6000 Years vs. Millions of Years

[Guest IACWC_77]

Thanks for responding,and as assumed, it was for brevities sake that I held back, for there are more than enough

[Jorge S]

I am interested in what you perceive to be "philosophical" fallacies in evolution. Please share.

You can depart from here...

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"

"Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."

But observational, fact-based Biology can depart from here...

1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

2:1 "And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them...

2:3 And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He had rested from all His work which God created to make."

8:16-17"Go out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and your sons' wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing that is with you, of all flesh, of fowl, of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth, so that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful and multiply upon the earth."

That's an increase in complexity as well as order, no? Yet countless babies are born every day, and every day they grow larger, more orderly, and more complex. Clearly, then, the development of a simple organism to a complex one is not a violation of entropy laws. Likewise for the evolution of simple to complex organisms in the grand scheme. Both are afforded by net increases in entropy.

Within the debate of Creation vs Evolution Entropy Laws are a concern in the prebiotic world. The development of a zygote into an adult specimen is an expression of the complexity already encoded in the DNA.

[The Lorax]

So what you may say, but look at means and the error band, and do the math. Further findings can be found here.

The link didn't work for me, but I did a little browsing. It doesn't sound like the light speed issue is even close to settled, but it's certainly interesting. One assumes that fundamental physical constants like the speed of light are, well, constant, and then you've got something like this.

I read the argument on the site that you recommended, and there are several elementary problems with the argument (or maybe I just don't see it). How would a simple spring even begin to work as a mouse trap?

The ends of the spring are pushing against each other in such a way that, if disturbed, they will push past each other and the spring will constrict around the mouse. The animation almost makes it look like the ends of the spring aren't touching, but they are, just barely, so the smallest disturbance will set it off. It also looks like some magical force is slowly pushing the ends together, but the spring is supposed to be snapping shut due its own internal energy.

Why would the mouse trap “evolve” in the first place unless there was a need to catch mice? Where is the intelligence required to ever place the mousetrap (that won't work) where it needs to be carefully placed?

Features don't arise to satisfy a need, they arise virtually randomly (mutation), and are eliminated, preserved and/or amplified based on need (natural selection). In the case of the reducibly complex mousetrap, the spring would appear randomly, and it would persist as a feature either because it served some end other than catching mice or because it was not harmful enough to be selected out. At some point, if a mutation placed it in the position to catch a mouse, like in MacDonald's first permutation, it would suddenly be a very beneficial trait and become amplified by natural selection. No intelligence necessary, just selective pressures acting on incremental changes in structure.

The issue is obviously not the mouse trap, but about the far more complex human being. So I guess the primary question is simply; “Why life in the first place?”

Because the Lord intended it, of course.

But what came first, the proteins or the DNA. Then there is the question of enzymes, amino acids, RNA, etc, etc., etc.

Look into ribozymes, RNA that, like DNA, can code for genetic information and, like protein, can serve as an enzyme. There's this thing called Eigen's paradox, which holds that NA (nucleic acids) require protein for their synthesis, but that protein require NA for their synthesis, so we get a chicken-egg problem. Ribozymes sidestep the paradox by functioning as both RNA and enzymes. Uniquely in the chemical world, they can catalyze their own replication.

But lets leave the ultra complex DNA for a moment, and look at the human skeleton. The human adult has an average of 206 bones, all arranged perfectly to form the skeletal system. There is a possibility of arranging the bones in 10388 different ways. There is not enough time alloted by the most generous of evolutionary scales to allow for this (no taking into account that we don't know where the bones came from). Statistics place this well beyond the realms of possibility. Keep in mind that the human genome is way more complex.

You're right, it would be virtually impossible for our 206 bones to randomly assemble correctly. Good thing evolution isn't random. Although mutation can effectively be considered random, it is acted upon by a highly non-random process called natural selection. Your example ignores natural selection and wrongly supposes that we are the products of pure chance. Absolutely not.

Then we have the issue of Einstein's Theories of Relativity, in which he demonstrates that time is relative to mass, acceleration, gravity. It is therefore a physical dimension. There are aspects of the human being that cannot be explained physically, and therefore cannot be said to be bound by our physical reality. The very fact that we can have this argument is evidence to me that we are a design of a skillful Designer.

Though I agree we are the product of a skillful Designer, I disagree that the existence of our consciousness leads inexorably to that conclusion. The case can be made that consciousness is an emergent property of any sufficiently complex computational system, be it a brain or, someday perhaps, a circuit board.

Think about it for a moment, who first came up with the idea of the God of the Bible. And why in the world would they want to. The God of the Jewish and Christian faiths is Unique in that he views man as inherently wicked and sinful. I cannot think of a person who willingly , without the help of some outside source, putting themselves in that category. It was said by Lewis Sperry Chafer that, “Man couldn't write the Bible if he would, and wouldn't write the Bible if he could.” I also had a friend tell me as I walked through life as a staunch atheist that the very fact that I say I don't believe that God exist is evidence that I have a concept of Him possibly existing. I'll let you respond before continuing as this is getting lengthy.

Cool. I'm already a Believer, but I can't say I've heard these ideas before.

[The Lorax]

Within the debate of Creation vs Evolution Entropy Laws are a concern in the prebiotic world. The development of a zygote into an adult specimen is an expression of the complexity already encoded in the DNA.

In what way are entropy laws a concern in the prebiotic world?

Do you think the formation of a cell from non-cells would violate the 2nd law? I don't. In fact, several essential cellular components assemble spontaneously. For instance, every cell has a membrane made of a phospholipid bilayer. Phospholipids naturally form into round, cell-like bilayers in the presence of water. They are called micelles and they are often mistaken for cells at a glance. Every cell also has either DNA or RNA. Though the double helix of DNA is an orderly structure, it forms naturally and spontaneously out of nucleotide monomers. They self-assemble. A lot of orderly things self-assemble in nature and do not violate the 2nd law.

[Guest IACWC_77]

If you are a believer, then your problem is not the Genesis account of creation. It shouldn't be an issue of science and physics when it come to believers, for those who believe in God as the Supreme Being need believe that He is truthful and trustworthy. The believer who holds to the evolutionist theory of of existence has there problem in Exodus 20:8-11, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Eight times in the Tanak it is state that, "The Eternal One cannot lie." Nor do I think that God is in the decieving business. He says that he created the earth in six days, and in the same way we are to work six and rest one, then I'll take His word for it. There is no need for the believer to question the Word of God unless there is doubt that God is one hundred percent trustworthy (do not take this as an attack on you). We could go on debating the issue, but the fact is that either view takes a degree of faith. I'll take my chances taking God at face value.

God Bless

[The Lorax]

Fair enough. I don't hedge spiritual bets, and it would be impossible for me to abandon my current worldview for the sake of theological expedience. I simply believe in what I am convinced is true. (This is not an attack on you either, just an explanation for my sustained position.) Most Christians the world over believe in Creation as well as evolution, and I am in that majority. One reason I believe what I do is that, in order for Creation to be just 7,000 years old despite the massive astronomical, geological, chemical, and biological evidence to the contrary, He must be deceptive. But, like you, I trust He is not.

Have a happy New Year.

[kari21]

Most Christians the world over believe in Creation as well as evolution, and I am in that majority.

Biblical Evidence Against Theistic Evolution By Bob Dutko

God and Evolution may sound like an acceptable mix, but this concept of Theistic Evolution, or the belief that God guided a process of evolution during the Genesis Creation does not stand up to science or the Bible. So many Christians have been sold the lie of evolution that they feel they must accept it as truth or else they are somehow denying science. In fact, if you boldly declare that God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 literal 24 hour days just about 6000 years ago, you will likely be laughed at and accused of also believing the Earth is flat. (By the way, the Bible does not say the Earth is flat. It describes it as a sphere suspended upon nothing, which of course, is true. It also does not claim the Earth is the center of the Universe as Galileo's persecutors believed) The scientific evidence for Creation over Evolution is overwhelming, but for now, let me address specifically whether the Bible can be reconciled with Evolution.

First, keep in mind that God certainly could have used evolution if He wanted to. However, had He have used evolution, the fossil record as well as the rest of the scientific evidence would be different, but also, the Bible would have been written differently. Of the many Biblical evidences that God did not use evolution, let's take a look at just one small example: Adam and Eve. To examine whether God created Adam and Eve through evolution, we need to first examine just how evolution says Adam and Eve would have been created and then compare that to how the Bible says Adam and Eve were created to see if they both can logically be reconciled.

According to evolution, hominids would have been evolving over millions of years, getting a little more

[The Lorax]

God and Evolution may sound like an acceptable mix, but this concept of Theistic Evolution, or the belief that God guided a process of evolution during the Genesis Creation does not stand up to science

OK, he's already lost his target audience in the first sentence. Now he's only preaching to the choir, the choir being young Earthers. Most denialists have the sense to spring the pseudoscience on the reader after the theology, but it looks like Mr. Dutko got a little ahead of himself. ...Very far ahead of himself, seeing as he never actually justifies the statement that evolution is unsupported by science.

First, keep in mind that God certainly could have used evolution if He wanted to. However, had He have used evolution, the fossil record as well as the rest of the scientific evidence would be different

I'm guessing he won't support this statement. ...Nope, he doesn't.

According to evolution, hominids would have been evolving over millions of years, getting a little more “human” like over the years until eventually the first fully human man was born. That's when God would have said “okay, we now have 'man', and I'll call him 'Adam'”. Let's now compare that to how God told Moses he created Adam in Genesis. Genesis 2:7 says “the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground”. Here's where a little simple logic is required. How can anyone honestly interpret Adam being “formed from the dust of the ground” to mean “Adam was conceived and born of a part human, part monkey hominid mother”? The Bible then says that God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being”. However, if God really used evolution, and Adam was born of a part monkey mother, he would have been alive from the moment of conception. Medical science has now confirmed that a human embryo is a living being long before the nostrils even form. So did God breath the breath of life into Adam's nostrils as a fetus? If so, was Adam not “alive” as he was developing in the womb up to that point before his nostrils developed?

If you believe in abiogenesis, as most evolutionists do, then Adam was indeed created from dust.

If you believe Genesis can be interpreted to say God used evolution, then you might as well throw out the whole Bible. After all, if “man was made from the dust of the ground” can be interpreted as “man was born from part monkey parents”....or if “woman was created from man's rib” can be interpreted as “woman grew up the child of part monkey parents”....or if “God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life and he became a living being” can be interpreted as “man was already a living being before he even developed embryonic nostrils to breath into”.....then why believe anything the Bible has to say at all? Why take anything Moses said seriously? Or David? Or Solomon? Or Paul? Or Jesus? If interpretation of Scripture can be twisted that far from what it really says, you can twist anything in the Bible to say whatever you want it to. Maybe we should just trust what God told us instead of trying to twist Scripture to fit what we think science tells us.

There is no reason to believe the words of Moses or David or Solomon or Paul or Jesus cannot be taken plainly. But there is every reason to believe Genesis cannot be. The non-parable words of Jesus, read literally, do not conflict with everything we know about the universe.

God could have simply said “and God created life in the oceans, too small to see and over long periods of time they grew larger and more complex and changed until eventually they developed into plants, then animals, then man and woman....and it was good”. That's all God had to say. Moses would have understood it, it would be in Scripture today, as recorded in Genesis, and we all would accept evolution as being how God created man.

I disagree. Although that explanation reads simply enough, it would have been unintelligible to Moses et al. How did life just "develop" into more complex forms? That account would have raised aching questions that could not be answered for thousands of years. Genesis as we know it, on the other hand, provides an account that could be accepted unproblematically by the "bunch of sheep herders," and then reinterpreted unproblematically by their ancestors later in time.

Also, you have to remember that Genesis is a theological response to other creation stories. It was intentionally made to be similar to the stories of contemporary religions, but separate is some crucial ways. For instance, God created absolutely everything, and He is totally apart from that which He created. Most laypeople, like Mr. Dutko here, do not recognize that Genesis is historically situated. He's clearly not a theologian or a scientist.

All in all, Mr. Dutko has only proved what is already mindnumbingly obvious: evolution can't be reconciled with a plain interpretation of Genesis. And he further proves that scientific evidence can't be reconciled with creationism. Look how many scientific claims he simply left hanging (er...all of them), without any sort of support or justification. He didn't even attempt to explain how evolution is the least bit un-scientific, yet that was half his thesis!

I guess he expects us to just have faith in his unsupported arguments.

[Jorge S]

Within the debate of Creation vs Evolution Entropy Laws are a concern in the prebiotic world. The development of a zygote into an adult specimen is an expression of the complexity already encoded in the DNA.

In what way are entropy laws a concern in the prebiotic world?

It precludes the spontaneous generation of increasing complexity due to its energetic cost.

A lot of orderly things self-assemble in nature and do not violate the 2nd law.

Order involves the adoption of a lower energy status. Complexity requires creation and management of meaningful informational codes. The cellular membrane is not an example of spontaneous order. Remember it contains structural proteins, enzyme-driven pumps, a variety of receptors, etc. all of which are able to keep a unique intracellular environment at odds with the extracellular medium. Nucleic acids fare even worse with regards to spontaneous self-assembling.

Ribozymes sidestep the paradox by functioning as both RNA and enzymes. Uniquely in the chemical world, they can catalyze their own replication.

Researchers are moving away from the RNA World theme into Metabolism First scenarios. The reason is the highly improbable 'miracles' (naturalistically speaking, of course) involved in the concept of ancient replicators. For an overview, see this article by eminent evolutionist Robert Shapiro, a decorated Chemist and Origin of Life researcher.

[kari21]

My point to the Dutko post was that you cannot reconcile The Bible, not just the book of Genesis, and theistic evolution. Romans 5:12 says: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

Theistic evolutionists argue that many sub-species evolved and died before the "Adam" of the Bible. Or that there really was no Adam at all. Yet the Bible clearly teaches that there was no death before Adam sinned!

And in Luke chapter 3, Jesus' lineage is traced all the way back to ADAM.

Also, you have to remember that Genesis is a theological response to other creation stories. It was intentionally made to be similar to the stories of contemporary religions, but separate is some crucial ways.

There is no way at all you can possibly know this. This is pure speculation on your part.

I guess he expects us to just have faith in his unsupported arguments.

Like what you just said above?

Most theistic evolutions "use" God to get the universe started because they cannot explain it through cosmic evolution alone. And then they simply push God out of the picture. Is that what you do?