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

This is why creationists tend to win debates, but lose out when they are pressed for scientific evidence in a scientific WRITTEN debate. In an oral debate, the creationist will trot out everything you have written in a span of about 5 minutes, and then expect the evolutionist to refute each claim with convuluted and in-depth scientific explanations in the same 5 minutes.Secondly, quote-mining by creationists is a well known phenomenon. For each of your quotes, could you please provide the context for each quote, maybe include the previous and subsequent paragraphs from the paper where the quotes are taken from? Secondly, no matter what an authority states, they can still be wrong. It is the actual evidence that matters.My suggestion to you is this. Pick one topic from the long list above and we will talk about that.

kendemeyer,Just for an example of how evolutionists are taken out of context. You used this quote from Patterson in the original post: A person wrote a letter to Patterson, asking if he had indeed been taken out of context. This is Patterson's reply: As you can see, Patterson was only arguing that the fossil record gives us poor information on DIRECT lineages, but fossils are still useable as examples of transitional forms. Read here for more info. This is why evolutionists don't trust creationists when they offer quotes from prominent evolutionists.

It is accurate, BUT TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT! Do you realize what this means? He was talking about systematics, not the overall corectness of evolutionary theory. For instance, from your previous post, you wrote". . .truth of matters in the EVC issue seems unconvincing from the creationist side of the aisle."You did say those words, didn't you?

quote:

---

It seems we have a case of profound tunnel vision going on here in regards to Ken.

---

Perhaps, but I wanted Ken to understand the fallacy of quote mining. Perhaps he will actually present scientific data instead of quotes and web page links, but I am not holding my breath.

quote:

---

The quotes sting evolutionists so that has taken most of the strings discussion. I did offer essays as well.

---

Misrepresentation does sting, I will admit. About the essays, do you think you could pick one and summarize it here. Just a guess, but there are some 15 or so essays to respond to, none of which you say one word about. But, just for fun.Irrefutable evidence of common ancestry:
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

quote:

---

I thought there would be more creationists here to share the load of the discussion.

---

Actually, creationists are overrepresented on this site when compared to creationists in the biological sciences. Last number I saw was that creationists (young earth creationists to be exact) comprised 0.1% of the scientists in the biological sciences. That would be 1 in a thousand.

Ken,You may want to brush up on the second law of thermodynamics. The way in which creationist misuse the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2LoT), you would not be able to go from a single cell zygote to an adult human. This is disorder (the food you eat) to order (your body).How about you use the 2LoT the way that it was actually devised, as a transfer of energy. For a non-organic example, if everything were going to disorder, then there should not be separate fresh water and brine water (sea water). It is the INPUT OF ENERGY FROM THE SUN that drives this system, as it drives ecosystems across the globe. If energy is available for work, order CAN AND DOES come from disorder. This does not violate the 2LoT. People who say that evolution violates the 2LoT are full of it and do not understand the laws to begin with.

quote:

---

I do not feel as if you read my post. You saw the phrase second law of thermodynamics and debated me in regards to a wholly different application of the law.
  —kendemeyer

---

Oh really, you compared abiogenesis to the laws of thermodynamics in message #44: I simply rebutted by saying order can arise from disorder if energy is available for work. Therefore, abiogenesis does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and neither does evolution which the site you referred to insinuated.

quote:

---

I will also say that I have never understood the pink unicorn/leprauchan argument for the non existence of God. Because there is one false belief that does not make all beliefs false.
  —kendemyer

---

It simply comes down to this.You state: "God created the Universe"I state: "No, a Flatulent Pink Unicorn created the Universe"Now, what physical evidence do we have that can prove one statement is more correct than the other? What scientific experiments can we run that will prove that God or the FPU created the universe?It is just showing that you can insert any diety other than the God of Christianity and the statement has the same amount of evidence to back it up, essentially none.

Ken,From the website you cite in message 109: Do you agree that evolutionary theory is separate from abiogenesis theories? What your reference seems to indicate they are separate theories since the start.Also, even if scientists are able to start life from inorganic molecules in the lab, this still does not prove that is how life arose on earth. Scientists are fine with this and will freely admit it. What you seem to miss is that the field of evolution is not hindered by not knowing how life started. As of right now, the odds of life on earth are 1:1. Evolution only requires imperfect replicators to be present, and that criteria is fulfilled.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-05-2004]

quote:

---

The materialist always run when abiogenesis comes up.

---

No, we simply state what the evidence gives us. We simply don't know exactly how life started on Earth. Are we ready to move on to macroevolution now?

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.

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]

Ken,I am guessing that scientist A and B and conditions X and Y in this discussion applies to the following positions:Big Bang, Natural Mechanisms: This positions states that space, time, matter, and energy suddenly came into being at the same time. The sudden appearance of energy and matter from nothing seems to go against the first law of thermodynamics in that matter and energy can not be created from nothing.Big Bang, Supernatural Mechanism: This position seems to agree with the sudden appearance of space, time, matter, and energy but disagrees on the origination of these properties. By inserting a supernatural diety, the first law of thermodynamics is overcome.I will continue using these two positions, assuming that this is what you are arguing.What we have with the supernatura mechanism is a "God of the Gaps" (GotG hereafter) fallacy. The reason why this is a logical fallacy is that lack of knowledge is no reason to assume a supernatural cause. Thor and Zeus were thought to have thrown lightening bolts from the clouds at one time in history. However, as our knowledge increased we found natural mechanisms that described the creation of lightening. GotG assumes that if there is no natural mechanism to describe a natural phenomena, it must be due to a supernatural force. If GotG worked, science would not progress. However, the ability of science past and present of discovering new natural mechanisms for natural phenomena is counter-evidence for the metaphysical GotG position.What we run into with the Big Bang, as described by natural mechanisms, are conditions that have since never existed. Just like Newton's Laws fail at velocities nearing the speed of light, so may the laws of thermodynamics fail in a similar manner when describing the origination of the universe. Also, the metrics used in thermodynamics (matter, energy, space, time) might have all emerged at the same point and time. Without space and time, there are no laws of thermodynamics. If these four things came about at the same time, the first law of thermo is not violated since these laws only apply to the plane of space and time.So, if scientist A has evidence that the universe started from a small point and expanded outwards over billions of years it should not be trumped by scientist B who has an ancient text that describes the beginning of the universe as being 6,000 years ago with no evidenciary support.Point for scientist A (Materialist hearafter).Scientist B shows how the basic physical laws would have to be violated. However, this assumes that these laws applied to circumstances that where space and time do not exist.Zero points for scientist B (Supernaturalist herafter).The materialist makes models that are consistent with current observations on quantum fluctuations and poses a theory.Zero points for the materialist, but maybe an honorable mention for his effort. This is not proof, but it does score points towards a logical methodology for describing natural phenomena.The supernaturalist does not make a model, but instead assumes that a non-evidenced diety using a non-evidenced mechanism created the beginning of the universe.Zero points for the supernaturalist, and no honorable mention. The supernaturalist does get bonus points for being strong in one's faith. Nothing wrong in believing in the supernatural, but applying ones faith to things that can be tested scientifically puts one on shaky ground.So I would say that the materialist is ahead. He is not assuming anything. Instead, the materialist strives towards describing reality, not forcing one's presuppositions on reality. The supernaturalist forces his unevidenced diety into a gap in our knowledge assuming that this is a logical step. However, it is plainly not valid reasoning. To make matters worse, only one diety out of the hundreds of dieties found in past and present cultures, and again for no other apparent reason besides personal revelation.Materialists, or rather the vast majority of scientists, do not pretend that they know exactly how the universe started. They do think that current theories are getting close, but the inaccessibility of the Big Bang, due to the uniqueness and volitility of the Big Bang, makes their job difficult indeed. Sometimes "We don't know" is a very honest and refreshing comment in science. "We don't know" is the reason we developed science to begin with. "God did it" has long since failed as a reliable theory for describing natural phenomena.

Ken,What we may be discussing here has parallels with another discussion earlier in the 20th century. When Einstein came out with his laws, some were in conflict with Newton's laws, or added to his laws. At that time Newton's laws were well supported, and under certain conditions are still well supported. This could also be happening to the first law of thermodynamics. Under normal conditions, like those experienced within nuclear and chemical reactions, the law is upheld. However, there may be instances where the first law is not applicable, much like relativistic speeds nullifies Newton's laws. One such condition may have been the Big Bang.

quote:

---

In short, my science law "full house" still beats the duece pair of the casimir effect energy source speculations.

---

We may be comparing a full house to six sixes in Yahtzee. The two conditions may be separate. Also, there may be energy sources that we have not as yet understood. The transfer of unknown energy to known mass is not a violation, just a lack of exploration.Thirdly, space and time originated with the Big Bang. The laws of thermodynamics originated at the same time, but were not applicable before the advent of space time. Therefore, there were no laws of thermo to violate if energy, mass, space, and time came into being at the same time. The laws of thermo do have limitations. Again, we may be comparing poker hands with yahtzee rolls here.