mutations result in the loss of information or the deformation of the creature, making it less than what it was, rather than more. This is a symptom of the fallen state life is in.
God invented heredity: “…plants yielding seed after their kind,” “…beasts of the earth after their kind.”…
…to perpetuate the speciation that He created from the start, rather than breaking the herdity rule by creating one kind from another over millenia.
As I brought up before, several dating techniques that conclude millenia are involved make assumptions which can be reasonably disagreed with. Furthermore the results of those dating techniques are themselves often inconsistent. Looking at the same evidence, Creation science can show cause to trust the Earth is of an age consistent with Genesis.
The term translated into firmament literally means “expansion of plates,” which is an amazing description of how we now understand our atmosphere as being layers. Influence by Alexandrian theories of a “stone vault” led to the mistranslation of the Septuagint that led from the original raqia to stereoma, later to be firmamentum in the Latin Vulgate, as I read it in The Complete Word Study Old Testament, KJV from AMG publishers.
The Genesis account accurately describes our atmosphere, without contradicting science. It was the misunderstanding and/or changing of scripture’s words, done out of attempts to come into harmony with the scientific theory of the time that proved untrue.
It’s reasonable that there could have been an atmospheric layer of water before the flood that emptied itself, contributing to the worldwide deluge. That additional layer could have provided the climate to produce a mist to water the ground. It could have created a greenhouse, tropical effect allowing species to thrive then that are extinct now because of the change. It could have afforded more protection from the sun or other dileterious effects and thereby promoting the long lives that are documented in Genesis (together with being closer to the original creation on the genetic timeline).
The existence of a worldwide collection of fossils could be explained by a worldwide flood. A carcass left out in the open rots, decays, and / or is eaten. If carcasses worldwide are covered quickly with sediment, say from a worldwide flood, fossilization is possible. The grand canyon can be explained by the receding waters of the flood. Plate tectonics can be related to Noah’s flood.
The wife wants me away from the computer now for a while. May God bless, and open your eyes.
Romans 1
19 "… because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
That said, I’m curious as to why you feel comfortable holding evolution to even an incorrect interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics, the universal application of which is no less based on assupmption than scientific dating techniques.
For example, “deep time” doctrine presumes that sedimentary layers are formed slowly over time, the deeper you go the farther back in time you go. Yet in a cataclysmic flood some of the deepest evidences could have in fact been formed relatively quickly in the year of the flood, and with the water subsequently receeding. This has been scientifically demonstrated in experiments where sedimentary layers are created in the same sorting and settling process regardless of water flow rate. It’s guessed that because today’s observed processes are slow, that rate is a constant and predictable. Yet this disregards the demonstrations of local catastrophic events such as Mt. St. Helen’s where 25’ deep versions of the grand canyon with sedimentation and flow were produced in an afternoon.
Both sides agree on the validity of the application, it’s just that the evolution theory requires breaking what it otherwise recognizes. Hypocritical, irresponsible, and not science. Makes one wonder if its perpetuation therefore might actually be malicious.
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
Tell me after reading that how you can still say that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics? THE EARTH ISN’T EVEN A CLOSED SYSTEM!!!
samhouch, your point about the second laws of thermodynamics is wrong in some many ways.
Just for starters you may be suprised to learn that the second law of thermodynamics means that information (which can be defined from statiscal mechanics in terms of microstates) in a closed system must always tends to increase, for example (though not a great one as it has yet to be resolved) see the black hole information loss paradox. Entropy only = disorder when you define disorder as entropy, your anthropomorphized sense of disorder cannot be equated with entropy.
Which of these statements do you disagree with:
1.The second law of thermodynamics predicts disorder only for systems without an energy source.
2. The earth has an energy source.
1st of all, where do we decide the boundaries are of the system. Overall tremendous amounts of energy are spent to send the energy of the sun to the earth. Is the system the ocean, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe? I think we’re saying the Earth would be the system, open to influence from the sun, right? It’s still heat radiating from a hotter source, though? The open system of the universe received its infusion of energy from God. It all runs down hill from there without his sustaining power.
2. Energy transference alone does not itself lead to life. Why, if given ample water and nutrients, wouldn’t sun shining onto a dead stick (re)create life? Matter alone does not “live.” Energy alone does not “live.” Matter + energy together is not enough to “live.” Life is more than the sum of its material parts. Matter + energy + design/purpose.
OK, so at least we’re in agreement with statement #2.
How about statement #1?
Basically, as soon as there is an energy source, musn’t one expand the fenceline to include that source, incorporating it into the “system.”
Not with respect to systems referred to in the second law of thermodynamics. So do you agree or disagree with statement #1?
I would suggest doing some study on a concept known as exaptation. It could prove useful in understanding how such organs can arise.
I’m guessing you’ve never actually seen a real dinosaur skeleton, much less a bird skeleton. You can start eradicating your ignorance on this particular subject by reading this.
Mutations do nothing of the sort. A mutation is simply an alteration in an organism’s genome. There are many types of mutation, but few of them result in any loss of information (at least, as Dembski defines it). A point mutation, for example, doesn’t vchange the “information content” of the genome in the slightest.
Nice tautology in the first sentence there: it can’t be observed because it’s unobserved. Fortunately, it’s completely wrong. Evolution is occurring in the here and now: see antiobotic resistance and the rise of insecticide-resistant insects. See the extinction of numerous species as a consequence of man’s activities on the planet (and I do not mean just shooting them all). Extinction, you see, is an evolutionary process.
Evolution also happened in the past, but we must use inference to determine its effects. For starters, we have the whole of the fossil record to use as a great big testing ground for evolutionary theories. Then, we have biogeographic distributions of extant species. Then we have differential species populations on islands as compared to mainland areas. Then we have the disparity of endemic forms on islands relative to the mainland. Then we have the existence of adaptations for a particular mode of life on islands wherein that mode of life does not present itself (e.g., some island plants have hooked seeds - an adaptation for catching in the fur of mammals. Except, there are no mammals on the island.) Then we have peculiar modes of life wherein inhabitants “take on” unusual ecological roles (e.g., vampire finches in the Galapagos). Then we have the reverse case, wherein suitable ecological niches exist for certain forms, but they are not present (e.g., many islands lack frogs, toads, and newts, despite presenting a plethora of suitable environments). Then we have numerous cases of dissonance, in which oddities and imperfections indicate historical consequences.
Taken individually, none of these would be evidence of evolution having occurred. Taken together, however, and creation simply fails to explain them all (excpet to simply say, “God did it”, without proffering any explanation as to why or how). Evolution, on the other hand, can explain them all. Keep in maind also that if you dismiss the methods of inferring history for eovlution, you must also discount the methods of inferring all history, since they are no different. Forensic science? “Sorry, Your Honor, but since no one actually saw my client kill anyone, he must be innocent.” World history? I know I wasn’t around when the Colliseum was built. I’ve never seen a Roman. They surely never existed, and you can’t prove that all documentation on them wasn’t made up. Oh, and, of course, you can’t prove that the Bible wasn’t, either.
Just remember that discounting histroical inferrence works against the case for creation every bit as much as it might work against evolution.
And that observed scientific principle, in whose face the theory of evolution flies, would be…? You might weant to check your contradictions there, though: saying something “only changed and declined” is still evolution.
There are signs of design, from which certain folks feel the need to infer a guiding intelligence. We know arrowheads were made by people because we have seen it done. We have not seen squirrels created by divine intelligences, therefore we have no reason to believe that squirrels are, in fact, the product of intelligent design. We can also explain the presence of squirrels without invoking such an intelilgence.
Define “kind”.
The existence of a collection of fossils may well corroborate with a worldwide flood, but the form of the actual fossil record does not.
But to evolve from microbe to man requires adding information. Where is the demonstration of mutations (or natural selection) that added information?
I’m not ignoring your other good points, just trying to sqeeze life and typing into the time allotted 
Adapting to the environment using information already encoded does not lead to a new kind of animal (reptile to bird). A moth that contained multiple color options may find brown being the prevalent color flittering around if the white ones are being eaten, but it’s still a moth, and with no new info.
I’m not sure what you mean by the form of the fossil record. Forgive me.
[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]
Define “kind”.
Forgive me again… I don’t remember exactly the names and defining lines for the categories. Basically I’m saying a cat is a different kind of animal than a dog, or reptile or bird, or man, or plant. Help me out here. Do you know what I’m trying to say? Thanks.QUOTE]
This is pretty silly. Doesn’t the existing of a god, literally creating something from nothing break the laws of thermodynamics? If so, the argument you’re using to try and discredit Evolution also proves there is no god.
Of course, you’ll probably respond with the ultimate cop-out, that it’s god, he doesn’t have to obey the laws since he made them. Total garbage. Let’s talk reality.