A Perspective on Evolution

[greatkraw]

October 18, 2009

Life, Matter and the cosmos:

There is no beginning of matter or life. God is in the past, present and future. God is truth and has always been and will forever be. God is life and matter and there is no divide between the two. Nature is the law by which God governs is a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method. Science the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. Physics is the scientific study of matter and energy and how they interact with each other. Physics utilizes the scientific method to formulate and test hypotheses that are based on observation of the natural world. Physics is a man made phenomenon and is one of the oldest academic disciplines that study the fundamental laws of nature. Physics does not deal with truth; it deals with successive approximations of the truth.
The cosmos space that stretches out in all directions has no limits and contains all things. The cosmos sphere is not surrounded and is in a continuous state of perpetual motion. As in mathematical abstract numbers that are infinite, so too is the space of the cosmos. Matter including life have no before and after and is in a state of perpetual motion dying and being born again over and over always in absolute constant. It can be postulated that life and matter cannot be destroyed, only changed there is no totality in matter or life. The knowledge of God is incomprehensible and there is no scientific proof of a higher power other than in the spiritual realm where faith and rationalization of mankind that there must be a God. Space is an area that stretches in all directions and has no limits or boundaries and contains all things. The galaxies that is a grouping of stars, planets and other matter in the limitless cosmos is in a continues state of change that replicate themselves by giving birth, dying out and rebirth again in a differ location in the limitless cosmos. This is the sum of mankind’s knowledge and understanding of life and matter before taking the huge leap into the realm of mysticism of the doctrine that meditation can lead to a direct knowledge of God or of spiritual truth, which are most often muddled, vague and obscure is eternal in so far as it conceives things under the form of eternity. God’s universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws”. . As others have noted in the past, “God reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exist, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human kinds. There is only deep regret that God punishes so many of his children for their numerous stupidities, for which only he himself can be held responsible.[/quote]

Got any original thoughts of your own?

The things highlighted in Red are doctrinal errors.

The things in Orange are factual errors. ie scientific errors

The things in Purple are both doctrinally and factually wrong.

This list is not comprehensive.

The fundamental error which leads to all other errors is to muddle the distinction between the Creator and the Creation.

Once we accpt that the Creator is outside the Creation we know the universe must be found to be finite - WHICH IT HAS BEEN(found).

Also we know from the Bible that death had a beginning and we can look forward to a time when death will be no more.

Your quote refutes these things and as such is a 'Doctrine of Demons'

Two men can observe the same phenomenon and come up with two different interpretations depending on thir fundamental assumptions.

We all start off with some assumptions.

The most fundamental assumption being, God is separate from his creation or God is part of the creation.

 

[greatkraw]

I really don't think science is a 'doctrines of demons'...science on the contrary, actually proves Gods awesomeness
what scripture points to science being this??

Evolution is a Doctrine of Demons.

Science is a much aboused word.

It simply means knowlege.

The Scientific Method is a systematic way of acquiring knowlege.

People misuse the term Science and actually mean the flawed opinions of godless men.

Many Scientific Facts are simply an opionion of one group interpreting observational data one way while another group interprets the same data another way.

 

[greatkraw]

Sun and moon were not created until the fouth day, so it's possible that the first 3 days were not literal 24 hr days, we simply did not have a 24 hr day until the fourth day.

24 hours depends on the rotaion of the Earth.

Evening and morning depend on the rotation of the Earth and a souce of light.

Both the Earth and light existed on the first day.

The Bible may indicate that in the future the
Earth will get its light from the New Jerusalem.

 

[MahogonySnail]

24 hours depends on the rotaion of the Earth.

Geocentricists don't believe the earth rotates, there's yer problem.

 

[greatkraw]

That is their problem. Not mine.

Occam's Razor says Newton got the law of Gravity right and the conservation of momentum.

God invented both.

Geocentrists who who think the universe rotates around the earth have to throw out Occam's Razor.(Google it)

On the other hand observation indicates that our galaxy is close to the centre of the finite universe.

 

[Marcus2x2]

Evolution is a Doctrine of Demons.

Science is a much aboused word.

It simply means knowlege.

The Scientific Method is a systematic way of acquiring knowlege.

People misuse the term Science and actually mean the flawed opinions of godless men.

Many Scientific Facts are simply an opionion of one group interpreting observational data one way while another group interprets the same data another way.

Spot on greatkraw!

 

[Graybeard]

Evolution is a Doctrine of Demons.

Science is a much aboused word.

It simply means knowlege.

The Scientific Method is a systematic way of acquiring knowlege.

People misuse the term Science and actually mean the flawed opinions of godless men.

Many Scientific Facts are simply an opionion of one group interpreting observational data one way while another group interprets the same data another way.

I partly agree with you, evolution to me is just a theory and is not proven (and never will be). The science I talk about is basically what is proven.(in a nutshell)

 

[Brackenzee]

Divine creation is by nature a supernatural act; it's outside the realm of science. Scientific theory can't reach a conclusion like 'God created the world' because there's no way to falsify that claim. Therefore, scientists don't run with the theory of evolution because they're demonic; they go with it because it is currently the most tested theory that conforms to the evidence we're given and the scientific method as we understand it.

 

[greatkraw]

Divine creation is by nature a supernatural act; it's outside the realm of science. Scientific theory can't reach a conclusion like 'God created the world' because there's no way to falsify that claim. Therefore, scientists don't run with the theory of evolution because they're demonic; they go with it because it is currently the most tested theory that conforms to the evidence we're given and the scientific method as we understand it.

Not true not true not true.

The observational data does NOT confirm evolution, quite the contrary.

It takes more faith to embrace evolution because it contradicts the the observational data.

 

[greatkraw]

Long quote sorry can't be helped......

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_18/default.htm
Reasons Skeptics should consider Christianity

Does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?

"There is no need of explaining the origin of life in terms of the miraculous or the supernatural. Life occurs automatically whenever the conditions are right. It will not only emerge but persist and evolve."1-Harlow Shapley"

"In its own way, matter has obeyed from the beginning that great law of biology to which we shall have to refer time and time again, the law of complexification. "2 -Teihard de Chardin

Such statements are easy to find when one is discussing the origin of life. All one has to do is wait for the right conditions, and life will appear. The ease with which these statements are made disguises the difficulties which are encountered when examining the physics of the origin of life. The two writers above, one a respected scientist, the other a famous philosopher, ignore the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics could well be stated as follows: "In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system."3

What does all this have to do with the origin of life? Well, if the tendency of all chemicals is to fall apart rather than get more complex, the theory of the chemical evolution of life is in serious trouble and the two statements cited above would be wrong. The second law is a law of simplification, and its work has been observed in every laboratory in the world. It is opposite in effect to deChardin's "law of complexification. "

The usual approach taken to escape the conclusions of the second law as it applies to the early evolution of life is to claim that the second law is not applicable to the problem since the earth is an "open" system. Thermodynamics was developed using chemical and mechanical systems which were prevented from either gaining or losing energy or matter with the external world. The earth is receiving energy from the sun all the time and therefore it is claimed that the chemical evolution of life could occur.

"In 1977 Ilya Prigogine, a Russian-born professor at the Free University of Brussels, won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for proving that the second law does not apply to 'open systems' such as living creatures, because living things can acquire new energy. Plants grow healthy by soaking up sunlight, even though the sun, the source of the solar system's energy, is slowly burning out.”7

This work of Prigogine's applies only to living systems as they presently are structured

Photosynthesis is the process by which a plant captures energy from the sun and stores this energy in the form of chemical bonds. When we eat the plant, our bodies utilize the energy to grow bigger and to maintain our present type of body structure. The chloroplast is the motor which captures and directs the sun's energy toward useful work. Burning gasoline does not produce useful work unless there is a mechanism which directs the energy in the proper direction-. That function is accomplished by the engine in a car.

When referring to the chemical origin of life, however, we are talking about a time before the chloroplast was made; a time before there was a machine which captured stored and directed the solar energy toward the manufacture of complex chemical compounds. It doesn't matter whether the earth is "open" or "closed" as a system since, without a machine to direct the energy, the chemical evolution of life cannot utilize the solar energy. Thus as far as the chemicals are concerned, they could just as well be in a closed system, surrounded with solar energy, but with no way to use it. It is much like being on a raft in the ocean with no fresh water. There is water everywhere but not a drop to drink.

Unfortunately, this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly-ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which pre-biotic evolution occurred."9


NOTES

1. Harold Shapely, Science News Letter, July 3, 1965, p. 10, cited by A.E. Wilder Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Wheaton: Harold Shaw, 1968, p. 163
2. Tielhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Matt, New York: Harper & Row, 1959,p. 48
.3. Morris, Henry M., King of Creation, San Diego: CLP Publishers, 1980, p. 114.
4. George Wald, "The Origin of Life", Scientific American, Vol. 191: 1954, p. 49.5. Ibid.
6. Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, New York: MacMillan, 1930, p. 74, cited by Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith, Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1969, p. 221.
7. Kenneth M. Pierce, "Putting Darwin Back in the Dock", Time, March 16, 1981, p.81
.8. George Wald, op. cit. p. 50.
9. Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis & Agnes Babloyants, "Thermodynamics of Evolution," Physics Today Vol. 25, November 1972, p. 23.

 

[Brackenzee]

These facts are convincing arguments that there is an intelligence behind life, but they're not related to whether evolution happened. Comparative biology and the fossil record offer strong evidence that macro-evolution occurred on some level. The fact that it happened given the lack of ability for early organisms to photo synthesize is all the more remarkable and thus all the more an argument for the existence of God (philosophically speaking).

The energy that sustained these early organisms, obviously, must have come from chemical reactions, much as modern single-cellular organisms survive by consuming particles of matter or other tiny organisms. The astounding element here is that these microscopic life forms were able to survive long enough and mutate enough complexity to become more than what they were.

We can obviously conclude that this was the will of God. The point I'm making is, science cannot attribute things to God because God is inherently outside the realm of science.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

We can obviously conclude that this was the will of God. The point I'm making is, science cannot attribute things to God because God is inherently outside the realm of science.

This is a fairly weak position, you're left having to claim that God is outside the realm of human science! As if God as Creator of the Universe does not understand scientifically His own creation, and humans with puny little brains and short lives do? What sort of argument is this?

 

[Tegelik]

OK, I haven't read every post on this thread, but a lot of them. So both sides think they have the right scientific facts and nothing is going to change that. I think there is no point arguing about science anymore. Does evolution contradict the bible? Let's argue about that.

I'll start. I don't think we need to take the 6 day creation literally. How do we know what parts of the bible we should take literally at all then? Guidance of the Holy Spirit, logic, reason. There is a bible verse, where God says: let us reason. Don't we use logic and reason when we read the Book of Revelation for instance? A lot of things in Revelation is meant to take literally and a lot of things are symbolical. It does not say in the Book of Revelation, what should we take literally and what not. I understand we use quite a lot of logic and reason.

I say the 6 day creation story might be symbolic. I don't think God actually needs to rest.

When it talks about morning and evening, then these words in Hebrew can also mean beginning and end. So it might be talking about the beginning and end of time periods.

God created man according to His image. I don't think He is talking about our physical bodies, so it has nothing to do with the bodies of humans evolving from animals or not.

God created man from the dust of the Earth. I don't see a contradiction when we say He did that through a process we refer to as evolution.

Animals bring forth after their own kind. Does not contradict with evolution. http://www.theistic-evolution.com/kind.html This is one christians explanation. I don't remember, what he writes there, I'm going to read it later. It's late, I'm tired and going to sleep now. I'm going to write about bringing after their own kind another day, maybe tomorrow.

Brackenzee, I agree with everything you have said (as much as I have read, I haven't read all of your posts). Are you a christian?

I will also bring out ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION, but as I said, sleep now.

 

[MisaMisa]

I partly agree with you, evolution to me is just a theory and is not proven (and never will be). The science I talk about is basically what is proven.(in a nutshell)

hahahahaha

 

[MisaMisa]

I thought I saw someone mention the second law of thermodynamics. Please don't tell me any of you used that as an argument against evolution.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

I thought I saw someone mention the second law of thermodynamics. Please don't tell me any of you used that as an argument against evolution.

Greetings,

Amongst other laws of science the law of second law of Thermodynamics which states that over time entropy increases universally, agrees with the Biblical record of Creation but contradicts starkly with 'evolutionary theory' which states that order and complexity increase over time, however there is no evidence of this, in fact the former law being true is proven.

 

[greatkraw]

Greetings,

Amongst other laws of science the law of second law of Thermodynamics which states that over time entropy increases universally, agrees with the Biblical record of Creation but contradicts starkly with 'evolutionary theory' which states that order and complexity increase over time, however there is no evidence of this, in fact the former law being true is proven.

Cup is quite correct.

 

[greatkraw]

BTW God set up all the laws of the universe, physical and spiritual.

Man discovers some of the physical and spends his time breaking all of the spiritual.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

BTW God set up all the laws of the universe, physical and spiritual.

Man discovers some of the physical and spends his time breaking all of the spiritual.

Quite true, God is one mighty Scientist.

 

[MisaMisa]

Greetings,

Amongst other laws of science the law of second law of Thermodynamics which states that over time entropy increases universally, agrees with the Biblical record of Creation but contradicts starkly with 'evolutionary theory' which states that order and complexity increase over time, however there is no evidence of this, in fact the former law being true is proven.

Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. If it did, evolution would probably no longer be a scientific theory. Please do not confuse a scientific theory with the colloquial english version of the word. It does not mean "a good guess," and it is not below the status of a scientific law. A scientific theory is a framework of ideas and principles used to explain phenomenon observed in the universe, that is testable and falsifiable, and based on data and evidence. In the scientific community, the theory of evolution by natural selection is akin to the theory of gravity - its about as close to fact as you can get. If anyone has ever laughed at you for saying something along the lines of "Evolution is just a theory", then now you know why.

Anyway, back to the second law of thermodynamics. I am guessing that you don't actually know much about physics. I can't say I am a physics genius either, as I've only had the opportunity to take one physics class. However, I do know enough about thermodynamics to clear up your misunderstandings.

The second law says something along the lines about how the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. I don't think I need to explain entropy to you, so I'll just move ahead to the point...

It seems you don't even pay attention to the "closed system" part of the law. It's like you assumed that order from disorder violates the law, which isn't true. Entropy within a closed system can decrease, as long as the overall entropy of the closed system doesn't.

I can also provide some equations that help explain this, but I doubt you know much about calculus. That isn't meant to be taken as an insult, it's just that not many people know anything about calculus. I only do because I took advanced calculus in high school.