Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Science Disproves Evolution

69 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

It would seem that the eye is an example of an irreducibly complex biochemical system.

It would seem that it isn't. Actually, its design (if you mean the human eye) is rather suboptimal...

Yeap~! Sure Enough....

When confronted with darkness, the human eye increases its ability to see 100,000 times. The finest camera in the world cannot even come close to such magnification, yet the human eye does it every day, easily and automatically. (D. James Kennedy, Why I Believe)

Of all the creatures that exist on earth, only man has the desire to worship a supreme being. The study of anthropology has discovered that this trait of worship is unique to the human species. No animal has been observed to build worship centers or pray to its creator. Yet every human nation and culture, both primitive and advanced, manifests this tendency by virtue of man's design by God.

Anthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn once said: "To my mind, the human brain is the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe." Though it weighs only 3.3 pounds, it can perform what 500 tons of electrical equipment cannot do. (ibid.)

Emile Borel, a renown scientist and mathematician, says that a cosmic event will not occur if it has a probability ratio of more than 1,050 to 1. The probability of a single human cell evolving by chance over time is 10,119,000 to 1. In other words, it is statistically impossible. Yet consider the probability of thousands of such randomly evolved cells grouping themselves together in perfect order, harmony, and interrelatedness to produce a complete human being. (ibid.)

In physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that any physical system left to itself will decay and become disordered. Yet the universe always remains highly organized and ordered, seemingly defying this fundamental principle. The brilliant physicist Boris P. Dotsenko was raised in atheism yet spoke: "It suddenly dawned on me that there must be a very powerful organizing force counteracting this disorganizing tendency within nature, keeping the universe controlled and in order. This force must not be material; otherwise, it too would become disordered. I concluded that this power must be both omnipotent and omniscient. There must be a God—one God—controlling everything!" http://www.gogeneration.com/v1iss2/EWv1iss2.htm

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Complex Molecules and Organs 4

[continued]

b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for evolution.

One of the strangest is a multiple-lensed, compound eye found in fossilized worms! [see Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.]

Another type of eye belonged to some trilobites, a thumb-size, extinct, sea-bottom creature. Evolutionists claim that they were very early forms of life. Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all directions, day and night. [see Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton, “A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade,” Science, Vol. 301, 19 September 2003, p. 1689.] Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat of function optimization.” [Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 29–74.] Shawver described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature.” [Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, 2 February 1974, p. 72.] Gould admitted that “The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods.... I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” [stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]

The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments.” Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing,” Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August 2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed today’s technology.

[continue]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Complex Molecules and Organs 5

[continued]

c. “To my mind the human brain is the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe and no geologic period seems too long to allow for its natural evolution.” Henry Fairfield Osborn, an influential evolutionist speaking to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in December 1929, as told by Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1987), p. 57. [Even greater capabilities of the brain have been discovered since 1929. Undoubtedly, more remain.]

“And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.” Isaac Asimov, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian, August 1970, p. 10.

Asimov forgot that the brain, and presumably most of its details, is coded by only a fraction of an individual’s DNA. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that DNA is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter known in the universe.

The human brain is frequently likened to a supercomputer. In most respects the brain greatly exceeds any computer’s capabilities. Speed is one area where the computer beats the brain—at least in some ways. For example, few of us can quickly multiply 0.0239 times 854.95. This task is called a floating point operation, because the decimal point “floats” until we (or a computer) decide where to place it. The number of floating point operations per second (FLOPS) is a measure of a computer’s speed. As of this writing, an IBM computer can achieve 3,000 trillion FLOPS (3 petaFLOPS). One challenge is to prevent these superfast computers from overheating. Too much electrically generated heat is dissipated in too small a volume.

Overall, the human brain seems to operate at petaFLOPS speeds—without overheating. One knowledgeable observer on these ultrafast computers commented:

“The human brain itself serves, in some sense, as a proof of concept [that cool petaFLOPS machines are possible]. Its dense network of neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1 liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power. That’s a hard act to follow.” Ivars Peterson, “PetaCrunchers: Setting a Course toward Ultrafast Supercomputing,” Science News, Vol. 147, 15 April 1995, p. 235.

Also, the 1,400 cubic centimeter (3 pound) human brain is more than three times larger than that of a chimpanzee, and when adjusted for body weight and size, larger than that of any other animal. How, then, could the brain have evolved? Why haven’t more animals evolved large, “petaFLOP” brains?

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Complex Molecules and Organs 6

An adult human brain contains over 10^14 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections (d), more than all the soldered electrical connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel (e).

d. “The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 10^15 or a thousand million million. ... a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth.” Denton, pp. 330–331.

“... the human brain probably contains more than 10^14 synapses ...” Deborah M. Barnes, “Brain Architecture: Beyond Genes,” Science, Vol. 233, 11 July 1986, p. 155.

e. Marlyn E. Clark, Our Amazing Circulatory System, Technical Monograph No. 5 (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976).

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

DNA Discoveries Demonstrate Design

Recent discoveries about DNA—including the finding that so-called "junk DNA" is anything but—once again clearly points to a supreme Intelligence having imbedded an incredible multifaceted code in our genes.

When first discovered, scientists believed that DNA was a somewhat simple genetic code filled with what they termed "junk DNA," useless bits assumed to be evolutionary remnants from our supposed ancestors. But now they have found the code to be astoundingly complex, multilayered and even bidirectional.

On Sept. 5, 2012, The New York Times reported: "The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as "junk" but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave . . .

"The thought before the start of the [DNA] project, said Thomas Gingeras, an Encode researcher from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, was that only 5 to 10 percent of the DNA in a human being was actually being used. The big surprise was not only that almost all of the DNA is used but also that a large proportion of it is gene switches.

"Before Encode, said Dr. John Stamatoyanno-poulos, a University of Washington scientist who was part of the project, 'if you had said half of the genome and probably more has instructions for turning genes on and off, I don't think people would have believed you'" ("Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From 'Junk,' Play Crucial Role," Sept. 5, 2012, online edition).

The astounding complexity of the DNA code was the main reason Sir Antony Flew, the late world-famous philosopher who had been the leading atheist in England, renounced his atheism a few years back and accepted the existence of a divine intelligence behind it all.

He wrote: "What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together" (There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, 2007, p. 75).

Let's see some of the examples of the incredible complexity of the DNA code.

Spy codes—as in Washington's day

Back in the days of the American Revolution, George Washington and his officers sent each other letters with double meanings. A letter intercepted by the enemy would simply have sounded like a typical message describing incidents on a farm. But to those with the deciphering key, the same message may have described troop numbers and locations. Yet without the key, the secret message would be safely hidden.

Similarly, scientists have come to realize that certain areas of the genetic code have secondary messages that can be deciphered by a cell's translating devices.

Comparing DNA to a spy code, science historian Stephen Meyer explains: "In the same way, the cell has protein machinery and RNA codes that jointly function as a cipher enabling it to access and read the secondary imbedded messages within the primary message of the genome . . . The presence of these genes imbedded within genes (messages within messages) further enhances the information-storage density of the genome" (Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, 2009, pp. 463-464).

Imagine how difficult it would be to write a message and inscribe within it other messages! Mindless evolution could never produce genetic information of any kind, much less in overlapping levels of this nature!

DNA's bidirectional code

Scientists also have found the genome to be bidirectional—relaying different messages when read from opposite directions—providing efficiency of space.

Dr. Meyer explains: "In the same way that words are ordered into sentences and sentences into paragraphs, nucleotide bases [within the DNA molecular chain] are ordered into genes and genes are ordered into specifically arranged gene clusters.

"Or think of these individual genes as computer data files and groupings of genes as folders containing several files. The groupings of DNA 'files' that we observe serve several roles. These groupings allow the cell to make longer transcripts that are combinations of different gene messages. In other words, the coding modules of the gene files in a 'folder' can be combined in numerous ways—and in both directions—to greatly increase the number of encoded transcripts and protein products from the same genomic region or resources" (pp. 467-468).

Again, imagine how difficult it would be to design something like this! If you read forward, you find one message. If you read backwards, you find another message. Again, how could evolution possibly account for this? It is further clear evidence of a brilliant Mind at work!

From "junk DNA" to a complex computer operating system

Computer users are familiar with a computer's operating system, such as Microsoft Windows, which sets and controls the environment in which software programs run. Scientists are now startled to discover that many regions of the genome, previously thought to be useless, in fact provide key functions similar to a computer's operating system.

Dr. Meyer explains: "Portions of the genome that many biologists previously regarded as 'junk DNA' are now known to perform many important functions, including the regulation and expression of the information for building proteins . . . the nonprotein coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a software program, directing and regulating how other information in the system is processed" (p. 367).

Discarding the "junk DNA" myth

To believe that all this incredible, efficient complexity simply evolved through mutation and natural selection is to deny the overwhelming facts.

As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells concludes: "Scientists make progress by testing hypotheses against the evidence. But when scientists ignore the evidence and cling to a hypothesis for philosophical or theological reasons, the hypothesis becomes a myth. Junk DNA is such a myth . . .

"As recent discoveries have demonstrated, we are just beginning to unravel the mysteries of the genome. Indeed, the same can be said of living organisms in general. But assuming that any feature of an organism has no function discourages further investigation. In this respect, the myth of junk DNA has been a science-stopper. Not anymore. For scientists willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, these are exciting times" (The Myth of Junk DNA, 2011, p. 107).

http://www.ucg.org/s...-divine-design/

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Fully-Developed Organs 1

All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design (a).

a. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).

This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:

“The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner.” Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Fully-Developed Organs 2

There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes (b), skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing ©.

b. Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.

“The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [Darwin believed possible if millions of years of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.

And yet, Darwin admitted that:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.

Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.

“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit.” Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies,” Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.

David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California (Riverside), explained to Virginia Morell:

“Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there isn’t a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for making an eye.” Ibid.

To solve this dilemma, Reznick points to different species of a guppylike fish, some of which have no placenta and others that have “tissues that might become placentas.” However, when pressed, “Reznick admits that the [guppylike fish’s] placenta might not be as sophisticated as the mammalian placenta” [or the eye of any organism]. Ibid.

“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his [Darwin’s] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful—and not only useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that end or final purpose?” Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.

c. “Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Bounded Variations

Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout almost all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few ©. New features apparently don’t evolve.

a. “...the discovery of the Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen that the more or less constant somatic variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis in species change cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of ‘indefinite departure.’ ” Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), p. 227.

b. “The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available...” Peter R. Sheldon, “Complexity Still Running,” Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104.

c. Bland J. Finlay, “Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial Eukaryote Species,” Science, Vol. 296, 10 May 2002, pp. 1061–1063.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Even simpler.

Something NEVER comes from nothing!

It's a mathematical impossibility.

Zero chance.

Nada.

Zip.

Atheists like to declare that science trumps religion.

Yet science itself proves the universe could not possibly have erupted on its own - out of nothing - fully developed.

It's also a mathematical certainty that life could not have bloomed by pure chance. The 'chances' are mathematically impossible.

There is no calculation known to man to prove otherwise.

What are the odds that any exaggerated evolved worm crawling upon the surface of a random planet should grow legs and declare that IT is the only source of inspiration and creation and knowledge in all the stars above? It seems to me that only a universal being with a sense of ironic humor could have done that.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited by rjp34652
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

rjp,

There is another possibility though to contend with. What about the possibility that physical things have always existed in one form or another? That doesn't seem too far fetched. I think it's also important to recognize that evolution doesn't suppose that everything came about by pure 'chance'. The process is guided at least by the rules of chemistry and the lower order, at a higher order natural sexual and sexual selection. If you want to effectively respond to the issue I think you are going to need to respond to the actual position, not a strawman of it.

Entropy for one thing... which testifies of leaving the support platform for life as we know it! You whole of supposition is faith based in non obtainable histories... where at

least the Recorded Word of God we have conclusively 2-300 bc.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Entropy isn't an issue for evolution. Part of the life cycle is driven by the energy the earth's surface gets from the sun on a daily basis. Plants transform that energy into something usable for their growth, which in turn animals eat. You could also talk about the internally generated eat from the core. The point is this, the surface of the earth is not an insulated system, it's one in which heat is being added. In such a situation entropy can decrease.

The very nature of entropy is the digression of all matter/energy moving out of useable status of life as we know it.... yes it is a clock of substantiated law that

brings reason into a fact of begin and end by its presence! Love, Steven

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

,The very nature of entropy', specifically the increase in entropy, is that systems tend from a more highly ordered state, specifically one in which there is energy that is available to do work, into a more disordered one, in which there is less available to do work. Systems tend toward that state when left alone. I like the example of dumping blue paint into a vat of red. That the blue paint would stay in that specific spot 3 hrs later, so that you have a nice clean blue dot in a sea of red paint is highly unlikely. Likewise if you dump boiling water into cold water. So long as you have a nice temperature difference you can, in theory, extract work from that temperature difference. But as you intuitively know, once the two are mixed in short order you will have the system in a lukewarm thermal equilibrium. However, suppose you keep adding heat to the system, suppose you have a heater in the corner of a vat of cold water, you could maintain a temperature difference for a longer amount of time-- and you could indefinitely if you had a heat sink as well as a heat source- and in that way maintain a system with low entropy. This is why you cannot assume entropy will always increase in a system that has heat added or taken away.

This is exactly the point being! It is a digression... which then logically introduces the presence of a constant of digression present in a system with digressional parameters still in effect thus taking us into the necessity of beginning of this digression to be present and an ending due to the simplicity of its own witness... and further by demand of the digression when applied to the infinite exist its presence would also not be here as infinite and entropy placed together we could not be... thus defining begin and end to the system we have began in although it surpasses our minimal exist the over all picture of presence demands the logic of outside our experience... fulfilling this response of God's Word

Ro 1:20

20 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,

NKJV

It is uniqueness to me the clarity we are being moved into by this truth and the last days of our exist with the increase of

knowledge... how that people who invest themselves in the program of writing away God by evolution are becoming more

and more ridiculous in so doing... to put this all simply-> because we have rot of all things our very presence which the rot

also works upon demands rot to have a begin and end! However for rot to be here and the infinite to be a reality-> rot also

had to have began (entropy demands beginning when applied to infinite reality)...

Love, Steven

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There is another possibility though to contend with. What about the possibility that physical things have always existed in one form or another? That doesn't seem too far fetched. I think it's also important to recognize that evolution doesn't suppose that everything came about by pure 'chance'. The process is guided at least by the rules of chemistry and the lower order, at a higher order natural sexual and sexual selection. If you want to effectively respond to the issue I think you are going to need to respond to the actual position, not a strawman of it.

Entropy isn't an issue for evolution. Part of the life cycle is driven by the energy the earth's surface gets from the sun on a daily basis. Plants transform that energy into something usable for their growth, which in turn animals eat. You could also talk about the internally generated eat from the core. The point is this, the surface of the earth is not an insulated system, it's one in which heat is being added. In such a situation entropy can decrease.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There is another possibility though to contend with. What about the possibility that physical things have always existed in one form or another? That doesn't seem too far fetched. I think it's also important to recognize that evolution doesn't suppose that everything came about by pure 'chance'. The process is guided at least by the rules of chemistry and the lower order, at a higher order natural sexual and sexual selection. If you want to effectively respond to the issue I think you are going to need to respond to the actual position, not a strawman of it.

Entropy isn't an issue for evolution. Part of the life cycle is driven by the energy the earth's surface gets from the sun on a daily basis. Plants transform that energy into something usable for their growth, which in turn animals eat. You could also talk about the internally generated eat from the core. The point is this, the surface of the earth is not an insulated system, it's one in which heat is being added. In such a situation entropy can decrease.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

It is the reality That God has said I AM that I AM... and in all the thought ever combined it is merely naught

in the framework of His Being... knowledge passes away as the wonder of the infinite becomes experience ... to

become unbounded in Him and the wonders yet that will be... :thumbsup: Love, Steven

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There is another possibility though to contend with. What about the possibility that physical things have always existed in one form or another? That doesn't seem too far fetched. I think it's also important to recognize that evolution doesn't suppose that everything came about by pure 'chance'. The process is guided at least by the rules of chemistry and the lower order, at a higher order natural sexual and sexual selection. If you want to effectively respond to the issue I think you are going to need to respond to the actual position, not a strawman of it.

Entropy isn't an issue for evolution. Part of the life cycle is driven by the energy the earth's surface gets from the sun on a daily basis. Plants transform that energy into something usable for their growth, which in turn animals eat. You could also talk about the internally generated eat from the core. The point is this, the surface of the earth is not an insulated system, it's one in which heat is being added. In such a situation entropy can decrease.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

Pahu,

Re the entropy issue, please see my post above yours. I addressed that exact thing when I responded to Stephen.

Whether or not there are an infinite number of events that is possible is an interesting question. My first response is, suppose you have a B theory/eternalist account of time, that is, you think that every moment in time exists equally to another. That there is a passage from past to present with future 'in the front' is an illusion. I think this position is supported by relativity anyway. On that account the problem dissipates entirely since moments are not crossed at all. The second response is, assuming that A theory is right/presentism, and that only the present is 'real' and there is passage through time there is still a solution. Do we agree that there can be an infinite number of events in the future? I think we all want to say yes, there can be. If that is so, then we are stuck also agreeing that there can be an infinite number of past events as well because the two problems are symmetric. The same arguments you want to run against the possibility of an infinite number of past events can be run against the possibility of an infinite number of future ones. It is an interesting question though.

Obviously it's important to concede that stuff *can* exist forever, because God does. If we say that God exists outside time, that is equivalent to invoking an eternalist account.

also t hat makes me re-ask my question. Could God have, forever, been responsible for the creation of some forever existing stuff? If so, and I think so, then none of this could be leveraged against the possibility of God existing.

In

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. 1 John 2:15-17

My Bible

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

I Find Dear Brother Pahu Is Spot On

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

For The Only Reason The Universe Is Not At Its Zero Potential Energy State Is Because Of Jesus Christ

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17

For The Only Reason The Universe Exists Is Because Of Jesus Christ

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

For The Whole Reason For The Universe Is Jesus Christ

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

And The Cosmos Will Soon Pass Away

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. Revelation 20:11

Before The Face Of Jesus

For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:21-24

Amen~!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It would seem that the eye is an example of an irreducibly complex biochemical system.

It would seem that it isn't. Actually, its design (if you mean the human eye) is rather suboptimal.

Ciao

- viole

The Strange Thing About Human Eyesight It Seems

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:12

If One Does Not Use It One Will Lose It

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 2 Corinthians 4:3-5

So Keep Looking Up

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:12-15

And Stand Fast

The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.

They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever. Psalms 111:7-10

In Wisdom

~

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Obviously it's important to concede that stuff *can* exist forever, because God does. If we say that God exists outside time, that is equivalent to invoking an eternalist account.

also t hat makes me re-ask my question. Could God have, forever, been responsible for the creation of some forever existing stuff? If so, and I think so, then none of this could be leveraged against the possibility of God existing.

God created everything. God is eternal. The stuff He created is not. It had a beginning when He created it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Obviously it's important to concede that stuff *can* exist forever, because God does. If we say that God exists outside time, that is equivalent to invoking an eternalist account.

also t hat makes me re-ask my question. Could God have, forever, been responsible for the creation of some forever existing stuff? If so, and I think so, then none of this could be leveraged against the possibility of God existing.

God created everything. God is eternal. The stuff He created is not. It had a beginning when He created it.

It is as you have said and the why it is so:

God essence the eternal substance of Spirit

Jn 4:24

24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

NKJV

As Spirit is unbounded by all that we have been born into yet creation depicts a point to as witness of what

Spirit 'IS'

Ro 1:20

20 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

NKJV

In Spirit (His presence within) we are not pressed to define, surround, encompass, conquer etc... but

accept in the vehicle of faith! As we are carried about within this vehicle we begin in a sanctification

process that allows us to increase in His Word thus increasing in the faith (the very vehicle we are in)

and this is understood by this verse

Jn 3:6-8

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the

Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but

cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who

is born of the Spirit."

NKJV

It also explains the war we are in with these bodies as it demands from it's source this world and no other!

This is why we cannot befriend our bodies or this world~ because we are born of His Spirit and His Word does

increase us-> to where we have not yet been (but) Believe so that we give up this all that we have known in

assurance of that which 'IS' written... His Word effectively becomes our entire foundation of life...

As this is unbounded substance not confined by created event but held in His (God's) good pleasure... Love, Steven

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Entropy isn't an issue for evolution.

The very nature of entropy is the digression of all matter/energy moving out of useable status of life as we know it.... yes it is a clock of substantiated law that brings reason into a fact of begin and end by its presence!

Love, Steven

This is exactly the point being! It is a digression... which then logically introduces the presence of a constant of digression present in a system with digressional parameters still in effect thus taking us into the necessity of beginning....

It is uniqueness to me the clarity we are being moved into by this truth and the last days of our exist with the increase of

knowledge... how that people who invest themselves in the program of writing away God by evolution are becoming more

and more ridiculous in so doing.

Love, Steven

I don't know enough to comment on entropy as it pertains to the origin of the universe (albeit I'll make a wild guess that since the QM version of "nothing" can produce "something" as "nothing" in QM is "unstable", a universe may be able to 'spontaneously' appear via entropy, or maybe not, I have no clue), but I do know that entropy is not a barrier to evolution taking place, life, or abiogenesis. You cannot deny that the laws of the universe demand that a closed system, which for all intent and purposes we can view the universe as a closed system as far as I know, always increases in entropy; it always goes towards disorder. As far as I know the best way to increase the entropy of a system is to release heat, again as far as I know heat is the least useful form of energy and the diffusion of heat (unless impeded) requires no extra expenditure of energy and will do so spontaneously.

But while a closed system must always increase in entropy, a closed system can make use of pockets of decreased entropy which in turn produces heat, making the overall system increasing in entropy. If this was not possible our bodies wouldn't be able to make the food/energy each of our cells need to survive and move; IOW if you cannot get pockets of decreased entropy in an overall increasing entropic system we would all die instantly. This is why life is possible; while we are pockets of decreased entropy, we release heat via chemical interactions which will eventually make the universe as a whole more disordered. And given that evolution is what life does permitted that said life is self-replicating with the process imperfect and a selection process (all of which are allowed under the laws of thermodynamics) entropy does not make evolution impossible.

And a final note which Bary touched on, our environment is not a closed system. We get heat from the interior of the Earth, via entropic principles btw, and even more so by the Sun; the Sun is another pocket of decreased entropy which through the laws of entropy spontaneously fuses atoms to make new atoms so long as the reaction can a) be undertaken by said Star (e.g. a more massive star will be able to make more types of reactions as it has a higher core temperature) and b) said reaction is exergonic, meaning that it will release more heat/energy than said process consumes which will increase the overall entropy of the closed system which is our universe. Earth receives the Sun's energy, and through the laws of entropy the biosphere harnesses that energy to sustain life, which will in turn make the universe more disordered in the end.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There are two main sections to Worthy Boards, the Inner Court and the Outer Court. The Inner court is designed for fellowship and discussion among those who know Jesus Christ as Savior. The outer Court is an area where we allow anyone who wishes to learn more about our belief to ask questions and learn. Those who join Worthy who do not claim Christ as Savior will be designated "nonbeliever'. This designation will mean that they will only be able to post in the Outer Court area. They can read every part of the Forums, but their discussions will be limited to one area.

The emphasis being on..

learn more about our belief to ask questions and learn

This thread does neither, and is bordering on a teaching post. teaching that is not based on our belief, nor the intent of the forum.

Closed.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0