ i.e., the reaction is exothermic and makes molecules in the surroundings move faster . But don't forget that even substances with lots of energy in their bonds are hindered — extremely! — from immediately spreading out that energy. It takes much energy to break the bonds just before or as they react, even though far more energy may be then given out as the result of the reaction as the new bonds form.) Therefore, even in moist air that speeds up the process, iron spontaneously (but not very rapidly) reacts with oxygen and each spreads out some of its bond energy to the surroundings when the iron and oxygen form iron oxide. [System: iron and oxygen, iron oxide. Surroundings: the nearby air and any moisture or salt in the air plus any object in contact with the rusting iron.]"
http://entropysite.o...s_approach.html

From this, if we take this more simple approach if the natural state of energy is to disperse if able to, how was energy first localised to "evolve" the first cell... How was energy localised to form the first strand of DNA code. etc.

Aren't you aswering your own question here? There are basically two types of reactions: exothermic (like oxidation) and endothermic ones. Exothermic ones decrease the entropy of their involved atoms and release heat. Therefor the endothermic ones need to absorb that heat and increase their entropy in order for the second law to be valid (which it is) in the universe. Energy disperses and the second law specifies that this energy will be used for instance by reactions to form bonds like DNA does.

EDIT: For the record.. Iron oxisisng

Fe(s) = Fe(aq)2+ + 2e-

The iron is moving from a pure solid state to one that is not so, a Fe ion (bonded with an oxygen).

Just because you claim something doesn't make it valid....

This is ionization of Fe, not oxidation. The complete formula, including the di-oxide looks different. I have found no information that ionization would increase entropy.

Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.

All processes do increase the overall entropy of the universe. That is correct. However individual processes don't have to do the same.

All natural processes tend toward increasing disorder. And although energy is conserved, its availability is decreased. (As I was saying the natural state of the universe tends towards decay)

Nature proceeds from the simple to the complex, from the orderly to the disorderly, from low entropy to high entropy.

The entropy of a system is proportional to the logarithm of the probability of that particular configuration of the system occuring. The more highly ordered the configuration of a system, the less likely it is to occur naturally - hence the lower its entropy.

http://www.calpoly.e...wn/entropy.html
(extra = mine)

Indeed, and this is all correct however, there are 'pockets' in the universe where entropy can decrease. Take a living cell for instance. Schrodinger wrote an entire book about it and about negentropy. Simply put: if what you are claiming is true, then we would not be able to reproduce.

### #157 Ron

Ron

• Member
• 6,530 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Creationist
• Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 April 2012 - 05:16 AM

The above is nothing more than a hypothetical inference that contains absolutely no empirical scientific substantiation. It can be found to be as inane as the statement “If you give a million monkeys a million typewriters, in a million years they could type out a play by Shakespeare".

The easiest reply to destroy (refute) such nonsense is to simply say “prove it”, “show me the empirical evidence”.

The term “Given enough time” can ONLY be validated inductively. Otherwise, it is nothing more than presupposed (a priori) opinion.

As an aside “indefinite” alludes to “infinitude”, which is theoretical at best. So I would desire you to provide how “indefinite number of mutations” CAN “become established” in the physical realm.

I realize it is an article of faith to you that accumulating benefits must have a limit, but there is no natural law to that effect. What could impose such a limit? Its kind of like saying that if I give you a penny a day ever day, you will never get a million dollars, no not even in a million years.

No, its an article of faith period, as there is absolutely no evidence to cover your inference. In the case of accumulating pennies, we have inductively documented cases of empirical evidence to prove the end results of penny accumulation.

The monkeys typing are a far different scenario from the evolution theory. Because they don't preserve what resembles Shakespeare and build on it for their next typing. There is no connection between one monkey produced page and the next. But in evolution theory, with reproductive success preserved through natural selection, there is a preservation and a building on what has worked in the past. The analogy with monkeys typing is therefore fundamentally flawed.

Incorrect… It is absolutely analogues in the fact that neither premise is proven. Both macro-evolution and the monkey authors are fundamentally flawed.

### #158 Teejay

Teejay

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,583 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 78
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Texas

Posted 10 April 2012 - 07:25 AM

To all evolutionists--atheists and theists,

Some years ago, there was one-on-one debate on ToL between atheist/evolutionist Zakath and Christian creationist Pastor Bob Enyart. Pastor Enyart gave the best argument against life coming from non-life that I've ever read. I copied it and I just ran accross it in my files.

Atheists believe that if just the right raw materials were assembled, then it is reasonable to believe that life could arise spontaneously; however, dead animal carcasses have trillions of compounds already assembled in just the right proportions for life, and yet scientists have never observed new life arising from the fortuitously arranged ingredients in every corpse. Co-discoverer of DNA Crick, and brilliant astronomer Hoyle, both conceded that the complexity of DNA led them to conclude the mathematical implausibility that DNA could have arisen by natural causes on Earth; and so they independently proposed to the world that biological life must have been planted on Earth by aliens. Here you must ask yourself. Which is easier to believe and which is more logical—Star Trek aliens or a Creator God? But to believe in God, one must first be humble.

A cell makes man’s technology look primitive, with hundreds of millions of its simplest components, the proteins (albeit themselves sophisticated three-dimensional machines of thousands of different types) doing a multitude of critical chemical jobs, coordinated by hundreds of millions of digital instructions, with a human possessing dozens of different types totaling about 100 trillion cells. Living cells are the laboratories that make an organism’s chemical components, yet they themselves are made of these same components. Such circularly dependent requirements pervade biology and introduce a dilemma for atheists, for no plausible starting point has ever been described for this circular dependence, so this remains an inexplicable mystery. By natural law, you cannot get a tree without a seed, or an egg without a chicken, or the system to copy DNA without the DNA itself. Evolutionists cannot explain even theoretically in gross terms how the first DNA strands appeared, and then before they deteriorated, how an error-correcting duplication system arose by chance. To manage life’s nutritional and functional needs, a typical cell needs to separate itself from its outside environment, it needs sophisticated subsystems with high-bandwidth and robust communication between them, it must be able to produce hundreds of intricate compounds, it must repair damaged components, it must selectively admit raw materials from outside and expel waste, and paramount, it must reliably reproduce itself. Evolutionists admit great complexity in obtaining a first cell by nature, but do not appreciate how many “first cells” would have disappeared before perfecting the ability to reproduce themselves; millions, billions, trillions, gazillions even, supposedly blindly moving toward an unknowable goal of self-reproduction, without benefit of natural selection nor any law or force driving them forward to achieve that particular goal.

Thus, apart from any evidence, atheists desperately posit some simpler form of life that led up to the cell, but that is a logical impossibility, given the function of biological life. To identify only the necessary systems of a single-celled creature virtually means to identify the entire cell. And so, its subsystems cannot be removed without certain death, unless a subsystem’s function was somehow replaced by a service provided from outside the cell; but of course, this would increase the complexity. Any biological life must accomplish the basic fundamentals of life, and the cell accomplishes these efficiently. To propose pre-cell symbiotic life forms which fulfill each other’s requirements adds the complexity of external communication, coordination, shared eco-system dependency, and proximity in time and space. So, I declare that the atheist who posits a simpler life form which leads up to the cell cannot even conceptually describe that simplicity, thus he posits something that he has no evidence for, and something that he cannot even imagine: that is blind faith. Perhaps you can disprove my declaration, and explain what basic functions a cell’s simpler precursors would perform, and how they might perform them reliably and more simply.

Let me recap and remind you of a cell’s basic functions that must somehow be addressed for survival. First, please explain what comes first, the functionality, or the instructions to build the functionality; then describe what force or law led to the development of an instruction set for that functionality, and how those instructions then began to encode themselves chemically with amino acids; then explain how those encoded instructions began to get implemented by describing some primitive ribosome-like agents, and how the theoretically necessary function of messenger RNA would have been accomplished, with the development of proteins and enzymes (or their simpler predecessors) to accomplish the needed work of maintenance and reproduction. Also, you might explain, and win a Nobel Prize while you’re at it, how the wildly complex and crucial cell wall with a million sophisticated openings could develop, the wall needed for the survival of the cell, yet utterly dependent upon the cell’s functions for its own existence. Instructions for all of this are encoded into the DNA in the nucleus, the nucleus itself housing these millions of instructions and being able to produce groups of them on demand as needed to build complex chemical machines, all dependent upon the availability of a necessary supply of various amino acids. Of course, I’m not asking you for a detailed account of how this all would happen in a simpler life form.

a) Explain conceptually how the first cell would have developed; or,

Give an explanation, in broad terms, of how a simpler system could perform the necessary functions of a biological life form, which I believe must include processing raw materials, containing itself, encoding instructions, implementing instructions, processing chemicals, and reproducing, which the whole system is itself irreducibly complex; and

c) After pondering all this, reconsider: You would conclude that Mt. Rushmore could not have been carved by the wind and rain—an absurdity on the faces of it. But, a living cell which is a gazillion times more complex than Mt. Rushmore, you deem an accident of nature.

Who won the debate? Pastor Enyart is sells the debate on his website: KGOV.com. Zakath's suffered a devastating loss.

TeeJay
• Remnant of The Abyss likes this

### #159 Teejay

Teejay

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,583 posts
• Gender:Male
• Age: 78
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Texas

Posted 10 April 2012 - 07:48 AM

To all,

Will Paul's theistic evolution save the day? No. The theistic evolution must deny God's word in so many ways.

Paul wrote, “For as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ ALL shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22). Jesus Christ verified this: “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29).

Theistic evolutionists are faced with an unsolvable dilemma. If all died in Adam, then there could not have been any humans before Adam. If men existed before Adam, then humans would have been born sinless and all would not have died in Adam. Then Jesus did not die for all men as the Bible says, but for just some men (only those in the loins of Adam).

Paul wrote, “… because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption…” (Rom. 8:27). Peter preaching, “Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His prophets SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN” (Acts 3:19-21).

Now one must ask: When God RESTORES ALL THINGS, will His restoration be the way it was in Genesis when God finished His creation and said that “it was very good”? Or, will His restoration go back to the millions of evolutionary years BEFORE Genesis? The Bible places Genesis at the BEGINNING of creation; theistic evolution puts Genesis at the end of creation.

“If I have told you earthly things…”

Jesus admonished Nicodemus: “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, HOW WILL YOU BELIEVE if I tell you heavenly things? The Bible is not just a book about faith, morality, and salvation. Rather, it’s a book about faith, morality, and salvation IN THE CONTEXT OF REALITY AND HISTORY. If you can’t trust the Bible on earthly matters such as its historicity, how can one trust it for eternal salvation?

But Genesis is Metaphoric or Symbolic

James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford wrote in a letter to a David Watson in 1984:

“As far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writers of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that:

(a) creation took place in a series of 6 days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience;

( the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story;

© Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the Arc.”

"[Jesus Christ speaking] Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning [of creation] made them male and female" (Mat. 19:4; also see Mark 10:6).

Life coming from non-life (lifeless matter) is not possible. Lifeless matter can't give you what it does not have to give. The theistic evolutionist can't have it both ways. He can't deny God's word in Genesis and other books of the Bible and then rely on God to sove his conundrums. This is like denying the existence of gravity and then standing on ground to make his argument that there is no gravity.

TeeJay

### #160 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

Bible Inerrantist

• Veteran Member
• 178 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
• Age: 51
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Southern USA

Posted 10 April 2012 - 09:25 AM

Just to make it clear, abiogenesis would require far more faith than the Creation model (logically, rationally and scientifically).

Furthermore, scientists have a model for abiogenesis. Yet they cannot create life in the laboratory under controlled conditions. Somehow this point eludes anti-creationists.

Just by chance (not under controlled conditions) they assume entropy was necessarily overcome, and this manifested itself when all the prerequisite chemicals for life just happened to be in the right place at the right time, in the right proportions, and under the right conditions just prior to being randomly smashed together to transform from dead matter into life.

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users