Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid

Your reply should be ONE WORD.Choose from YES or NO.Ken, do you agree that the Earth is NOT a closed system, but is receiving lots of energy from the sun?
Yes or No?
Do not post another website.
Do not argue related or unrelated topics.Do not preach a sermon to me.DO NOT CONTINUE TO TRY TO WEASEL OUT OF ANSWERING A SIMPLE QUESTION.Yes or no?Pick one.

---

I want to date, and shop, and hang out, and go to school, and save the world from unspeakable demons. You know...girly things." -Buffy

To: ShafinatorYES.The earth is an open system and receiving lots of energy from the sun. I fully agree. I would say also "so what" in regards to our discussion. Does this mean the second law of thermodynamics can be completely ignored or that it does not exert a powerful influence? Not at all. Does this mean that one can engage in gross extrapolations? No, it does not. Can the principle of teleonomy be ignored (see SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? - ChristianAnswers.Net)? Again, I would say no.I also see the abiogenesis hypothesis is totally unworkable and I gave support information. I did say creationism is true in my string title and so I have every right to say the abiogenesis hypothesis is untrue.I also see mutations as being a unworkable mechanism for the macroevolutionary hypothesis:Articles regarding mutations and why they are not a good argument for the macroevolutionary hypothesis: : Page not found – Evolution-Factshttp://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut13.htmPage not found – How Does a Cryptocurrency ETF Work?In short, I do not see the earth being an open system as being some great shield that will make the macroevolutionary position viable in relation to the second law of thermodymics. In other words, my yes in answer to your question is no big deal. I believe you should consider the second link I offered as well: http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/menton/om5.htmSincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-10-2004]

Unfortunately for you, Ken, the argument that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is based solely on the assumption that it involes increasing order. However since the Earth is not a closed system increases in themrodynamic order do NOT violate the second law of thermodynamics.In short the fact that the Earth is not a closed system, receiving energy from outside refutes the only possibly valid argument you have. Unless and until a valid argument is produced you have no case. Neoither of your web sites deals with showing violations of the REAL second law of thermodynamics.
"They insist that creationists simply don't understand thermodynamics."
And they are absolutely right !

quote:

---

The earth is an open system and receiving lots of energy from the sun. I fully agree. I would say also "so what" in regards to our discussion. Does this mean the second law of thermodynamics can be completely ignored or that it does not exert a powerful influence?

---

If work/energy is put into a system, thermodynamic order can increase. This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, if energy from the sun is being put into earth's systems, then order can increase. With this in mind, please tell us how increases in thermodynamic order was and is impossible on earth.

TO: LoudmouthI would say the type of very complex order I see is incongruent with the second law of thermodynamics exerting significant influence. For example, the irreducible complexity of the first cell(s) (being a creationist I would say many cells could have been created simultaneously). In short, I believe the materialist will always fail in regards to the abiogenesis issue. I also think Behe and his like minded colleagues will continue to be a thorn in the side of those who espouse evolutionary ideas.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-11-2004]

Ken you dont need to worry about any of these guys and gals I have come across here. Just stick to the facts, that's all one needs do-I believe I have mentioned this before But I have not followed out the consequences for a formal debateAbraham Pais 'Subtle is the Lord' Chapter 29 OF TENSORS AND A HEARING AID AND MANY OTHER THINGS:EINSTEIN'S COLLABORATORS p484 NUMBER TwO."Walter Ritz. b.1878, Sion Switzerland. Phd in Goettingen with Voigt, 1902. Privatdozen in Goettigen from 1908, the year in which he discovered the combination principle for line spectra. Ritz did not accept special relativity, but rather believed in the need to give up the notion of field described by partial differential equations (see 9P2), Sec.3). Ritz and Einstein published on very breif joint paper, written in April 1909. I strech the notion of collaboration by including it, since it is a tersly phrased joint communique' in which both men state what they have agreed to differ on. The issue was whether advanced and retarted solutions of the electromagnetic field equations are both admissible tyopes of solutions. 'Ritz considers the restriction to the...retarded potentials as one of the roots of the second law (of thermodynamics), whereas Einstein believes that the irreversibility rests excluisvely on probability grounds'."I would not call the posters here "retarded" biological cross level effect potentials in this sense (where Gould INSISTS on things) but I dont mind applying it to what seems to me a confusion of process and body in Pias or my own member (you name the part).

Here's an old trick I learned from Ken (do we really need two threads for the same point?)I feel your logic is somewhat flawed - you could just as well extend this thinking back to the big bang and demand that that is proven before ANY science has validity. Gravity doesn't require an explanation of the big bang in the same way evolution doesn't require an explanation of abiogenesis.

To: ALLI am back.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-11-2004]

Hello, kendemyer. It's good to see that you're back.

quote:

---

The materialist cannot avoid the implications that his/her macroevolutionary hypothesis is built upon the swamp of the abiogenesis hypothesis.

---

As I stated before, the foundation for any science is the evidence in favor of it. The theory of evolution is built on the lots and lots of independent evidence that points to it as the most rational explanation for what we see in biology and geology.One example of the evidence is the fossil record. The fossil record, as I posted provides some very good evidence in favor of evolution. You responded thus: I don't know where you got your numbers, but they aren't too relevant. Would you like to provide some sort of missing link that you think is significant? As it turns out, there are so many transitionals known in so many lineages.That there may be some gaps isn't so surprising - it is very hard for fossils to form. That we have any fossils at all is probably because of the immense amount of time in geologic history. Wait long enough, and a rare event, like fossilization, is bound to occur.That said, there is an immense number of transitional fossils known. Look at the picture of the ape-to-human skulls again. Creationists for over a hundred years pointed out the lack of "missing links" between humans and apes, and yet now the links are known. The skulls, and the associated skeletons, form a gradually transformation between non-human apes (albeit, ones that are bipedal) and modern humans. Are each of these skulls a different "kind"? Why would the creator create species that would fill in the gaps like this? Or is only two kinds? Where would you draw the line between the two? Why would God make the extreme of one kind so much like the extreme of the other?And what about the whale transitionals? These fossils have the characteristics predicted by evolutionists before they were found. Why would God create "kinds" that could be placed in the gaps between modern whales and ancient mesonychids? Why not really screw us all up by creating "kinds" that could be interpreted to show a link between whales directly to fish? That would be interesting.The fact is, there are too many well-attested evolutionary lines in the fossil record. The number of "missing" links continue to get smaller and smaller.There is now the possibility that the "link" between modern humans and modern apes has been found (although my understanding is that this has yet to undergo peer-review). Whether you find this evidence convincing or not, why were these fossils, with the right amount of "in-betweeness" found? Why would God create species that look "in-between" major groups?By the way, I see that you are busy in a number of conversations. I will understand if you feel you are unable to continue this one.

Dear Chiroptera:I have a lot of matters to attend to and so I have not posted as often to this string. I did some post today because my car had a mysterious problem that has now been resolved (electrical problem) but it did alter my plans quite a bit.I was also suspended for a bit but Percy restored my access plus apparently agreed with me in regards to a paticular point that was related to the suspension.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-11-2004]

quote:

---

I would say the type of very complex order I see is incongruent with the second law of thermodynamics exerting significant influence.

---

Huh?What does "very complex" order mean? That's not part of the 2LoT.

quote:

---

For example, the irreducible complexity of the first cell(s) (being a creationist I would say many cells could have been created simultaneously).In short, I believe the materialist will always fail in regards to the abiogenesis issue.

---

It's a good thing that your beliefs do not drive scientific inquiry, eh?It's also a good thing that the ToE and Abiogenesis theories are wholly seperate theories and not dependent upon each other in the least, too!

quote:

---

I also think Behe and his like minded colleagues will continue to be a thorn in the side of those who espouse evolutionary ideas.

---

You DO realize that Behe is 9/10ths Evolutionist, and would disagree with pretty much everything you posted here so far, don't you?Behe and his God of the Gaps bretheren are a thorn in the side of those of us who wish to keep religion out of the public school science classtoom, but he is hardly a thorn in the side of professional Evolutionary Biologists.That's because his ideas are not scientific. There is no testable, empirical theory. It is merely a restatement, albeit in microbiological terms, of the God of the Gaps fallacy.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-12-2004]

quote:

---

I would say the type of very complex order I see is incongruent with the second law of thermodynamics exerting significant influence. For example, the irreducible complexity of the first cell(s) (being a creationist I would say many cells could have been created simultaneously).

---

No one knows what the first cells looked like, other than spherical. Can you show me the metabolic pathways, cell wall construction, or genomes of the first cells? I think not. Also, complete cells are not what is hypothesized as the first step towards life in abiogenesis theories. Abiogenesis hypothesizes replicating biochemical reactions without any separation from the outside environment. In other words, the first life was not a cell. You must show how catalytic RNA, for example, is too complex even if energy is being put into the system.Also, what is the limit for the 2nd Law? I have never seen any equation that puts an upper limit on the amount of complexity that can form as a consequence of input energy. Could you please supply this equation.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-12-2004]

Dear Lindum:In about 7-14 days I plan on addressing what you posted.Sincerely,Ken

I know the abiogenesis hypothesis issue and the origin and time of the universe's substance is related to the macroevolutionary hypothesis and ultimately to the philosophy of materialism. The proponents of materialism have asserted that the universe (all matter and energy that exist) is either eternal or even that it came from nothing naturally. The science just does not support this: http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php and
Page not found - Apologetics PressThe abiogenesis issue is also a nightmare for the materialist and they invariably try to avoid this issue at forums like this. I believe the best explanation is an intelligent creator and I offer this information: http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html and Origin of Life | Answers in Genesis I also know the proponents of materialism claim that there was a sequential process: universes substance being here first then abiogenesis and then macroevolution. So there is absolutely no way that is cannot be said to be a foundational issue. If the universes substance was not here and abiogenesis did not occur then there is no way that macroevlution could occur in a materialist framework.Therefore, since the two foundational issues of the universe and abiogenesis is not supported then I sincerely believe it is a house that has no foundation or first floor. Empirically materialism and its macroevolutionary hypothesis is a hypothetical second floor being suspended in the air.I sincerely believe that the materialist and macroevolutionist can be compared to men trying to build a castle in the middle of the ocean above an ocean trench in stormy seas. The waves of contrary information to the macroevolutionary hypothesis keep beating on the macroevolutionary hypothesis (see: http://EvC Forum: Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid -->EvC Forum: Young earth creationism is valid and the macroevolutionary hypothesis is not valid).I also believe the locale for building this materialist castle is not suitable and I compare the location to an ocean trench because I do not believe abiogenesis and the materialist explanations for the origin of the universe (all matter and energy that exist) is a good locale for building the materialistic macroevolutionary hypothesis.Lastly, I do know there is good evidence for the Christian position and I have offered it at this forum. In short, based on the lack of evidence for materialism and other isms and the evidence fot Christianity and my personal experience I am compelled by conscience to be a Christian.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-13-2004]

Ken, you've taken seven paragraphs to say the same thing repeatedly. Worse still, you're just saying the same thing you said in post 155, which I originally replied to. If you want to try again, please do so, but I'd rather like to see your replies to schrafinator, loudmouth, chiroptera and paulk too.