ForumGarden

FourPart;1516442 wrote: You just don't get the idea of a False Premise do you? You are using the False Premise of assuming the Universe came from nothing & using that as a premise for arguing that nothing can come of nothing - which, incidentally, is exactly what your explanation involves. No Creationist has ever come up with an explanation of how God came to be - just the usual response when they don't know the answer to anything, God brought himself into existence. Do you have any concept of how retarded that makes you sound? Is it any wonder that Creationists are an International laughing stock?


It is not a false premise to observe the fact that before the universe existed, there was nothing, and from that nothing the universe appeared, proving the existence of God. God never came to be or brought Himself into existence. He reveals that he is eternal and has always existed.

Once again, though, as I said, Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the creation of the Universe. Evolution deals with lifeforms that already exist & the gradual changes thereof. Why can't you understand that simple notion? You constantly keep coming back to the Big Bang / Creation argument which a totally different subject altogether. Evolution is to do with BIOLOGY. The Big Bang theory is to do with PHYSICS. They are 2 totally different sciences as well as being spaced eons apart.


Biological evolution deals with lifeforms that already exist & the gradual changes thereof. Scientists refer to the evolution of the universe all the time.

I doubt you will ever follow any links, and you're even less likely to take any notice anyway - that is the Nature of a Creationist who asks for evidence, is presented with it & then denies its existence - just as I have done for you countless times in the past. However, here's a few for you to take a look at.

https://biologos.org/common-questions/s ... n-evidence

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... eationist/

Videos / What is the Evidence for Evolution? - Stated Clearly


The fact remains that the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Can the Small Changes We See Add Up to the Big Changes Needed for Evolution?

by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

My years at ICR have been punctuated by numerous creation/evolution debates, but actually my first such debate came as a sophomore in high school. When the issue came up, I was selected to "debate" the class evolutionist.

My opponent began her presentation by defining evolution as simply "change over time." She documented many examples of change in non-living things as well as plants and animals. Even people change over time. We are, on average, taller than our ancestors just a few generations ago. As a population certainly we age. No one could dispute that these changes have occurred, thus she had "proven" that evolution had occurred.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. You simply must define terms carefully. Evolution in the meaningful sense implies big changes, like a fish turning into a person. Has this happened? Do the small changes we observe over time add up to the big changes needed by evolution? Did a single-celled organism become a marine invertebrate, then a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then a mammal, then an ape-like ancestor then a person? These truly big changes must have occurred if evolution really accounts for all of life.

[continue]

Can the Small Changes We See Add Up to the Big Changes Needed for Evolution?

[continued]

It's instructive to try to imagine what must happen to turn a cell into an invertebrate, or a worm into a fish, or a fish into an amphibian, etc. List the structural changes needed. A cell doesn't have the genes needed to produce even a simple nodal chord, nor does a fish have the genes to produce legs. This extra genetic information must be added from some external source, but science knows of no such source. Mutations do produce novel genetic changes, but never has a mutation been known to add coded information to an already complex DNA system. On the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration of the information present in the DNA. For random mutations to add the information for a leg where there is none is asking a lot, in fact, asking too much. Never has a helpful mutation been observed, yet trillions are needed.

Listing all the differences between a fish and an amphibian, or a reptile and a bird, or reptile and mammal helps to clarify the immensity of evolution's task. Not only are there skeletal changes, but think of the totally new organs needed, different reproductive systems, altered respiratory and cardiovascular make-up, thermal schemes and on and on.

Step back and take a look at the big picture. Evolution, as a concept of everything, is worse than non-science, it is nonsense. The highly complex information laden DNA code cannot yet even be read by today's genomists. How could it have written itself by chance mutation or genetic recombination. Surely some things simply cannot be.

When a vote was taken as to who won the debate, I came out on top 32-1. The lone vote for evolution was an exchange student from Marxist China, and even he admitted I had the better arguments. He just didn't dare vote against the party line.

Maybe that's the key. It takes a prior, gut-level commitment to evolution to continue to favor it in spite of the weight of evidence to the contrary.

Can the Small Changes We See Add Up to the Big Changes Needed for Evolution? | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1516478 wrote: It is not a false premise to observe the fact that before the universe existed, there was nothing, and from that nothing the universe appeared, proving the existence of God. God never came to be or brought Himself into existence. He reveals that he is eternal and has always existed.
Of course it's a False Premise. Nobody knows whether or not there was anything or not. You say there was nothing. What evidence do you have to support this? Were you there? Was anybody there? You are basing your entire argument on the premise that this personal belief is a fact, when it is not known to be anything of the sort. This means that first of all it cannot be considered as a fact. Therefore it also follows that as this is not a fact it does not prove anything at all, let alone the existence of some imaginary being. You contradict yourself in saying he has always existed, yet you also say that before the Universe there was nothing. They are 2 totally contradictory statements. You cannot used the argument of being 'supernatural' as that is also a False Premise. Not once have you ever offered any proof as to your claim that before the Universe came into existence there was nothing. If you could you would have beaten all the Master Scientists in the World, as they have been trying to find evidence to this one way or the other for years - yet you seem to have all the answers in the writings of Walt Brown. Don't you see just how ridiculous that sounds to everyone else?

Well, like all those changes, Evolution is a small thing. It is a simple process. So denying its existence is nonsensical.

One simple change at a time.

Whatever it is you are railing against is not Evolution.

LarsMac;1516486 wrote: Well, like all those changes, Evolution is a small thing. It is a simple process. So denying its existence is nonsensical.

One simple change at a time.

Whatever it is you are railing against is not Evolution.
Precisely. Even Creationists accept their invented term "Micro-Evolution". In so doing they have already accepted that Evolution exists. The question is as to how many Micros does it take to become a Macro? Of course, when faced with a challenge to lay down a definitive definition they will always shy away.

FourPart;1516483 wrote: Of course it's a False Premise. Nobody knows whether or not there was anything or not. You say there was nothing. What evidence do you have to support this? Were you there? Was anybody there? You are basing your entire argument on the premise that this personal belief is a fact, when it is not known to be anything of the sort.


It is a matter of simple logic. We know the universe had a beginning. Before that beginning it did not exist. Since it did not exist there was nothing since the definition of universe is everything that exists.

This means that first of all it cannot be considered as a fact. Therefore it also follows that as this is not a fact it does not prove anything at all, let alone the existence of some imaginary being.


Of course it is a fact that the universe appeared from nothing. Since that is impossible by any natural cause, the cause was supernatural, proving God exists and is not an imaginary being, except in your imagination.

You contradict yourself in saying he has always existed, yet you also say that before the Universe there was nothing. They are 2 totally contradictory statements.


False! We are referring to the universe on the one hand, which is material, and on the other hand God, who is spiritual. When I say before the Universe there was nothing, I am referring to nothing material.

You cannot used the argument of being 'supernatural' as that is also a False Premise. Not once have you ever offered any proof as to your claim that before the Universe came into existence there was nothing. If you could you would have beaten all the Master Scientists in the World, as they have been trying to find evidence to this one way or the other for years - yet you seem to have all the answers in the writings of Walt Brown. Don't you see just how ridiculous that sounds to everyone else?


Brown has nothing to do with this conversation. Using the term supernatural is perfectly valid. If something is not natural, it can be supernatural. There is proof that before the Universe came into existence there was nothing. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.



All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

Pahu;1516488 wrote: ...

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.



All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.


Of all the dumb crap that you constantly repeat, that has to be the dumbest.

LarsMac;1516486 wrote: Well, like all those changes, Evolution is a small thing. It is a simple process. So denying its existence is nonsensical.

One simple change at a time.

Whatever it is you are railing against is not Evolution.


So what do you think evolution is? My dictionary says evolution is 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.

When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Even If... Even With

The “new wave in evolutionary theory is molecular evolution—looking at the molecules of life such as DNA and then attempting to produce an evolutionary “tree of life. But these results have been dismal, producing no real evolutionary evidence.

Even if we can reconstruct the phylogenetic tree for living land plants with DNA sequences, it will tell us rather little about the steps in the evolution of the plants around us today. ! – Olmstead, Science 280(1998): 393

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination. – Takahata, Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 1995

Even with the appropriate genes, the molecular tree of life is difficult to interpret. – Erwin, Valentine& Jablonski, American Scientist 85(1997): 127

Even with millions of research dollars and bright minds, no one has been able to produce compelling evidence for molecular evolution—because it didn’t happen!

Even If... Even With | The Institute for Creation Research

FourPart;1516487 wrote: Precisely. Even Creationists accept their invented term "Micro-Evolution". In so doing they have already accepted that Evolution exists. The question is as to how many Micros does it take to become a Macro? Of course, when faced with a challenge to lay down a definitive definition they will always shy away.


When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Is Neanderthal In Our Family Tree?

The first Neanderthal bones were unearthed in 1856 and were soon touted as supporting Darwin's 1859 theory of human descent from the animals. And ever since, Neanderthals have been presented as beetle-browed, bowlegged, brutes-half ape and half man. School students and museum visitors worldwide still believe that this "caveman" was a sub-human ancestor.

It surprises many to find out that in recent years, Neanderthal has been upgraded to fully human—an ethnic group with certain distinctive characteristics, but a bonafide member of Homo sapiens. The only controversy, which remains, is whether or not the Neanderthal group went extinct or merged with other humans.

The Homo sapiens designation was given after it was recognized that Neanderthals had, on average, a larger brain size than modern man, with a fully developed language center. Culturally, he cared for his sick and elderly, buried his dead, employed art and religious rites, appreciated agriculture, clothing, and music. His cultural level was "primitive" compared to twentieth century technology, but not all that different from many people groups worldwide in recent centuries.

So what do we make of the recent recovery of Neanderthal DNA which places him genetically outside the range of modern human ethnic groups?

Many from the media asked ICR if this didn't prove the evolution of man from the apes, but a close look at the real data actually supports the creationist view.

The DNA was recovered from the bone of the first Neanderthal discovered, an individual so riddled with rickets and old age that his legs had bowed. The DNA was mitochondrial DNA, not from the cell nucleus, and only 379 base pairs out of 16,500 (thus about 2%) of the total. It was found to differ from standard human mtDNA in 27 locations. Since modern human mtDNA differs on average in only eight locations within this stretch of 379, it was concluded that Neanderthals were probably not closely related to humans.

However, modern human mtDNA varies beyond the average, with the extremes statistically overlapping the Neanderthal measurement. Since all modern humans are interfertile, this measurement does not necessarily place them outside the family.

The technique is new and radical, and hopefully this measurement will be followed by others, which will give more insight and confidence. It would also be helpful to investigate Cro-Magnon bones of the same suspected date. This is breakthrough technology and both creationists and evolutionists would like to learn more.

From a creationist perspective, the Neanderthals were descendants of Noah—a language group that migrated away from Babel and found themselves in harsh "Ice Age" conditions with a meager lifestyle. Linguistic and geographic isolation may have produced a variant, but still human, genome. Whether they went extinct or interbred with others is not yet known, but from what we do know, they were as human as you and I.

Is Neanderthal In Our Family Tree? | The Institute for Creation Research

LarsMac;1516489 wrote: Of all the dumb crap that you constantly repeat, that has to be the dumbest.


Where is my logic in error?

Pahu;1516492 wrote: Where is my logic in error?


That you actually consider that "logical"

Logic is, like Evolution, a process.

If you apply logic to faulty data, you will end up with faulty results.

LarsMac;1516497 wrote: That you actually consider that "logical"

Logic is, like Evolution, a process.

If you apply logic to faulty data, you will end up with faulty results.


So what is faulty in my logic?

Pahu;1516488 wrote: It is a matter of simple logic. We know the universe had a beginning. Before that beginning it did not exist. Since it did not exist there was nothing since the definition of universe is everything that exists.
You are like a dog with a bone. We do NOT know anything of the sort. We may BELIEVE that it had some initial starting point when it began to change into what it is still developing into. Nobody KNOWS anything about what there was back then. At best it is mere supposition - and I include both Creationism & REAL Science in that. To base an argument on a fact that is not a fact is a False Premise. You claim it is logic that the Universe had a beginning. I agree that is one possible logical explanation, but not the only one. The one that fits the known Physics is stated in the 1st Law of the Conservation of Energy. "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another". Because Energy, Matter & Time are all interrelated this would indicate the probability of something always having been there in the form of pure Energy. Latent Energy to begin with, but triggered by a random occurence to react, thus forming Matter & Time, which is continuing to expand. This expansion is not only a known scientific fact, but is being observed & measured & is found to be increasing in speed. This is evidence of what exists now, and is observable of what was millions of years ago, as what we are seeing from those distant Galaxies is what happened millions of years ago. That, too, is a Scientific Fact. The evidence is there. You say that before the Universe existed there was nothing - and just what makes you believe this to be so? It is just as plausible to say that before the Universe reacted into being, the building blocks were always there. To say that was nothing is not a Fact, but neither is it a Fact to say that there was always something. It is, and always has been a great unknown. Creationists like to work on the premise that there was always something - albeit that 'something' being an imaginary God. Physicists believe the 'something' to be Energy, and nobody knows who, if anyone, is correct.

Of course it is a fact that the universe appeared from nothing. Since that is impossible by any natural cause, the cause was supernatural, proving God exists and is not an imaginary being, except in your imagination.


I am not the one who has a God in his imagination. You have never provided one shred of solid evidence to support the notion of a Creation. Your only argument is basically to say that it's Magic / Supernatural - call it what you will.

False! We are referring to the universe on the one hand, which is material, and on the other hand God, who is spiritual. When I say before the Universe there was nothing, I am referring to nothing material.


Definition:

Spiritual

adjective Spiritual means relating to people's thoughts and beliefs, rather than to their bodies and physical surroundings.

Note - Thoughts & Beliefs - NOT Facts.





Brown has nothing to do with this conversation. Using the term supernatural is perfectly valid. If something is not natural, it can be supernatural. There is proof that before the Universe came into existence there was nothing. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.


Brown is always the core of your conversation, seeing as 99% of your posts consist purely of copying & pasting from his wannabe book. After all, that's also where you get you misunderstanding of Entropy (the magic answer all word). If you had any concept of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics you would understand that this specifies ONLY to CLOSED systems. Far from being a closed system the Universe is expanding, so it is, an fact, an OPENING system. At least try to understand what you're talking about before you spout it as some kind of defence.

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
Back to the original argument. Who said that anything was brought into existence from nothing? Oh, yes - YOU did. YOU are the only one who keeps insisting that there was nothing. No-one else. You are merely arguing the case against yourself.

As for anything to be the cause of an event needing to be greater than the event - you haven't got a clue about Chemistry or Physics have you. The Catalyst, which brings about the reaction in something is invariably miniscule. For example - imagine a ball of Hydrogen the size of the Earth. Would it require something the size of the Sun to trigger it? No. All it would take would be a tiny little spark - a simple earthing of static electricity - something that is found in nature all the time.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
Do you realise that if you were simply to change the word "God" to the phrase "The Unknown" your arguments might start to make a bit of sense. Have you ever considered that the Bible originally intended it that way? To let people know that the vast majority of what is, was & ever will be is "The Unknown".

Pahu;1516491 wrote: When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.


The fact is that you admit that things evolve. Whether you call it Micro or Macro. Evolution is Evolution. It is the fact that lifeforms change. I ask you again, as I asked before, and have asked many times before that, where on each & every time you have conveniently ignored the question.

How many Micro-Evolutionary changes does something have to go through before you accept it as a new species (Macro-Evolution). The original records of Evolution demonstrated a 'Tree of Life' (as opposed to the Linear pattern that Creationists tend to associate Evolution to be). The discovery of DNA & the latter breaking down of the Genome went on to support this pattern, and much, much more. DNA mutates & changes, but just how many changes does it have to go through before you can accept that it is no longer the same species? Simple question. Answer it.

Pahu;1516498 wrote: So what is faulty in my logic?


Logic is not faulty.

I can repeat, as well...

If you apply logic to faulty data, you will end up with faulty results.

As we say in the Computer business, GIGO

The premecies Could be faulty and that blows your logic to pieces.

Originally Posted by Pahu

It is a matter of simple logic. We know the universe had a beginning. Before that beginning it did not exist. Since it did not exist there was nothing since the definition of universe is everything that exists.


FourPart;1516499 wrote: You are like a dog with a bone. We do NOT know anything of the sort. We may BELIEVE that it had some initial starting point when it began to change into what it is still developing into. Nobody KNOWS anything about what there was back then. At best it is mere supposition - and I include both Creationism & REAL Science in that. To base an argument on a fact that is not a fact is a False Premise. You claim it is logic that the Universe had a beginning. I agree that is one possible logical explanation, but not the only one. The one that fits the known Physics is stated in the 1st Law of the Conservation of Energy. "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another".


That law only exists after the universe came from nothing.

Because Energy, Matter & Time are all interrelated this would indicate the probability of something always having been there in the form of pure Energy.


Nope. Before the universe existed there was nothing. Pure energy is another way of describing God who created the universe.

Latent Energy to begin with, but triggered by a random occurence to react, thus forming Matter & Time, which is continuing to expand. This expansion is not only a known scientific fact, but is being observed & measured & is found to be increasing in speed. This is evidence of what exists now, and is observable of what was millions of years ago, as what we are seeing from those distant Galaxies is what happened millions of years ago. That, too, is a Scientific Fact. The evidence is there. You say that before the Universe existed there was nothing - and just what makes you believe this to be so?


You are drifting into evidence free speculation. The reason I believe that before the universe existed there was nothing is because the definition of universe is everything that exists. Before everything that exists existed, it did not exist. As for seeing distant galaxies, there are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:

The plants (Gen. 1: 11-12)—They were created mature and bearing fruit at the moment of their creation. What would have taken years to accomplish by uniformitarian processes took place in seconds.

The animals (Gen. 1:20-25)—Fish, birds, and the three categories of land animals were created fully mature, having the appearance of age, and were immediately capable of reproduction on the first day of their existence (v. 22). The Bible therefore allows us to answer the otherwise-unanswerable question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Evolutionists would take the endless trail back to the first life forms, but the Creationist can say that the chicken was created first, and then laid its eggs.

Man (Gen. 2:7)—Adam was created as an adult, with an inherent storehouse of knowledge and vocabulary, and was capable of articulate speech and reproduction on the first day of his existence (Gen. 1:28-29; 2:8, 16-20, 24). Whether Adam gave the appearance of being 20 or 50 years of age is irrelevant—a person walking into Eden five minutes after Adam's creation would have been able to converse intelligently with him and would probably conclude, on uniformitarian assumptions, that Adam had been around for many years.

Eve (Gen. 2:21-23)—Likewise, Eve was created fully mature and ready for marriage to Adam immediately (Gen. 1:27-28; 2:22-25).

The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.

This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.

Conclusion

There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created.

Starlight and the Age of the Universe | The Institute for Creation Research

It is just as plausible to say that before the Universe reacted into being, the building blocks were always there. To say that was nothing is not a Fact, but neither is it a Fact to say that there was always something. It is, and always has been a great unknown. Creationists like to work on the premise that there was always something - albeit that 'something' being an imaginary God. Physicists believe the 'something' to be Energy, and nobody knows who, if anyone, is correct.


That something was not an imaginary God, but the one and only true, living, creator God of everything and everyone. If you prefer to refer to Him as Energy, enjoy.

Of course it is a fact that the universe appeared from nothing. Since that is impossible by any natural cause, the cause was supernatural, proving God exists and is not an imaginary being, except in your imagination.


I am not the one who has a God in his imagination. You have never provided one shred of solid evidence to support the notion of a Creation. Your only argument is basically to say that it's Magic / Supernatural - call it what you will.


Sure I have.

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

We are referring to the universe on the one hand, which is material, and on the other hand God, who is spiritual. When I say before the Universe there was nothing, I am referring to nothing material.


Definition:

Spiritual

adjective Spiritual means relating to people's thoughts and beliefs, rather than to their bodies and physical surroundings.



Note - Thoughts & Beliefs - NOT Facts.


Here is another definition: spiritual | ˈspiriCH(o͞o)əl |

adjective

relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things. God is spirit.



Brown is always the core of your conversation, seeing as 99% of your posts consist purely of copying & pasting from his wannabe book. After all, that's also where you get you misunderstanding of Entropy (the magic answer all word). If you had any concept of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics you would understand that this specifies ONLY to CLOSED systems. Far from being a closed system the Universe is expanding, so it is, an fact, an OPENING system. At least try to understand what you're talking about before you spout it as some kind of defence.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Answers to Critics

by Jonathan Sarfati

Open Systems

‘Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.

‘This does seem to be a valid point—do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?’

The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

• that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)

• usable energy is running out

• information tends to get scrambled

• order tends towards disorder

• a random jumble won’t organize itself

•

It also depends on the type of system:

• An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down.

• A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.

• An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

“¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-t ... to-critics



Back to the original argument. Who said that anything was brought into existence from nothing? Oh, yes - YOU did. YOU are the only one who keeps insisting that there was nothing. No-one else. You are merely arguing the case against yourself.


Can you explain how the universe appeared from nothing by some natural cause?

As for anything to be the cause of an event needing to be greater than the event - you haven't got a clue about Chemistry or Physics have you. The Catalyst, which brings about the reaction in something is invariably miniscule. For example - imagine a ball of Hydrogen the size of the Earth. Would it require something the size of the Sun to trigger it? No. All it would take would be a tiny little spark - a simple earthing of static electricity - something that is found in nature all the time.


The cause of an event needing to be greater than the event is true for the creation of the universe.



Do you realise that if you were simply to change the word "God" to the phrase "The Unknown" your arguments might start to make a bit of sense. Have you ever considered that the Bible originally intended it that way? To let people know that the vast majority of what is, was & ever will be is "The Unknown".


The Bible originally intended that we would know the nature of God, our nature, the history of our rebellion against God and His provision for our salvation.

Originally Posted by Pahu

When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.


FourPart;1516500 wrote: The fact is that you admit that things evolve.


Nothing has ever evolved.

Whether you call it Micro or Macro. Evolution is Evolution.


As shown above, which you choose to ignore, there is a difference between micro a macro evolution. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.

It is the fact that lifeforms change.


But never evolve.

I ask you again, as I asked before, and have asked many times before that, where on each & every time you have conveniently ignored the question.

How many Micro-Evolutionary changes does something have to go through before you accept it as a new species (Macro-Evolution).


There are thousands of different dogs, and they are still dogs. Macroevolution has never been observed.

The original records of Evolution demonstrated a 'Tree of Life' (as opposed to the Linear pattern that Creationists tend to associate Evolution to be). The discovery of DNA & the latter breaking down of the Genome went on to support this pattern, and much, much more. DNA mutates & changes, but just how many changes does it have to go through before you can accept that it is no longer the same species? Simple question. Answer it.


Is the evolutionary tree turning into a creationist orchard?

by Pierre Jerlström

Introduction

Evolutionists often infer that all organisms are related based on similarities at the physiological and anatomical level and, more recently, on ribosomal RNA (rRNA) homology at the gene level. Eldredge has highlighted this in his statement: ‘ ¦ the major prediction of evolutionary theory is that there is one single nested pattern of resemblance linking all organisms’.1 As a result, there has been an attempt to group all life into one phylogenetic or family tree. But the large gaps between many supposed relatives have been a constant headache.

The recent elucidation of the complete genome sequences of 20 microorganisms has given fresh hope that this new data will help to reduce the gaps and strengthen the rRNA tree of life. But the data is instead proving to be a Trojan horse, as sequence comparison between homologous genes is yielding unexpected relatives and evolutionary lines, and different trees from the one originally predicted.2

Revised evolutionary model

Contrary ideas about phylogeny.

A. Original evolutionary tree, which postulates that all today’s species are descended from one common ancestor (after Wieland, concept by Wise).13,14

B. Revised evolutionary tree, depicting horizontal transfer among branches and a community of ancestral cells (after Doolittle).5

C. The Creationist orchard. Diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds’ (baramins) (after Wieland, concept by Wise).13,14

In order to accommodate the new data, a new model for the evolutionary tree of life has been proposed which embraces the endosymbiont hypothesis (see below) and horizontal/lateral gene transfer (HT; gene exchange between unrelated microorganisms).2 Also, instead of one single organism at the root of the tree, a community of primitive cells is now believed to be the common ancestor:

‘It was communal, a loosely knit, diverse conglomeration of primitive cells that evolved as a unit, ¦ and became the three primary lines of descent [archaea, bacteria and eukarya].’3

As a result, the once simple tree with a single trunk, rooted to a hypothetical 3.5 billion year old, ancient prokaryote, has become a tangled brier (see trees A and B in diagram), causing much frustration and discouragement.

‘There’s so much lateral transfer that even the concept of the tree is debatable.’ 4

‘It is as if we have failed at the task that Darwin set for us: delineating the unique structure of the tree of life.’5

But what is the scientific evidence for the involvement of the endosymbiont hypothesis and HT, two main tenets of this new model, in evolution?

Problems with the endosymbiont hypothesis

In the original endosymbiont model, an ‘ancient’ eukaryote with a nucleus supposedly evolved from an archaea-like prokaryote. It later engulfed an ancient prokaryote and a cyanobacterium (at separate times) that became mutually advantageous with the eukaryote host and developed into a mitochondrion and a chloroplast, respectively.

This simplistic original model has now been challenged, since ‘Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of any known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere.’ 6

To try to solve this dilemma, two prominent phylogenetic theorists have proposed that an unknown and now extinct fourth domain of organisms transferred those genes horizontally into the eukaryotic nuclear genome.6 But there is no evidence for such a fourth domain of organisms, and this new idea unfortunately appears to be another ‘just so’ addition to help patch up an ailing hypothesis.

As shown in the following examples, current evidence also conflicts with the stepwise evolution from prokaryote to primitive eukaryote and then to eukaryote, proposed by the endosymbiont model:

‘Mitochondrion-free’ eukaryotes were believed to be descendants of ancient proto-eukaryotes, but mitochondrial genes have now been discovered in the eukaryotes’ nuclear genomes.7

A preserved protistan (single celled eukaryote) apparently dated to 1.4 billion years old appears to have had well-developed organelles, confirming the lack of evolutionary development of these structures and that fully functional organelles were always present in eukaryotes.8

Horizontal transfer (HT)

Bacteria have three main modes of exchanging DNA:9

Conjugation is used for exchanging plasmids. Plasmids are extrachromosomal, circular DNA molecules that carry not only genes needed for their own replication and transfer, but genes coding for proteins that protect bacteria, e.g. metabolic enzymes that break down toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls, antibiotics, etc.

The plasmid-containing donor cell uses a pilus, an appendage that attaches to a recipient cell with a pilus receptor, to pull the cells together—some bacteria use chemicals called clumping factors instead of pili. A bridge, or pore, forms between the two cells and a copy of the plasmid is transferred. After transfer, the cells separate. It is possible, although quite rare, to transfer an entire chromosome by this process.

Bacteria can also pick up free DNA from their surroundings by transformation. For this to occur, cells must have specialised surface proteins to bind and to internalise the DNA. Transformation, however, is very rare in bacteria.

The third mode of exchange—transduction—involves bacterial viruses (bacteriophages). After a virus has injected itself into the host cell, it uses the cell’s DNA replication machinery to make many copies of itself. The cell eventually bursts, and the released virus particles are then able to infect other cells. Normally, viral DNA is packaged into the new virus particles, but sometimes some virus particles instead acquire bacterial host DNA. It is these particles that are used to deliver whole plasmids, as well as pieces of bacterial chromosome, to other bacterial cells.

As a result, the once simple tree with a single trunk, rooted to a single 3.5 billion year old ancient prokaryote, has become a tangled brier ¦

Although these modes of genetic exchange are known to occur within bacterial species, it is believed that they are also involved in the HT of genetic material between unrelated microorganisms. The most quoted example is that of drug resistant pathogenic bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus (golden staph), which appear to have arisen from the exchange of plasmids, carrying multiple antibiotic resistance genes, between different bacterial species in the human body. It is important to note, however, that this exchange simply involves the sharing of genes already present in bacteria, and does not result in the appearance of complex, new genetic information. When the selective conditions are removed, the acquired genetic information becomes redundant and is eventually discarded by the cells to enable them to survive among the faster-growing wild-type bacteria. This is hardly an ‘uphill’ evolutionary process leading to the formation of complex organs and structures.10

What is overlooked then, is that bacteria live in a variety of environments (such as soil, water and inside plants and animals) and have the growth dynamics and the capability, as single cells, for genetic exchange, which they require to survive and adapt to changes in their environments. This merely shows the in-built, creative design in bacteria that allows them to occupy the bottom of the food cycling chains in a range of ecosystems. But it does not support microbe-to-man evolution.

The creationist orchard

As the evolutionary’ picture of origins is still unclear, scientists are hoping that analysis of additional genomic sequences and molecular phylogeny will bring some new light. However, they admit that, ‘Now new hypotheses, having final forms we cannot yet guess, are called for.’11

Comparisons of the DNA sequence data from the recently sequenced genomes, which have been determined by testable and repeatable scientific means, conflict with Darwin’s single evolutionary tree of life. As a result, polyphyly, in one sense the opposite of evolution or common ancestry, has been embraced in the form of HT and a community of ancestral cells. This is not surprising, as ReMine predicted that evolutionary ideology is bound to naturalism and simply ‘accommodates’ all evidence to fit reworked evolutionary models, thus showing that it is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific according to science philosopher Carl Popper’s primary criterion.12 He even predicted that evolutionists would increasingly resort to such lateral transfer.

If we tease apart the evolutionary brier and remove the hypothesised evolutionary HT ‘links’ between the branches, we obtain separate trees with individual trunks and roots. This is highly reminiscent of the creationist ‘orchard’, a biblical model for the origin and diversity of all life (see tree C in diagram) which was predicted by the scientific creation movement at its inception.13 In the creationist orchard, the trunk of each tree represents an original created kind or baramin, and the branches correspond to the diversity within a kind due to (limited) speciation, as for example, seen in the dog/wolf/jackal/coyote kind.

Conclusion

The creationist orchard agrees with the current genome sequence data, since anatomical, physiological and/or genetic similarities between kinds/baramins do not represent phylogeny but a designer. Evolutionary reasoning, on the other hand, cannot unravel the tangled phylogenetic brier and is unable to understand the true origin and diversity of created life, because its premises of naturalism and materialism axiomatically exclude the original work of a divine Creator.

The introduction of HT, the opposite of evolution or common ancestry, into the revised evolutionary model, clearly shows that nested hierarchy/phylogeny was never a prediction of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory simply keeps changing its ‘goalposts’ to produce reworked models that suit the current scientific beliefs.

https://creation.com/is-the-evolutionar ... st-orchard

LarsMac;1516501 wrote: Logic is not faulty.

I can repeat, as well...

If you apply logic to faulty data, you will end up with faulty results.

As we say in the Computer business, GIGO


What faulty data are you referring to?

Ted;1516523 wrote: The premecies Could be faulty and that blows your logic to pieces.


What premises are faulty?

Pahu;1516546 wrote: That law only exists after the universe came from nothing.
Which is YOUR claim. There is no evidence to say that the Universe came from nothing. Your entire argument is based on a single premise using it as a 'Fact', when it is an unknown factor. Anything unproven & without evidence is, at best, a hypothesis. With evidence it becomes a theory. Once it is shown repeatedly, without fail, it eventually becomes a Law (Fact). Your notion has no evidence whatsoever so can in no way be considered as a Fact.

Nope. Before the universe existed there was nothing. Pure energy is another way of describing God who created the universe.


Once again - same claim. Same False Premise. Same lack of evidence.

You are drifting into evidence free speculation. The reason I believe that before the universe existed there was nothing is because the definition of universe is everything that exists. Before everything that exists existed, it did not exist. As for seeing distant galaxies, there are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this:


Evidence free, I admit. It is not speculation, though. It is a hypothesis based on the way that energies are known to interact in predictable & repeatable ways.

Quotes from a fairy story published by a website dedicated to superstition cannot be accepted as backup to anything.

That something was not an imaginary God, but the one and only true, living, creator God of everything and everyone. If you prefer to refer to Him as Energy, enjoy.




The difference is that no-one is claiming Energy to have a conciousness. You cannot provide any evidence to support the existence of a God. Therefore, I continue to believe its existence to be imaginary. I don't entirely deny the existence of a God, as I am always open to have things proven by way of physical evidence. Nobody has ever managed to provide any of this. I therefore find it highly implausible.

Sure I have.

1. The universe exists.


Agreed.

2. The universe had a beginning.
Perhaps - Unknown, though.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
Once again - Perhaps. Still an unknown.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
No evidence to support this one way or the other. Before there was water there was no water - but the WAS Hydrogen & Oxygen - the elements that go to MAKE water. Pass a current through water & it returns to its gaseous elemental components.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
Invalid conclusion based on False Premise, as demonstrated. (I have a dog. My dog is black. Therefore all dogs are black. I don't have a cat. Dogs are black. Cats are not Dogs. Therefore Cats are not black. This uses exactly the same pattern of logic that you are trying to use).

6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
Once again, you are the only one to suggest that anything has come from nothing. Nobody else has ever made any such claim.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
Once again, the ultimate conclusion based on a chain of False Premises.

Here is another definition: spiritual | ˈspiriCH(o͞o)əl |

adjective

relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things. God is spirit.
Let me guess - that definition came from a Creationist Website. Mine came from the Collins Dictionary.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics, in REAL terms. Note the repeated use of the term "CLOSED SYSTEM".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_la ... modynamics

Can you explain how the universe appeared from nothing by some natural cause?


No, because I never said it DID come from nothing. It is YOU who keeps making that claim.

The cause of an event needing to be greater than the event is true for the creation of the universe.


Absolutely wrong. This is a simple demonstration as to how wrong you are.



The Bible originally intended that we would know the nature of God, our nature, the history of our rebellion against God and His provision for our salvation.
The Bible originally intended to maintain power over the masses of ignorant superstitious people who were too gullible & afraid to think for themselves.

one of them is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. It is a very human creation.

FourPart;1516567 wrote: There is no evidence to say that the Universe came from nothing. Your entire argument is based on a single premise using it as a 'Fact', when it is an unknown factor. Anything unproven & without evidence is, at best, a hypothesis. With evidence it becomes a theory. Once it is shown repeatedly, without fail, it eventually becomes a Law (Fact). Your notion has no evidence whatsoever so can in no way be considered as a Fact.


Evidence free assertions. If the universe did not come from nothing, the alternative is it has always existed, which is impossible. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.



Once again - same claim. Same False Premise. Same lack of evidence.


In your evidence free opinion.

You are drifting into evidence free speculation. The reason I believe that before the universe existed there was nothing is because the definition of universe is everything that exists. Before everything that exists existed, it did not exist.


Evidence free, I admit. It is not speculation, though. It is a hypothesis based on the way that energies are known to interact in predictable & repeatable ways.

Quotes from a fairy story published by a website dedicated to superstition cannot be accepted as backup to anything.


True. What specifically are you referring to?



You cannot provide any evidence to support the existence of a God. Therefore, I continue to believe its existence to be imaginary. I don't entirely deny the existence of a God, as I am always open to have things proven by way of physical evidence. Nobody has ever managed to provide any of this. I therefore find it highly implausible.


But I have provided that evidence. Your reason for rejecting it is not that it is invalid, but because you choose not to believe it. Here it is again:

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.

Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=71

Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... cle&id=137

The First Cause Argument

Arguments for God's Existence

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Invalid conclusion based on False Premise, as demonstrated. (I have a dog. My dog is black. Therefore all dogs are black. I don't have a cat. Dogs are black. Cats are not Dogs. Therefore Cats are not black. This uses exactly the same pattern of logic that you are trying to use).


My logic is sound and does not resemble yours.

Once again, you are the only one to suggest that anything has come from nothing. Nobody else has ever made any such claim.


False! for example:

https://www.icr.org/article/6901

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... n-nothing/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... m-nothing/

https://www.astrosociety.org/publicatio ... m-nothing/

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/r ... m-nothing/

A Universe from Nothing? | Christian Apologetics

Apologetics Press - Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing?

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.


Once again, the ultimate conclusion based on a chain of False Premises.


The chain of premises is valid.

Can you explain how the universe appeared from nothing by some natural cause?


No, because I never said it DID come from nothing. It is YOU who keeps making that claim.


But you are denying it came from nothing. So where did it come from?

The cause of an event needing to be greater than the event is true for the creation of the universe.


Absolutely wrong. This is a simple demonstration as to how wrong you are.




How do dominoes relate to the universe?

The Bible originally intended to maintain power over the masses of ignorant superstitious people who were too gullible & afraid to think for themselves.


False! The Bible originally intended that we would know the nature of God, our nature, the history of our rebellion against God and His provision for our salvation.

Bible Accuracy


1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record



2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:



Scientific Facts in The Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible



3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

About Bible Prophecy

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm

404 Error

http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

Ted;1516568 wrote: one of them is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. It is a very human creation.


Then explain how those humans were able to reveal scientific facts that have only recently been discovered and how did they manage to provide accurately fulfilled prophecies? For example:

Bible Accuracy

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record



2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:



Scientific Facts in The Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible



3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

About Bible Prophecy

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm

404 Error

http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

Pahu;1516602 wrote: Evidence free assertions.
Of course it's evidence free - that's the whole point I was making. Without evidence nobody can be certain one way or another. I'm not the one that has claimed anything else YOU are the one who keeps pushing the Great Unknown as FACT.

If the universe did not come from nothing, the alternative is it has always existed, which is impossible.
There are many alternatives. One, of course that it has always existed - which is not impossible at all. Show me the evidence otherwise. It is also a possibility that the components of the Universe have always existed. You see, whilst you can come up with other viable alternatives, it is much more than a binary answer of if it wasn't A, then it has to be B, when there is C, D, E, etc. There is no more or less evidence for any one option over another. However, I prefer to opt for the ones that have Physical Laws behind them.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred.
I've told you before. Before you try quoting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, at least understand what it means. The 2nd Law refers to a CLOSED system. The Universe is an EXPANDING system. Therefore the 2nd Law doesn't apply. It's like trying to apply the Law of "What Goes Up Must Come Down" in Space.



Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing.
As you have based your entire argument on a misunderstanding of the 2nd Law the rest of your argument is invalid.

Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause
But nobody has said otherwise. Where do you get this idea that anyone is saying that something comes from nothing? You are really paranoid.

but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.
You don't have a clue about what Evolution is.

Fact 1. Life exists.

Fact 2. Life adapts to suit its environment.

Fact 3. That adaptation is what Evolution is about.

Just where does that have anything to whether the Universe has always existed or not? What does it matter to Evolution if the Universe came from nothing or not? The origin of the Universe is totally irrelevant to Evolution. They are totally different Sciences. Evolution is Biology. The Creation of the Universe is Physics & Astronomy. Why can't you get your head around that simple fact?

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.


Once again the Something from Nothing argument that you get yourself so wound up about. You are the only one who keeps insisting it can't happen. Everyone else already accepts that fact. However, you then keep insisting on contradicting yourself by insisting that God brought himself into existence from nothing & created everything from nothing, and that he then went to make life out of non-organic matter. You see. You start the argument, that nobody opposes, then go out of your way to contradict yourself.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.


You see - you totally contradict yourself.

In your evidence free opinion.


I showed how your claim was based on a False Premise. That is evidence. By proving how it was a False Premise it ceases to be an opinion, but an evidence based fact.

True. What specifically are you referring to?


The Bible is your Fairy Story.



But I have provided that evidence. Your reason for rejecting it is not that it is invalid, but because you choose not to believe it. Here it is again:
You can keep citing Creationist sites as much as you like. They do not count as proof of anything, other than that they are as fake & misguided as you are. They have no other source of information apart from the Bible - or more to the point, they have all the other sources in the same way as everyone else does. They just choose to ignore it. If you want to provide REAL evidence do it from independant Scientific sources with no Religious connections.

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.


Now you are claiming that something can come of nothing, yet you so vehemently deny this is possible. There is not even anything to say that there was nothing. Therefore you cannot assume this to be the case.

Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Experiments are constantly being made & repeated at all levels. Vaccines, for a start are a direct result of repeated experiments. They comprise not only of bacteria that have evolved & continue to do so, but in such ways that are predictable.

I have no respect for your own Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The fact that the appearance of the universe from nothing has not been shown to be possible by any natural cause by real scientists shows that the evolutionists/atheists view is pie in the sky.


1. Only you are the one who keeps saying that anyone says it comes from nothing.

2. Only you are the one who says that it HAS to have come from nothing.

3. The only 'fact' is that nobody (Scientist or Creationist) has shown, for certain, how the Universe came to be. All Science has to show is the most likely conclusion by the existing evidence. All Creationists have is a story book written by superstitious primitives.

4. Evolution has nothing to do with Creation of the Universe.

My logic is sound and does not resemble yours.


My example of 'logic' was a direct reflection of yours.

The chain of premises is valid.


I have demonstrated beyong doubt that your premises are false.

But you are denying it came from nothing. So where did it come from?


I deny nothing - one way or the other. I go by the Scientific action - "I do not know".

The most likely explanation is that there was always 'something', even if in the form of pure energy.

How do dominoes relate to the universe?


It demonstrates that contrary to you claim that the cause has be greater than that affected. It demonstrates that the cause of a chain of events is invariably the smallest factor.

Pahu;1516603 wrote: Then explain how those humans were able to reveal scientific facts that have only recently been discovered
Which Scientific Facts mentioned in the Bible have 'only just been discovered'?

and how did they manage to provide accurately fulfilled prophecies?
There are no 'accurately fulfilled prophecies'. Anyone can find 'fulfillment of a prophesy' with just a bit of imagination. It happens every day in every tabloid horoscope.

Other stories written into the Bible were made to fit in with the prophecies - particularly the one of the Nativity. It is merely a story. There is no evidence to support even the existence of Jesus. Even the narrative is full of flaws. No census would require anyone to have to return to their place of birth to be taxed. They wouldn't be interested in where they were born - only in where they were now, so they could get their money. Furthermore, there is no record of the census in the first place. Furthermore, at the supposed time of year, the shepherds would no have been out on the hills with their sheep, as that time of year they would have taken them to shelter from the harsh winter cold. Furthermore, there would have been no lambs, being the wrong time of year.

As the Bible itself is a fictional work, then any 'fulfilled prophecies' made in there are also fictional. Prophecy Fulfillment is, and always has been a matter of personal interpretation, with no more reliability that seeing pictures of faces in clouds.

If the universe did not come from nothing, the alternative is it has always existed, which is impossible.


There are many alternatives. One, of course that it has always existed - which is not impossible at all. Show me the evidence otherwise.


The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.

It is also a possibility that the components of the Universe have always existed. You see, whilst you can come up with other viable alternatives, it is much more than a binary answer of if it wasn't A, then it has to be B, when there is C, D, E, etc. There is no more or less evidence for any one option over another. However, I prefer to opt for the ones that have Physical Laws behind them.


Then you agree with me.



Before you try quoting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, at least understand what it means. The 2nd Law refers to a CLOSED system. The Universe is an EXPANDING system. Therefore the 2nd Law doesn't apply.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Answers to Critics

by Jonathan Sarfati

Open Systems

‘Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.

‘This does seem to be a valid point—do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?’

The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

• that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)

• usable energy is running out

• information tends to get scrambled

• order tends towards disorder

• a random jumble won’t organize itself

•

It also depends on the type of system:

• An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.

• A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.

• An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

“¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-t ... s-to-criti

You don't have a clue about what Evolution is.

Fact 1. Life exists.

Fact 2. Life adapts to suit its environment.

Fact 3. That adaptation is what Evolution is about.


When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed.

Just where does that have anything to whether the Universe has always existed or not? What does it matter to Evolution if the Universe came from nothing or not? The origin of the Universe is totally irrelevant to Evolution. They are totally different Sciences. Evolution is Biology. The Creation of the Universe is Physics & Astronomy. Why can't you get your head around that simple fact?


Doesn't the universe have to exist before evolution takes place?



Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.


Once again the Something from Nothing argument that you get yourself so wound up about. You are the only one who keeps insisting it can't happen. Everyone else already accepts that fact.


I am happy to see we agree on that point.

However, you then keep insisting on contradicting yourself by insisting that God brought himself into existence from nothing & created everything from nothing, and that he then went to make life out of non-organic matter. You see. You start the argument, that nobody opposes, then go out of your way to contradict yourself.

You see - you totally contradict yourself.


I never said God brought himself into existence from nothing. He reveals he has always existed and created everything from nothing. The contradiction is in your imagination.



The Bible is your Fairy Story.

You can keep citing Creationist sites as much as you like. They do not count as proof of anything, other than that they are as fake & misguided as you are. They have no other source of information apart from the Bible - or more to the point, they have all the other sources in the same way as everyone else does. They just choose to ignore it. If you want to provide REAL evidence do it from independant Scientific sources with no Religious connections.


God created all the laws that science uses to examine His creation. As for the Bible being my Fairy Story, here are the facts:

Bible Accuracy

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record



2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:



Scientific Facts in The Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible



3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

100prophecies.org

About Bible Prophecy

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm

404 Error

http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving God exists.


Now you are claiming that something can come of nothing, yet you so vehemently deny this is possible. There is not even anything to say that there was nothing. Therefore you cannot assume this to be the case.


Yes, I am saying God brought the universe into existence from nothing. Before it existed, there was nothing. There is no physical cause for this.

Unless and until evolutionists/atheists can conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists demonstrating that statement is untrue, their pronouncements must be regarded with the same respect as those of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Experiments are constantly being made & repeated at all levels. Vaccines, for a start are a direct result of repeated experiments. They comprise not only of bacteria that have evolved & continue to do so, but in such ways that are predictable.


Bacteria Antibiotic Resistance



Here is an excerpt from an article responding to a TV series on evolution that deals with bacteria. You can examine the whole article here.

here.

There are too many errors in “Evolution to itemize here, but let’s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example:

“The development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. “Evolution thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed.

Well, not quite.

All the producers have demonstrated is the quite unexceptional occurrence of what is called micro-evolution, the small changes within species that we see all around us. The most obvious example—one Darwin himself used—is dog breeding. The thousands of different types of dogs extant today were all created, probably from some common wild ancestor, by selective breeding.

The question is, can these relatively small changes within basic species types be extrapolated to macro-evolution—big changes in body types, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, say, or humans from apes. The fact is, nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Darwinists counter that when dealing with large animals—even fruit flies —there simply isn’t enough time. The breeding cycles are too long. Fair enough. But what about bacteria?

With selective breeding, one should be able to produce new species within a reasonable time. Yet—and this the producers don’t tell us—it has never been done. As British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton recently remarked, despite multitudes of experiments exposing bacteria to caustic acid baths and intense radiation in order to accelerate mutations, in the “150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.

The producers of “Evolution unwittingly give the game away when they remark that the bacteria clearly identifiable as the same as modern TB have been found on a 6,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. Like the Galapagos finch beaks, what we seem to be seeing here is not macro-evolutionary change, but the extraordinary stability of species.

The producers repeat much the same error in a long segment on the HIV virus, which ends with doctors taking their patients off the anti-viral drugs (which appear to do more harm than good) and—voila!—the HIV returns to its original “wild-type. Once again, we have stasis, not evolution.

On other issues, “Evolution mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwin’s mechanism and “change over time which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the “Cambrian Explosion, in which, in direct contradiction to Darwinian theory, all the major animal groups (phyla) of modern animals appeared in a geologic instant, with no plausible precursors. Searching for a more contemporary spin, the program misstates the universality of DNA as evidence of descent from a common ancestor, when important exceptions that undermine this hypothesis have been known for over 20 years. And on and on.

http://www.trueorigin.org/pbsevolution01.asp

1. Only you are the one who keeps saying that anyone says it comes from nothing.

2. Only you are the one who says that it HAS to have come from nothing.

3. The only 'fact' is that nobody (Scientist or Creationist) has shown, for certain, how the Universe came to be. All Science has to show is the most likely conclusion by the existing evidence. All Creationists have is a story book written by superstitious primitives.

4. Evolution has nothing to do with Creation of the Universe.


1. Many have said the universe comes from nothing.

2. Many have said it HAS to have come from nothing.

3. Creationists have the facts from evidence and the Bible, which was inspired by God, which is the universe and everything in it was created from nothing.

4. Evolution has nothing to do with anything.



I have demonstrated beyong doubt that your premises are false.


When? Where? How?



I deny nothing - one way or the other. I go by the Scientific action - "I do not know".

The most likely explanation is that there was always 'something', even if in the form of pure energy.


If you prefer to refer to God as pure energy, fine, but He is far more, as He reveals in His Bible.

How do dominoes relate to the universe?


It demonstrates that contrary to you claim that the cause has be greater than that affected. It demonstrates that the cause of a chain of events is invariably the smallest factor.


Only when applied to dominoes. There is no relation to the creation of the universe, which does require that the cause has to be greater than the affect.

FourPart;1516642 wrote: Which Scientific Facts mentioned in the Bible have 'only just been discovered'?


These:

Scientific Facts in The Bible

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible



There are no 'accurately fulfilled prophecies'. Anyone can find 'fulfillment of a prophesy' with just a bit of imagination. It happens every day in every tabloid horoscope.


But not with the detail and accuracy found in Bible prophecies:

100prophecies.org

About Bible Prophecy

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm

404 Error

http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

Other stories written into the Bible were made to fit in with the prophecies - particularly the one of the Nativity. It is merely a story. There is no evidence to support even the existence of Jesus.


You are pathetically misinformed:



ANCIENT EVIDENCE FROM NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES THAT JESUS EXISTED

Evidence from Tacitus:

With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."—(1976), Macropaedia, Vol. 10, p.145.

There are many more references to Jesus outside of the Bible. We can be sure that Christ actually spoke the words found in the gospels.

If Jesus had not said such things surely His disciples would not have risked their lives for the cause of truth. If He had not said such things, those who opposed Him would have vehemently challenged such writings. However, no one during the early days of Christianity ever did. Two of the writers of the gospels were close companions of Christ. Both his disciples and his enemies heard his words openly. People in general he talked to heard his words. Yet, the letters of the gospels were never called into question. There are many historical writings about Christ from the early centuries to help substantiate his existence. During the early days when the gospel was preached publicly, no one questioned it because it was factual. Even Jesus’ close disciples died because of what Jesus taught them. If He had not actually said such things they would not have had such convictions.

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?



Evidence from Pliny the Younger:




Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians. Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and $ex stood accused of Christianity.

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:



They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth." If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast." This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism." The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.



Evidence from Josephus:




Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother." And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, For he wrought surprising feats. . . When Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians has not disappeared.

We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!



Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud:




There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus. So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do. If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.



Evidence from Lucian:




Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Also consider the Shroud: The Shroud of Turin

ƒ

Even the narrative is full of flaws. No census would require anyone to have to return to their place of birth to be taxed. They wouldn't be interested in where they were born - only in where they were now, so they could get their money. Furthermore, there is no record of the census in the first place. Furthermore, at the supposed time of year, the shepherds would no have been out on the hills with their sheep, as that time of year they would have taken them to shelter from the harsh winter cold. Furthermore, there would have been no lambs, being the wrong time of year.

As the Bible itself is a fictional work, then any 'fulfilled prophecies' made in there are also fictional. Prophecy Fulfillment is, and always has been a matter of personal interpretation, with no more reliability that seeing pictures of faces in clouds.


You are right about the time of Christ's birth for the reasons you give. He was probably born in September, but no one knows. The important fact is He was born. Now, about the census:



When did the Luke 2 census occur?


Alleged Biblical Problem

How can the Bible be correct (in The Gospel According to Luke, chapter 2, verse 2) when claiming that the great census decreed by Rome’s Caesar Augustus about the time of Jesus' birth circa 4-5 B.C. occurred “when Quirinius was governor if Quirinius (or Cyrenius) didn't even become governor until the year 6 A.D.?! Isn't this a clear case of the Bible being in error on matters of history?

Sensible Solution

Not so fast. Critics used this text for many years to make their case for a Bible that is unreliable. But no more. Today, there are a number of reasons for giving Luke the benefit of the doubt. Over and over (in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands) the doctor has proven himself to be a reliable historian, as demonstrated by famed scholar and archaeologist, Sir William Ramsey.

See ChristianAnswers' Web Bible Encyclopedia: What is a census?

To date, the only census documented outside the Bible near this time under Quirinius is the one referred to by the historian Josephus (Antiquities XVIII, 26 [ii.1], which he says took place in 6 A.D.

But notice that Luke 2:2 says that the census taken around the time Joseph and Mary went down to Bethlehem was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This implies that there was a later census--most likely the one referred to by Josephus--which Dr. Luke would have also certainly known about.

There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated “governor really just means “to be leading or “in charge of) over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been “military governor.

A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 adds weight to the idea that Quirinius was in a position of authority in Syria on two separate occasions. There was definitely a taxing during this time and therefore, quite possible, an associated census, the details of which may have been common knowledge in Luke's time, but are now lost to us.

Scholars have advanced a number of other altogether viable explanations which would allow Luke's record (and therefore the Bible) to continue to be regarded as 100% trustworthy.

Read more at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/ ... luke2.html

Pahu;1516651 wrote: The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.


As I have said before the Universe is NOT a CLOSED system. It is an EXPANDING system.

Furthermore, Sarfati is a Creationist, therefore any connections to him, as I have previously stated are invalid because he is not giving accurate information. You cannot have an interpretation on Physical Laws, which is what he is trying to do.

Pahu;1516652 wrote: These:


I refuse to scroll through endless pastes of the crap we have seen countless times before.

If you are unable to answer the simple questions in your own words without resorting to reams of pastings, then don't bother. It just supports the fact that you don't have a clue & lack the mentality to think for yourself. In other words, a typical Creationist. There is a reason Jesus is referred to as a Shepherd. He is followed by mindless sheep.

FourPart;1516664 wrote: As I have said before the Universe is NOT a CLOSED system. It is an EXPANDING system.

Furthermore, Sarfati is a Creationist, therefore any connections to him, as I have previously stated are invalid because he is not giving accurate information. You cannot have an interpretation on Physical Laws, which is what he is trying to do.


Safarti's information is far more accurate than yours.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Answers to Critics

by Jonathan Sarfati

Open Systems

‘Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.

‘This does seem to be a valid point—do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?’

The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

• that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)

• usable energy is running out

• information tends to get scrambled

• order tends towards disorder

• a random jumble won’t organize itself

•

It also depends on the type of system:

• An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.

• A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.

• An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

“¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-t ... s-to-criti

As I have said before, in Physics a Law is a Law. To paste some Creationist's personal interpretation of a Law in a vain attempt to make it mean something totally different totally invalidates your argument. It just demonstrates that, as usual, you don't have a clue about what you are ranting about & continue to clutch at straws.

Read the ACTUAL information on what the 2nd Law is all about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_la ... modynamics

Note the very first line...

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy can never decrease over time for an isolated system, that is, a system in which neither energy nor matter can enter nor leave..

As I have said before, the Universe is not an isolated (closed) system. It is expanding. It also contains innumerable sources of additional energy. Mass has energy, simply by its having mass. It has gravity. That gravity can attract other mass forms to it. That same gravity can increase entropy by giving energy to another object passing near its orbit using the slingshot effect. Yes, in an open system, entropy can actually increase. Something that Creationists either conveniently overlook, or deny altogether.

There you go again, trying to explain science to an science illiterate.

LarsMac;1516681 wrote: There you go again, trying to explain science to an science illiterate.


I know, but to say that someone's interpretation of a Physical LAW is better than someone else's???? That's really reaching.

FourPart;1516679 wrote: As I have said before, in Physics a Law is a Law. To paste some Creationist's personal interpretation of a Law in a vain attempt to make it mean something totally different totally invalidates your argument. It just demonstrates that, as usual, you don't have a clue about what you are ranting about & continue to clutch at straws.

Read the ACTUAL information on what the 2nd Law is all about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_la ... modynamics

Note the very first line...

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy can never decrease over time for an isolated system, that is, a system in which neither energy nor matter can enter nor leave.


As I have said before, the Universe is not an isolated (closed) system. It is expanding. It also contains innumerable sources of additional energy. Mass has energy, simply by its having mass. It has gravity. That gravity can attract other mass forms to it. That same gravity can increase entropy by giving energy to another object passing near its orbit using the slingshot effect. Yes, in an open system, entropy can actually increase. Something that Creationists either conveniently overlook, or deny altogether.


False! Here are the facts again:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Answers to Critics

by Jonathan Sarfati

Open Systems

‘Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.

‘This does seem to be a valid point—do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?’

The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

• that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)

• usable energy is running out

• information tends to get scrambled

• order tends towards disorder

• a random jumble won’t organize itself

•

It also depends on the type of system:

• An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.

• A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.

• An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

“¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-t ... to-critics

You truly are a master of demonstrating what an idiot you are.

Physical LAWS cannot be interpreted. That's why they are LAWS.

Entropy is NOT a measure of disorder. It is a measure of usable energy.

Contrary to Sarfati's claims, Entropy CAN increase.

https://sciencing.com/examples-increase ... -8797.html

As the example points out, a diamond has very low entropy, but is hardly a measure of disorder as its molecules are extremely well orderd. Shatter it & it has high entropy & great disorder. Totally the opposite of what Sarfati claims.

If you want to use the 2nd Law as an argument, at least understand what the 2nd Law is from of SCIENTIFIC Website that give the FACTS, not some Nutjob Craetionist site that rewrites the Laws of Physics to suit its own purpose.

The Universe is NOT a closed system, as Sarfati claims, as it has been demonstrated to be expanding. In fact, not only expanding, but accelerating in the rate at which it is doing so. Matter & energy are constantly being exchanged, generating & converting more energy. This is not opinion. This is demonstrable & observable. It has happened. It is happening. It will continue to happen.

FourPart;1516707 wrote: You truly are a master of demonstrating what an idiot you are.

Physical LAWS cannot be interpreted. That's why they are LAWS.

Entropy is NOT a measure of disorder. It is a measure of usable energy.

Contrary to Sarfati's claims, Entropy CAN increase.

https://sciencing.com/examples-increase ... -8797.html

As the example points out, a diamond has very low entropy, but is hardly a measure of disorder as its molecules are extremely well orderd. Shatter it & it has high entropy & great disorder. Totally the opposite of what Sarfati claims.

If you want to use the 2nd Law as an argument, at least understand what the 2nd Law is from of SCIENTIFIC Website that give the FACTS, not some Nutjob Craetionist site that rewrites the Laws of Physics to suit its own purpose.

The Universe is NOT a closed system, as Sarfati claims, as it has been demonstrated to be expanding. In fact, not only expanding, but accelerating in the rate at which it is doing so. Matter & energy are constantly being exchanged, generating & converting more energy. This is not opinion. This is demonstrable & observable. It has happened. It is happening. It will continue to happen.


Nonsense!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Answers to Critics

by Jonathan Sarfati

Open Systems

‘Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.

‘This does seem to be a valid point—do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?’

The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

• that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)

• usable energy is running out

• information tends to get scrambled

• order tends towards disorder

• a random jumble won’t organize itself

•

It also depends on the type of system:

• An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.

• A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.

• An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

“¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-t ... to-critics

I never read all the cut and paste that comes from Pahu.

Ted;1516712 wrote: I never read all the cut and paste that comes from Pahu.


You might learn something.

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Lagerstatten!

Lagerstätten is a word creationists should be familiar with. German for "place, of storage [or] resting place" it refers to a sedimentary deposit extraordinarily rich in the diversity or quality of preservation of its fossils. Paleontologists distinguish two kinds. Concentration lagerstätten are deposits with a peculiar abundance of broken-up hard parts, such as a bone bed. These are interesting, but it is the second variety--called conservation lagerstätten--that we would like to focus on. These include some of the world's most extraordinary fossil deposits, and it is the exceptional quality of preservation of the fossilized organisms, especially their soft parts, that sets them apart.

Workers at fish markets are in the best position to appreciate the significance of lagerstätten. Without salt or refrigeration, decay sets in very quickly on a dead fish. Modern varieties of the small, herring-like fossilized fish from Wyoming's Green River Formation, for example, rot in a period of days or weeks.1 Yet somehow they got pickled by the billions in this world-famous lagerstätten. Either they were rapidly buried in mud or else they got exposed to some unusual oxygen-deprived and/or saline environment soon after death, in order for these fossil fish to be preserved. Not months, nor years, nor millennia, but days! The following are a few other favorite examples.

Preserved in northeast Brazil's Santana Formation are not just the bones of fossil fish, but the mummified remains of gills, muscles, and stomachs.2 Gills are normally infested with bacteria 4-5 hours after a fish's death. "What is clear," reports D. M. Martill, "¦is that the phosphatization [fossilization] took place moments after the fish had died and was completed within only a few (probably less than 5) hours." In this case, "instantaneous fossilization" is suspected by Martill to have been the very cause of death!

Crinoids, which are marine animals of the echinoderm or starfish family, comprise famous lagerstätten in both England and the United States. In the walls of New York state's Niagara Gorge (downriver from the Falls) are found whole crinoids that were "buried to death" in lime muds.3

What makes experts Taylor and Brett (1996) so confident? Crinoids, or "sea lilies," are composed of hard plates held together by extremely delicate soft tissue. Ordinarily, death of the organism results in quick disintegration of its plates; but here, whole organisms are preserved. Rapid burial in mud is required.

Are lagerstätten anomalies of the fossil record, or are they telling us something that is basic to its very character? They are certainly more common than what most geologists would have thought possible only a few decades ago. Flood geologists from former generations might have explained it by going back to Genesis.

Lagerstatten! | The Institute for Creation Research

Disciplines of Science? What would you know of such things?

LarsMac;1516716 wrote: Disciplines of Science? What would you know of such things?


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Rapid Rifting Presages Future Events

The Great Rift Valley extends some 4,000 miles southward from Syria north of Israel, through the Gulf of Aqaba, through Ethiopia, and all the way to Mozambique in southeast Africa. It harbors a giant fault, which has been under investigation as a model for sea floor spreading. A recent geologic event rent a gaping crack through the desert of Ethiopia, causing safety concerns for locals. These crustal plate motions may foreshadow rifting events further north in the Great Rift Valley.

The outmoded uniformitarian interpretation that is widely held by contemporary scientists insists that slow and gradual processes formed earth’s features. But the observation of Ethiopia’s new rift, like so many other observations, counters this “uniformity thinking. Cindy Ebinger, professor at the University of Rochester and co-author of a study on the Ethiopian site, expressed surprise at how quickly the trench rifted. “We know that seafloor ridges are created by a similar intrusion of magma into a rift, but we never knew that a huge length of the ridge could break open at once like this.1

The surprising suddenness of the crustal movements underlying the rift system may match the suddenness of a related valley formation event foretold by Zechariah in the sixth century BC. The 14th chapter of his book states:

Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave [be split] in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove [or move] toward the north, and half of it toward the south.2

Ethiopia is near the southern end of the fault. But near the northern end and still within the Great Rift Valley lies the Dead Sea in Israel. The Mount of Olives is only about 15 miles to its west. Between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives lies the Kidron Valley, which carries the seasonal Kidron stream on a 20-mile-long, 4,000-foot drop eastward to the Dead Sea. A rift could open up along the Kidron Valley, splitting the Mount of Olives in two, as predicted.

According to area geologists, Israel has been ripe for significant seismic activity, even as southern portions of the Great Rift Valley thousands of miles away are actively spreading. Dr. Shmuel Marco of Tel Aviv University told the Jerusalem Post in 2007 that “a major quake should be expected any time because almost a whole millennium has passed since the last strong earthquake.3 He had studied geological and archaeological evidence, as well as historical records, to establish that significant earthquakes—which are associated with rifting—had been occurring every 400 years or so up until that time.

After about 1,000 years with no major quakes, the buildup of pressure from shifting crustal plates means that “it’s going to snap eventually.3 And when it does, it would not come as a surprise to find that it will be accompanied by other significant events also prophesied in the Bible, including the judgment of wicked nations assembled in the Kidron Valley4 and the return of Christ to earth along with His host.5

Rapid Rifting Presages Future Events | The Institute for Creation Research

If you knew anything about the Disciplines of Science you would know you were talking through your hat.

Science takes evidence first, then forms theories based on that evidence.

It then challenges those theories & either discards or amends them.

It continues to amass evidence & uses that evidence to either support, dismiss or amend.

Not once has any evidence been found that disproves Evolution. If you believe it has, then produce it, and pastes from Creationists do no count as evidence. Evidence needs to be demonstrable. All evidence supporting Evolution is demonstrable. There is absolutely nothing that supports Creationism that can be demonstrable.

Once again you continue to use an uninformed interpretation of the 2nd Law. This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that you have no idea of what you're talking about. Physical laws cannot be interpreted. They are what they are.

FourPart;1516790 wrote: If you knew anything about the Disciplines of Science you would know you were talking through your hat.

Science takes evidence first, then forms theories based on that evidence.

It then challenges those theories & either discards or amends them.

It continues to amass evidence & uses that evidence to either support, dismiss or amend.

Not once has any evidence been found that disproves Evolution. If you believe it has, then produce it, and pastes from Creationists do no count as evidence. Evidence needs to be demonstrable. All evidence supporting Evolution is demonstrable. There is absolutely nothing that supports Creationism that can be demonstrable.

Once again you continue to use an uninformed interpretation of the 2nd Law. This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that you have no idea of what you're talking about. Physical laws cannot be interpreted. They are what they are.


What nonsense. Where is evolution demonstrable? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:




NASA Earth Image Helps Answer Flood Question

NASA's Image of the Day for January 25, "Blue Marble," is a composite of images taken by the Suomi NPP satellite that provides an exquisite view of the earth from space.1 This is the latest in a series that began with the famous "Blue Marble" photo taken in 1972 by the Apollo 17 crew.

This image can help answer a question that creationists often hear: If the entire earth really was covered during the Flood of Noah's day, then where did all that water go?

According to the Bible, the water retreated from the surface of the earth,2 apparently running off the continents into newly created ocean basins. Geophysicist John Baumgardner developed a detailed, feasible model called Catastrophic Plate Tectonics of how the earth's mantle and crust might have shifted and interacted during the Flood year.3 According to this model, the configuration of today's ocean floors formed during the latter months of the Flood year.

In this scenario, powerful potential forces deep under the earth, possibly triggered by impacts that ruptured the earth's crust,4 forced molten rock upward in certain places. This cooled and quickly solidified as it spread out toward such places as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, shoving crustal plates across the earth's surface. Violent continental collisions forced material upward to create mountains, such as where India collided with Asia to form the Himalayas. Then, giant sheets of muddy water rapidly ran off the continents and carved the valleys in between today's mountains.5 The waters didn't stop until they reached the then-new and deeper ocean basins.

So, what happened to all the water from Noah's Flood? It went into the oceans. As extraordinary images of the earth from space show, water covers the majority of the blue planet. In fact, from at least one vantage point near the center of the Pacific Ocean, virtually no land is visible—just ocean!




The apostle Peter wrote specifically about water's role in restructuring the earth's surface: "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."6

NASA's new Blue Marble image, like previous ones, shows that the earth's watery surface—which is unique among all known planets—has all the fitting hallmarks of Noah's Flood: mountains made of catastrophically deposited mudrocks, valleys from which mudrock was catastrophically removed, and vast, blue reservoirs that hold the waters that were responsible for the destruction of the planet's primordial surface.

NASA Earth Image Helps Answer Flood Question | The Institute for Creation Research

Pahu;1516819 wrote: What nonsense. Where is evolution demonstrable? The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:




Your usual pastes are from the usual Creationist website, which are notorious for bias & blatant lies. Show me evidence from a SCIENTIFIC source, with no reference to any Creationist website whatsoever. I bet you can't. Why?

(1) Because it doesn't exist

(2) I doubt you even know how to use Google to find any relevant documentary information.

(3) You believe that if you can't paste it from Walt Brown it doesn't exist.

FourPart;1516826 wrote: Your usual pastes are from the usual Creationist website, which are notorious for bias & blatant lies. Show me evidence from a SCIENTIFIC source, with no reference to any Creationist website whatsoever. I bet you can't. Why?

(1) Because it doesn't exist

(2) I doubt you even know how to use Google to find any relevant documentary information.

(3) You believe that if you can't paste it from Walt Brown it doesn't exist.


You assume creationists cannot be scientific. You are wrong. The modern scientific method was created by creationists. The following list of people are historic creation scientists. During their life they had a firm belief in God and either possessed one or more graduate degrees in a science discipline or contributed substantially to the field of science.

Antiseptic Surgery Joseph Lister

Bacteriology Louis Pasteur

Calculus Isaac Newton

Celestial Mechanics Johannes Kepler

Chemistry Robert Boyle

Comparative Anatomy Georges Cuvier

Dimensional Analysis Lord Rayleigh

Dynamics Isaac Newton

Electronics John Ambrose Fleming

Electrodynamics James Clerk Maxwell

Electromagnetics Michael Faraday

Energetics Lord Kelvin

Entomology of Living Insects Henri Fabre

Field Theory James Clerk Maxwell

Fluid Mechanics George Stokes

Galactic Astronomy Sir William Hershel

Gas Dynamics Robert Boyle

Genetics Gregor Mendel

Glacial Geology Louis Agassiz

Gynaecology James Simpson

Hydrography Matthew Maury

Hydrostatics Blaise Pascal

Ichthyology Louis Agassiz

Isotopic Chemistry William Ramsey

Model Analysis Lord Rayleigh

Natural History John Ray

Non-Euclidean Geometry Bernard Riemann

Oceanography Matthew Maury

Optical Mineralogy David Brewster

http://www.christianity.co.nz/science4.htm

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

A team of biologists from the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) and the University of Florida has now been able to demonstrate with the comb jellyfish Mnemiopsis leidyi that, at least in this type of jellyfish, the mechanism of regeneration can be changed depending on the environmental conditions. The study has been published in the international nature publishing group journal Scientific Reports. "Jellyfish are perfect candidates for this kind of research while holding a key position at the phylogenetic base of the metazoan tree," says first author Katharina Bading, former Master student at GEOMAR and now PhD student at NTNU, Norway.

Serious injuries to comb jellyfish and their larvae can have various causes: Mechanical stress, for example, in rough seas or even predators. Depending on the season and the area they live in, the jellyfish have to regenerate in an environment with ample or few nutrients. "Whether and how the jellyfish react to these differences was our question," says Dr. Jamileh Javidpour from GEOMAR, corresponding author of the study.

Comb-jellyfish larvae that lived in a nutrient-rich environment were able to completely restore their bodies. Larvae that had to cope with less nutrients also survived and were able to heal their injuries, but were unable to fully regenerate their bodies.

"Apparently, the comb jellyfish larvae are able to activate two fundamentally different regeneration processes, depending on the external circumstances," explains Dr. Javidpour, "if the circumstances are not good enough for a complete cure, then at least it can save their own survival with a simpler process."

How did this ability originate? The best explanation is that it was the result of an intelligent agency.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 120246.htm

________________________________________

Pahu;1516829 wrote: You assume creationists cannot be scientific. You are wrong. The modern scientific method was created by creationists. The following list of people are historic creation scientists. During their life they had a firm belief in God and either possessed one or more graduate degrees in a science discipline or contributed substantially to the field of science.


Once again, you fall at the first hurdle. Give a single condition that you cannot paste from a Creationist biased source, and what do you do? You paste from a Creationist biased source.

Furthermore, how many of those listed names are from MODERN Science?

Antiseptic Surgery Joseph Lister (1895 - 1900)

Bacteriology Louis Pasteur (1822 - 1895)

Calculus Isaac Newton (1642 - 1726)

Celestial Mechanics Johannes Kepler (1571 - 1630)

Chemistry Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691)

Comparative Anatomy Georges Cuvier (1769 - 1832)

Dimensional Analysis Lord Rayleigh (1842 - 1919)

Dynamics Isaac Newton (1642 - 1726) used twice

Electronics John Ambrose Fleming (1849 - 1945)

Electrodynamics James Clerk Maxwell (1831 - 1879)

Electromagnetics Michael Faraday (1791 - 1867)

I don't think I need go on to demonstrate how out of date your pasted list is (at least 4 of which were used twice). Most of these Scientists died before Darwin was even BORN. Furthermore, most didn't even know anything about what Electricity was & just believed lightning to be a sign of God's anger. Newton even believed that God had to manually adjust the orbit of the moon from time to time, as well as denying that planetary orbits had anything to do with the Laws of Physics.

For your information, Darwin, too, was a Creationist. He was even studying to enter the Clergy - until he found overwhelming evidence that showed that his previous faith was totally misplaced.

We are already well aware that your Creationist input is already decades out of date, but you have truly passed the mark now by citing input that is CENTURIES out of date, and not a single one of them would have even HEARD of DNA.

As for the pasted article about the comb jellyfish - just what is that supposed to prove? It's an article about jellyfish. It doesn't mention either Creationism or Evolution. It is a totally irrelevant article to the case in point. However, I noticed one other link on the same page which you might find of interest - from the same source provided by yourself:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 153452.htm

FourPart;1516878 wrote: Once again, you fall at the first hurdle. Give a single condition that you cannot paste from a Creationist biased source, and what do you do? You paste from a Creationist biased source.

Furthermore, how many of those listed names are from MODERN Science?

Antiseptic Surgery Joseph Lister (1895 - 1900)

Bacteriology Louis Pasteur (1822 - 1895)

Calculus Isaac Newton (1642 - 1726)

Celestial Mechanics Johannes Kepler (1571 - 1630)

Chemistry Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691)

Comparative Anatomy Georges Cuvier (1769 - 1832)

Dimensional Analysis Lord Rayleigh (1842 - 1919)

Dynamics Isaac Newton (1642 - 1726) used twice

Electronics John Ambrose Fleming (1849 - 1945)

Electrodynamics James Clerk Maxwell (1831 - 1879)

Electromagnetics Michael Faraday (1791 - 1867)

I don't think I need go on to demonstrate how out of date your pasted list is (at least 4 of which were used twice). Most of these Scientists died before Darwin was even BORN. Furthermore, most didn't even know anything about what Electricity was & just believed lightning to be a sign of God's anger. Newton even believed that God had to manually adjust the orbit of the moon from time to time, as well as denying that planetary orbits had anything to do with the Laws of Physics.

For your information, Darwin, too, was a Creationist. He was even studying to enter the Clergy - until he found overwhelming evidence that showed that his previous faith was totally misplaced.

We are already well aware that your Creationist input is already decades out of date, but you have truly passed the mark now by citing input that is CENTURIES out of date, and not a single one of them would have even HEARD of DNA.

As for the pasted article about the comb jellyfish - just what is that supposed to prove? It's an article about jellyfish. It doesn't mention either Creationism or Evolution. It is a totally irrelevant article to the case in point. However, I noticed one other link on the same page which you might find of interest - from the same source provided by yourself:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 153452.htm


I was just showing the creationist scientist who established the modern scientific method. If you object to the early dates, you must also object to Darwin's book dated 1859.

In your link, I found this: "Reproduction in most animal species requires breeding between two individuals. But some worms have evolved the ability to go it alone. In these species, a single individual can breed with itself to produce offspring." Did those worms evolve that ability, or is it the result of Intelligent Design?

Here is a list of modern creation scientists:

Some Evolutionists state that "No credentialed scientist is a creationist." Here is a list of Young Earth, Biblical Creationists and their fields:

Dr. Paul Ackerman (Psychologist)

Dr. E. Theo Agard (Physicist)

Dr. Steven Austin (Geologist)

Dr. S.E. Aw (Biochemist)

Dr. Thomas Barnes (Physicist)

Adrain Bates

Dr. Don Batten (Botanist)

Dr. John Baumgardner (Geophysicist)

Otto E. Berg (Chemist/Physicist)

Dr. Jerry R. Bergman (Psychologist)

Dr. Kimberley Berrine (Microbiologist)

Dr. Vladimir Betina (Microbiologist)

Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin (Biologist)

Dr. Andrew Bosanquet (Microbiologist)

Dr. Edward A. Boudreaux (Chemist)

Dr. David R. Boylan (Chemist)

Dr. Stephen Brocott (Chemist)

Dr. Les Bruce (Linguist)

Dr. Ashby L. Camp

Dr. Linn E. Carothers (Statiscitician)

Tom Carpenter Website: Creation Science Defense

Dr. David Catchpoole (Botanist)

Dr. Sung-Do Cha (Physicist)

Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin (Physicist)

Dr. Donald E. Chittick (Chemist)

Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang (Geneticist)

Dr. Jeun-Sik Chang (Aeronautical Engineer)

Dr. Chung-Il Cho (Biologist)

Dr. Malcolm A. Cutchins (Engineer)

Dr. Harold Coffin (Paleontologist)

Dr. Sid Cole (Chemist)

Dr. Bob Compton

Dr. Kenneth Cumming (Biologist)

Dr. Jack Cuozzo (Paleoanthropologist)

Dr. William M. Curtis III (Physicist)

Dr. Malcolm Cutchins (Aerospace Engineer)

Dr. Lionel Dahmer (Biochemist)

Dr. Raymond V. Damadian (invented MRI medical scanning)

Dr. Chris Darnbrough (Biochemist)

Dr. Douglas Dean (Biochemist)

Dr. Stephen W. Deckard (Educator)

Pete DeRosa (Paleontologist/Archaeologist)

Dr. Donald DeYoung (Astrophysicist)

Dr. Geoff Downes (Botanist)

Dr. Ted Driggers (Computer Scientist)

Dr. Andre Eggin (Geneticist)

Dr. Dennis L. Englin (Geophysicist)

Richard Fangrad

Dr. Danny R. Faulkner (Astronomer)

Dr. Carl B. Fliermans (Biologist)

Wayne Frair (Herpetologist)

Robert Franks (Biologist)

Robert Gentry (Physicist)

Dr. Duane T. Gish (Biochemist)

Dr. Werner Gitt (Engineer)

Dr. Dianne Grocott (Psychiatrist)

Dr. Stephen Grocott (Chemist)

Dr. Ken Ham Website: www.answersingenesis.org

Dr. Donald Hamman (Food Scientist)

Dr. Charles Harrison (Physicist)

Dr. John Hartnett (Physicist/Meteorologist)

Dr. George Hawke (Enviromental Scientist)

Dr. Margaret Helder (Botanist)

Dr. Harold R. Henry (Engineer)

Dr. Jonathan Henry (Astronomer)

Dr. Joseph Henson (Entomologist)

Dr. Robert Herrmann (Mathematician)

Bill Hoesch (Geologist)

Dr. Kelly Hollowell (Pharmacologist)

Dr. Edmond W. Holroyd III (Atmospheric Science)

Dr. D. Russel Humphreys (Physicist)

Dr. Evan Jamieson (Hydrometallurgy)

Dr. Pierre Jerlstrom (Molecular Biologist)

Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist)

Dr. Valery Karpounin (Mathematician)

Dr. Dean Kenyon (Biologist)

Dr. Gi-Tai Kim (Biologist)

Dr. Harriet Kim (Biochemist)

Dr. Jong-Bai Kim (Biochemist)

Dr. Jung-Han Kim (Biochemist)

Dr. Jung-Wook Kim (Environmental Scientist)

Dr. Kyoung-Rai Kim (Chemist)

Dr. Kyoung-Tai Kim (Geneticist)

Dr. Young-Gil Kim (Materials Scientist)

Dr. Young In Kim (Engineer)

Dr. John W. Klotz (Biologist)

Dr. Vladmir F. Kondalenko (Cytologist)

Dr. Leonid Korochkin (Molecular Biologist)

Dr. Johan Kruger

Dr. Jin-Hyouk Kwon (Physicist)

Dr. Myung-Sang Kwon (Immunologist)

Charlie Liebert (Educator) Website: - Christian Apologetic Answers

Dr. Alexander V, Lalomov (Geologist) E-mail:

Grant Lambert (Biochemist)

Dr. John Lennox (Mathematician)

Dr. John Leslie (Biochemist)

Dr. Lane P. Lester (Geneticist)

Dr. George D. Lindsey (Science Educator)

Dr. David P. Livingston jr. (Archaeologist)

Dr. Gary Locklair (Compter Scientist)

Dr. Raul E. Lopez (Meteorologist) E-mail:

Dr. Alan Love (Chemist)

Dr. Iam Macreadie (Microbiologist)

Dr. John Marcus (Molecular Biologist)

Dr. George Marshall (Opthamologist)

Dr. Ralph Matthews (Radiation Chemist)

Dr. Andrew C. McIntosh (Physicist)

Dr. Tom McMullen (Science Historian)

Dr. David Menton (Anatomist)

Dr. Angela Meyer (Botanist)

Dr. John R. Meyer (Biologist)

David R. McQueen (Geologist)

Dr. Colin Mitchell (Geographer)

Dr. John N. Moore (Science Educator)

Dr. John Morris (Geologist)

Dr. Len Morris (Biologist)

Dr. Graeme Mortimer (Geologist)

Robert A. Mullin (Writer)

Dr. Stanley Mumma (Engineer)

Dr. Hee-Choon No (Nuclear Engineer)

Michael Oard (Meteorologist)

Dr. John W. Oller (Linguist)

Dr. Chris D. Osborne (Biologist)

Willem J. Ouweneel (Geneticist)

Dr. Charles Pallaghy (Botanist)

Dr. Gary E. Parker (Biologist)

Dr. J.H. John Peet (Chemist)

David Phillips (Paleoanthropologist)

Dr. John Rankin (Cosmologist)

Dr. Danial W. Raynolds (Biochemist)

Dr. A.S. Reece

Dr. Jung-Goo Roe (Biologist)

Dr. David Rosevear (Chemist)

Dr. Ron Samec (Physicist)

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Physical Chemist)

Siegfred Scherer (Microbiologist)

Dr. Joachim Scheven (Paleontologist)

Dr. Ian Scott (Educator)

Dr. Saami Shaibani (Physicist)

Dr. Hyum-Kil Shin (Food Scientist)

Dr. Mikhail Shulgin (Physicist)

Dr. Emil Silvestru (Geologist)

Dr. Jerry M. Simmons (Educator)

Dr. Roger Simpson (Engineer)

Dr. Harold Slusher (Geophysicist)

Dr. Andrew Snelling (Geologist)

Dr. Man-Suk Song (Computer Scientist)

Dr. James Stark (Science Educator)

Dr. Brian Stone (Engineer)

Dr. Charles Taylor (Linguist)

Dr. Ker Thompson (Geophysicist)

Dr. Michael Todhunter (Forestry Genetecist)

Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog (Chemist)

Dr. Royal Truman (Organic Chemist)

Dr. Larry Vardiman (Atmospheric Science)

Dr. Walter Veith (Zoologist)

Dr. Joachim Vetter (Biologist)

Dr. Tas Walker (Geologist)

Dr. Jeremy Walter (Engineer)

Dr. Keith H. Wanser (Physicist)

Dr. A.J. Monty White (Physicist)

Dr. Carl Wieland

Dr. Jay L. Wile (Textbook author/Nuclear Chemist)

Dr. Emmet L. Williams (Engineer)

Dr. Clifford Wilson (Archaeologist)

Dr. Kurt P. Wise (Paleontologist)

Dr. Bryant Wood (Archaeologist)

Dr. Seoung-Hoon Yang (Physicist)

Dr. Thomas Yi (Aerospace Engineer)

Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo (Geneticist)

Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon (Biologist)

Dr. Patrick Young (Chemist)

Dr. Keun Bae Yu (Geographer)



Some Notable Creationists:

Francis Bacon (invented the scientific method)

Robert Boyle (Chemist - fathered chemistry)

George Washington Carver (Botanist/Inventor)

Dr. Raymond V. Damadian (invented MRI medical scanning)

William Derham (Ecologist - fathered Ecology)

Michael Faraday (Physicist - Electromagnetics)

Phillip H. Gosse (Ornithologist - Book The Romance of Natural History)

James Joule (Physicist - Thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (Astronomer - fathered astronomy)

Carl Linnaeus (Botanist - invented biological classification system)

James Clerk Maxwell (Physicist - Electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (Geneticist - fathered genetics)

Dr. Henry Morris (Geologist - founded modern creationist theory)

Samuel Morse (Inventor - Telegraph/Morse Code)

Sir Isaac Newton (Physicist - Law of Gravity)

Sir Richard Owen (Naturalist/Paleontologist - coined term "Dinosaur")

Louis Pasteur (Microbiologist - Fathered Microbiology)

FourPart great posts and more bs from the creationists.

Just checked with the National Academy of Science. They are in support of evolution.

Pahu;1516882 wrote: I was just showing the creationist scientist who established the modern scientific method. If you object to the early dates, you must also object to Darwin's book dated 1859.

In your link, I found this: "Reproduction in most animal species requires breeding between two individuals. But some worms have evolved the ability to go it alone. In these species, a single individual can breed with itself to produce offspring." Did those worms evolve that ability, or is it the result of Intelligent Design?

Here is a list of modern creation scientists:

Some Evolutionists state that "No credentialed scientist is a creationist." Here is a list of Young Earth, Biblical Creationists and their fields:

Dr. Paul Ackerman (Psychologist)

Dr. E. Theo Agard (Physicist)

Dr. Steven Austin (Geologist)

Dr. S.E. Aw (Biochemist)

Dr. Thomas Barnes (Physicist)

Adrain Bates

Dr. Don Batten (Botanist)

Dr. John Baumgardner (Geophysicist)

Otto E. Berg (Chemist/Physicist)

Dr. Jerry R. Bergman (Psychologist)

Dr. Kimberley Berrine (Microbiologist)

Dr. Vladimir Betina (Microbiologist)

Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin (Biologist)

Dr. Andrew Bosanquet (Microbiologist)

Dr. Edward A. Boudreaux (Chemist)

Dr. David R. Boylan (Chemist)

Dr. Stephen Brocott (Chemist)

Dr. Les Bruce (Linguist)

Dr. Ashby L. Camp

Dr. Linn E. Carothers (Statiscitician)

Tom Carpenter Website: Creation Science Defense

Dr. David Catchpoole (Botanist)

Dr. Sung-Do Cha (Physicist)

Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin (Physicist)

Dr. Donald E. Chittick (Chemist)

Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang (Geneticist)

Dr. Jeun-Sik Chang (Aeronautical Engineer)

Dr. Chung-Il Cho (Biologist)

Dr. Malcolm A. Cutchins (Engineer)

Dr. Harold Coffin (Paleontologist)

Dr. Sid Cole (Chemist)

Dr. Bob Compton

Dr. Kenneth Cumming (Biologist)

Dr. Jack Cuozzo (Paleoanthropologist)

Dr. William M. Curtis III (Physicist)

Dr. Malcolm Cutchins (Aerospace Engineer)

Dr. Lionel Dahmer (Biochemist)

Dr. Raymond V. Damadian (invented MRI medical scanning)

Dr. Chris Darnbrough (Biochemist)

Dr. Douglas Dean (Biochemist)

Dr. Stephen W. Deckard (Educator)

Pete DeRosa (Paleontologist/Archaeologist)

Dr. Donald DeYoung (Astrophysicist)

Dr. Geoff Downes (Botanist)

Dr. Ted Driggers (Computer Scientist)

Dr. Andre Eggin (Geneticist)

Dr. Dennis L. Englin (Geophysicist)

Richard Fangrad

Dr. Danny R. Faulkner (Astronomer)

Dr. Carl B. Fliermans (Biologist)

Wayne Frair (Herpetologist)

Robert Franks (Biologist)

Robert Gentry (Physicist)

Dr. Duane T. Gish (Biochemist)

Dr. Werner Gitt (Engineer)

Dr. Dianne Grocott (Psychiatrist)

Dr. Stephen Grocott (Chemist)

Dr. Ken Ham Website: www.answersingenesis.org

Dr. Donald Hamman (Food Scientist)

Dr. Charles Harrison (Physicist)

Dr. John Hartnett (Physicist/Meteorologist)

Dr. George Hawke (Enviromental Scientist)

Dr. Margaret Helder (Botanist)

Dr. Harold R. Henry (Engineer)

Dr. Jonathan Henry (Astronomer)

Dr. Joseph Henson (Entomologist)

Dr. Robert Herrmann (Mathematician)

Bill Hoesch (Geologist)

Dr. Kelly Hollowell (Pharmacologist)

Dr. Edmond W. Holroyd III (Atmospheric Science)

Dr. D. Russel Humphreys (Physicist)

Dr. Evan Jamieson (Hydrometallurgy)

Dr. Pierre Jerlstrom (Molecular Biologist)

Dr. Raymond Jones (Agricultural Scientist)

Dr. Valery Karpounin (Mathematician)

Dr. Dean Kenyon (Biologist)

Dr. Gi-Tai Kim (Biologist)

Dr. Harriet Kim (Biochemist)

Dr. Jong-Bai Kim (Biochemist)

Dr. Jung-Han Kim (Biochemist)

Dr. Jung-Wook Kim (Environmental Scientist)

Dr. Kyoung-Rai Kim (Chemist)

Dr. Kyoung-Tai Kim (Geneticist)

Dr. Young-Gil Kim (Materials Scientist)

Dr. Young In Kim (Engineer)

Dr. John W. Klotz (Biologist)

Dr. Vladmir F. Kondalenko (Cytologist)

Dr. Leonid Korochkin (Molecular Biologist)

Dr. Johan Kruger

Dr. Jin-Hyouk Kwon (Physicist)

Dr. Myung-Sang Kwon (Immunologist)

Charlie Liebert (Educator) Website: - Christian Apologetic Answers

Dr. Alexander V, Lalomov (Geologist) E-mail:

Grant Lambert (Biochemist)

Dr. John Lennox (Mathematician)

Dr. John Leslie (Biochemist)

Dr. Lane P. Lester (Geneticist)

Dr. George D. Lindsey (Science Educator)

Dr. David P. Livingston jr. (Archaeologist)

Dr. Gary Locklair (Compter Scientist)

Dr. Raul E. Lopez (Meteorologist) E-mail:

Dr. Alan Love (Chemist)

Dr. Iam Macreadie (Microbiologist)

Dr. John Marcus (Molecular Biologist)

Dr. George Marshall (Opthamologist)

Dr. Ralph Matthews (Radiation Chemist)

Dr. Andrew C. McIntosh (Physicist)

Dr. Tom McMullen (Science Historian)

Dr. David Menton (Anatomist)

Dr. Angela Meyer (Botanist)

Dr. John R. Meyer (Biologist)

David R. McQueen (Geologist)

Dr. Colin Mitchell (Geographer)

Dr. John N. Moore (Science Educator)

Dr. John Morris (Geologist)

Dr. Len Morris (Biologist)

Dr. Graeme Mortimer (Geologist)

Robert A. Mullin (Writer)

Dr. Stanley Mumma (Engineer)

Dr. Hee-Choon No (Nuclear Engineer)

Michael Oard (Meteorologist)

Dr. John W. Oller (Linguist)

Dr. Chris D. Osborne (Biologist)

Willem J. Ouweneel (Geneticist)

Dr. Charles Pallaghy (Botanist)

Dr. Gary E. Parker (Biologist)

Dr. J.H. John Peet (Chemist)

David Phillips (Paleoanthropologist)

Dr. John Rankin (Cosmologist)

Dr. Danial W. Raynolds (Biochemist)

Dr. A.S. Reece

Dr. Jung-Goo Roe (Biologist)

Dr. David Rosevear (Chemist)

Dr. Ron Samec (Physicist)

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Physical Chemist)

Siegfred Scherer (Microbiologist)

Dr. Joachim Scheven (Paleontologist)

Dr. Ian Scott (Educator)

Dr. Saami Shaibani (Physicist)

Dr. Hyum-Kil Shin (Food Scientist)

Dr. Mikhail Shulgin (Physicist)

Dr. Emil Silvestru (Geologist)

Dr. Jerry M. Simmons (Educator)

Dr. Roger Simpson (Engineer)

Dr. Harold Slusher (Geophysicist)

Dr. Andrew Snelling (Geologist)

Dr. Man-Suk Song (Computer Scientist)

Dr. James Stark (Science Educator)

Dr. Brian Stone (Engineer)

Dr. Charles Taylor (Linguist)

Dr. Ker Thompson (Geophysicist)

Dr. Michael Todhunter (Forestry Genetecist)

Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog (Chemist)

Dr. Royal Truman (Organic Chemist)

Dr. Larry Vardiman (Atmospheric Science)

Dr. Walter Veith (Zoologist)

Dr. Joachim Vetter (Biologist)

Dr. Tas Walker (Geologist)

Dr. Jeremy Walter (Engineer)

Dr. Keith H. Wanser (Physicist)

Dr. A.J. Monty White (Physicist)

Dr. Carl Wieland

Dr. Jay L. Wile (Textbook author/Nuclear Chemist)

Dr. Emmet L. Williams (Engineer)

Dr. Clifford Wilson (Archaeologist)

Dr. Kurt P. Wise (Paleontologist)

Dr. Bryant Wood (Archaeologist)

Dr. Seoung-Hoon Yang (Physicist)

Dr. Thomas Yi (Aerospace Engineer)

Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo (Geneticist)

Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon (Biologist)

Dr. Patrick Young (Chemist)

Dr. Keun Bae Yu (Geographer)



Some Notable Creationists:

Francis Bacon (invented the scientific method)

Robert Boyle (Chemist - fathered chemistry)

George Washington Carver (Botanist/Inventor)

Dr. Raymond V. Damadian (invented MRI medical scanning)

William Derham (Ecologist - fathered Ecology)

Michael Faraday (Physicist - Electromagnetics)

Phillip H. Gosse (Ornithologist - Book The Romance of Natural History)

James Joule (Physicist - Thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (Astronomer - fathered astronomy)

Carl Linnaeus (Botanist - invented biological classification system)

James Clerk Maxwell (Physicist - Electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (Geneticist - fathered genetics)

Dr. Henry Morris (Geologist - founded modern creationist theory)

Samuel Morse (Inventor - Telegraph/Morse Code)

Sir Isaac Newton (Physicist - Law of Gravity)

Sir Richard Owen (Naturalist/Paleontologist - coined term "Dinosaur")

Louis Pasteur (Microbiologist - Fathered Microbiology)


I know several scientists who believe in God, but they don't buy into the creationists' young earth ideology.

And they don't spend all their time trying to "disprove Evolution" either.