6 days Creation

[Kevinb]

7 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy can only increase over time for an isolated system,

Okay the earth and life thereon isn't an isolated system..energy in the form of light and heat are provided by the sun... this fuels life right? As you say energy to use this law cannot enter the system ..it does.. this is how creationists misunderstand the 2nd law.

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

YEC = Young Earth Creationist

OEC = Old Earth Creationist

I am an OEC.  This means I see no conflict between my Christian Fundamentalist faith and any of the sciences excluding the Theory of Evolution. 

However, by adhering to this 'belief'... you Ipso Facto render NULL The Doctrine of Salvation:

 

If you 'believe' that there were Millions of Years with Death/Disease/Suffering/Thorns et al BEFORE The Fall (Genesis 3) you have some "SERIOUS" (as in "Fatal") Doctrinal and Logical Consistency Problems...

 

(Genesis 1:31) "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

 

(1 Corinthians 15:26) "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

 

You must show "DEATH" in Genesis Chapter 1-2 or... show how DEATH is "Very Good".

 

(Genesis 3:17) "And unto Adam he said, BECAUSE thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: CURSED is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"

 

As in, Because you have done this... "NOW" the ground (EARTH --- not just Man) is CURSED; not before 'The Fall'.

 

(Genesis 3:18) "Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;"

 

"NOW" Thorns and Thistles (There are Thorn and Thistle Fossils); not before 'The Fall'.

 

(Genesis 3:19) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

 

"NOW" Adam and Eve's fate will be DEATH, Adam and Eve were Immortal before the Fall (Tree of Life)...

 

(Genesis 3:22) "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and LIVE FOR EVER:"

(Genesis 3:23-24) "Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. {24} So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the TREE OF LIFE."

 

"NOW" the Tree of Life is guarded; not before 'The Fall'.

 

 

2. If you 'believe' that there were Millions of Years with Death/Disease/Suffering/Thorns et al BEFORE The Fall (Genesis 3) you have some "SERIOUS" (as in "Fatal") Doctrinal and Logical Consistency Problems...

 

Then why the need for a... "KINSMEN REDEEMER", The Goel... (Jesus Christ)

 

(Romans 5:12) "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

(1 Corinthians 15:45) "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the LAST ADAM was made a quickening spirit."

 

The Last Adam: Jesus Christ. The Whole of The DOCTRINE OF SALVATION is "DIS-ANNULLED!" You make HIM a Liar and then have HIM Sacrificing Himself for HIS Kinsmen..."Trilobites !!" 

 

And Yes...it's Really THAT BAD!

GOEL:
He must be near of kin. (Leviticus 25:48; 25:25 Ruth 3:12-13)
He must be able to redeem (Ruth 4:4-“6). He must be free of any calamity or need of redemption himself.
He must be willing to redeem (Ruth 4:6ff)
Redemption was completed when the price was completely paid (Leviticus 25:27; Ruth 4:7-11).

(Job 19:25) "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:" ??

 

regards

[one.opinion]

15 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

a. 'evolution' What's that...?? Define evolution...?

b. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

Evolution:

1. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form

2. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth

(definitions courtesy of google)

The scientific theory is a rather complex one, but (as I'm sure you are aware) the idea is that organisms changed over extremely long periods of time into what we can now directly observe today.

21 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

c. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...?

 

Biological theories are not generally established with a small number of pertinent experiments, but with large amounts of compiled evidence. Darwin hypothesized that transitional fossils would be found, and they have. Both human ancestry and transitions of other life groups is supported by fossil evidence. Others hypothesized that morphological phylogenies would be confirmed with DNA sequencing, and this has also been shown. Others have predicted that mutational change, and duplication/divergence would allow organisms to adapt to changes in their environment, and this has also been shown. I know you asked for specifics, and I'm sorry I'm not addressing your response in that much detail yet, but you can probably see my point.

 

32 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

d. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...?

e. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...?

These specifics are for individual experiments and not overarching themes. The bottom line is that numerous individual experiments have one-by-one contributed to what is now nearly-universally accepted among biologists.

37 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

1.  There's ZERO "Scientific Evidence" because astronomy and geology aren't "SCIENCES".

2.  Most of biology is Pseudo-Science as well.

3.  The "Age" of something is outside the purview of The Scientific Method --"SCIENCE".

Gosh, I hope someone lets the astronomers and geologists know this. Please elaborate on what you think is "real" science vs "pseudo" science in biology. Sometimes, science is done primarily by observation, instead of by experimentation. Scientists can count tree rings/ice core layers/lake varves. Then they can actually test whether or not their counting methods are consistent by comparing data. Sorry, but it is still science.

 

34 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

We don't "Accept" things in Science, we Hypothesis TEST.  "Acceptance" is for: Propaganda States, Political 'science', 2nd Grade Story Time, and Religions.

Acceptance is also for evidence. We have considerable evidence for the process of evolution. Since evolution occurs on a massive time scale, it would be extremely difficult to conduct a single experiment showing this process to your satisfaction.

You have made me curious with your use of the word "We". Are you a scientist? If so, what field do you study?

[Enoch2021]

6 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Okay the earth and life thereon isn't an isolated system

There is no Isolated System in Nature.

"An isolated system implies a collection of matter which does not interact with the rest of the universe at all - and as far as we know there are really no such systems." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html

 

 

Quote

..energy in the form of light and heat are provided by the sun... this fuels life right?

Yes, but you kinda have a problem:  

In Biologic Systems, to build "Functional Specific Complexity" (Cellular Structures) you need a SPECIFIC Energy Converter (i.e., Mitochondria/Chloroplasts/Metabolic Pathways) and INFORMATION Program (DNA) ALREADY EXISTING FIRST so as to capture, convert, and use the energy meaningfully.  

Extracellular Nucleo-Bases and Amino's are DESTROYED by Sunlight ( http://www.vuletic.com/hume/ cefec/3-10.html ) as is virtually everything on the planet without the Energy Converter/Information Program already existing...and is prima facia intuitive as digging a hole in the dirt with a stick is to a Pre-Schooler.  Without these Structures present, The Sun's energy is like a Bull in a China Shop!!

 

Real World Example: Mid Summer in Texas, the sun is destructive.  It will burn the tires clean off a tractor if left in the field long enough.  And it will eventually do the same with the roof on your house and your car if not protected.  Why?  Because there is no "Pre-Existing" mechanism to capture the heat of the sun and an information program to direct its use.  Now let's put solar panels on the roof, and add an information program (computer/software) to capture the sun's energy and direct it to produce electricity.  Now the sun is no longer destructive.  But-----and this is important, the sun will NEVER build the solar panels or write a program to convert the heat to usable energy. 

See the "Specific" Energy Converter and Information Program in the above example?

 

Or do you ascribe to the Sun sending Intelligent Messages or Instructions to "Stupid" Atoms so they can build it? 

 

Quote

this is how creationists misunderstand the 2nd law.

It's Crystal Clear that it is "YOU" that misunderstands it.

 

regards

[one.opinion]

Please show me all the scientific (or unscientific, if you prefer) data you have that establishes that the speed of light is variable. Are the astronomers lying to us about the distance of interstellar objects? Is the entire field colluding against us with this lie? Please show me a paper published in a scientific journal that supports what you are hypothesizing.

On a separate note, would you mind sharing your seething hostility to the sciences and anyone with an opinion that differs from your own? Do you think Jesus Christ condones this type of behavior?

[one.opinion]

15 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

However, by adhering to this 'belief'... you Ipso Facto render NULL The Doctrine of Salvation:

Salvation is through Jesus Christ. John 14:6 - "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father, but by Me." Do you believe that others can have theological differences with you and still "come to the Father" through Jesus Christ?

[Kevinb]

12 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Since evolution occurs on a massive time scale, it would be extremely difficult to conduct a single experiment showing this process to your satisfaction

Usually yes but it depends too on any natural selection pressures. There are hundreds of examples that have happened over decades. Google the lizards on the pod islands off Croatia 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

30 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Okay the earth and life thereon isn't an isolated system..energy in the form of light and heat are provided by the sun... this fuels life right? As you say energy to use this law cannot enter the system ..it does.. this is how creationists misunderstand the 2nd law.

The entropy of a closed system is ALWAYS positive.  A closed system may be defined as the universe.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics remains True, ALWAYS.  I don't care how other creationists misuse science.  I am an old Earth Creationist and my argument holds up to your criticism.  If you want to create a subset of creationists saying some creationist misunderstand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, I can agree with you.  There are some people arguing outside their field of study.  As for me in the process of getting my engineering degree 45 years ago, I took Classical Thermodynamics, Applied Thermodynamics and Advanced Thermodynamics (for grad students).

Day and Night, four days apart.  If you read what I wrote about the Gap Theory, I am talking about two different light sources.  One is God on Day 1 (Genesis 1:3) and the other is from the viewpoint of a watcher on earth who couldn't see the sun until Day 4 (Genesis 1:14).  No doubt this is a miracle and outside the limits of science.  But God as I envision Him is the Author of Science, so He's allowed to break what He defined.  I don't have a problem with that.  It's a matter of faith.

My thinking up to now is that God is both inside and outside time in 10-11 dimensional space.  But if there are 4 spacial dimensions, I wondering if God is there.  Or is God outside of all 10-11 dimensions?  My last physics book I read was Time Travel in Einstein's Universe.  Interesting book but the subject matter is being further refined.

[da_man1974]

1 hour ago, Enoch2021 said:

Well firstly, because "Light Years" isn't a Measure of "Time" or "Distance"...

According to 'The Narrative', "Light Years" is not a measure of "Time"...it's one of "Distance". 

For you to be able to ascertain the "Time" component, you *MUST KNOW* the..."One-Way" Speed of Light. 

 

Unfortunately, you can never know that because it's a Begging The Question Fallacy... In TOTO, resulting from the inability to Synchronize 2 'clocks' by some distance. 

 

Watch...

 

How do we determine the "SPEED" or "RATE" of something??

 

Distance = Rate x Time, right??  So...

 

R = D/T

 

It's the "T" that's in focus here. You need 2 Clocks, right? Clock A (Terminus a quo) and Clock B (Terminus ad quem).

 

According to Einstein's 'Relativity', the moment you move Clock B... That Clock is DE-SYNCHRONIZED !!!!

 

What do you Need to KNOW to reconcile and SYNCHRONIZE Clock B to Clock A ??  That's Right Folks...

 

 

                                             The "One-Way" Speed of Light !!!

 

 

So the ENTIRE Exercise is a TEXTBOOK: Begging The Question Fallacy.  Einstein made the very same conclusion...

 

 

“It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.”
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), pp. 22–23.

Regarding the "One Way" Speed of Light, Einstein concluded....“That light requires THE SAME TIME to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality NEITHER A SUPPOSITION NOR A HYPOTHESIS about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of *MY OWN FREEWILL* in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.” 
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p. 23.

 

Ergo...the Speed of Light (average "Two-Way" Speed) is merely a 'CONVENTION' that we've agreed upon.

 

More strikingly, according to Quantum Mechanics... Independent of Knowledge/Existence of 'which-path' Information, " LIGHT " (Photons) --  have no defined properties or location. Photons exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, Matter/Photons don't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities. 

 

“It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been REGISTERED. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a RECORD in the present.”
Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.

Unless you can explicitly identify "A Knower" @ the source of this Light (Photons)....who also "observed" it's entire 'path', AND the "observer" who first identified it here on Earth and RECORDED it (Date and Time stamped) THEN, you're gonna have to provide....
 

 

The Speed of a Wave of Potentialities !! 

 

 

Go ahead...I'll get the Popcorn !!! 

 

ps.  As you can determine quite easily above, In Reality...Light Years is neither a measure of "Time" or "Distance". It's merely a "Convention", that we've agreed upon.  Voila

 

regards

IF light travels 186,000 miles per second wouldn't a light year be 186,000 * how many seconds are in a year?

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Usually yes but it depends too on any natural selection pressures. There are hundreds of examples that have happened over decades. Google the lizards on the pod islands off Croatia 

I've read it, truly fascinating! However, it is often discarded by conservative creationists because it doesn't show any speciation. Check out the mice on Madeira or the apple maggot fly. (Kind of a gross name, but an interesting story!)