Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu · Jul 23, 2014

Genetic Information 1

Information never self-assembles. The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books (a).

a. Carl Sagan showed, using straight-forward calculations, why one cell’s worth of genetic information is the equivalent of 4,000 books of printed information. Each of Sagan’s 4,000 books had 500 pages with 300 words per page. {See Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House, 1977), p. 25.}

Each book would have a volume of about 50 cubic inches. An adult human’s body contains about 10^[SUP]14[/SUP] (10 to the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] power) cells. About 800 cubic miles have been eroded from the Grand Canyon. Therefore, we can say that if every cell in one person’s body were reduced to 4,000 books, th
ey would fill the Grand Canyon 98 times.

The Moon is 240,000 miles from Earth. If the DNA in a human cell were stretched out and connected, it would be more than 7 feet long. If all this DNA in one person’s body were placed end-to-end, it would extend to the Moon 552,000 times.

The DNA in a human cell weighs 6.4 x 10^[SUP]-12[/SUP] (10 to the –12 power) grams. [See Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 54.] Probably less than 50 billion people have lived on earth. If so, one copy of the DNA of every human who ever lived—enough to define the physical characteristics of all those people in microscopic detail—would weigh only 6.4 × 10^[SUP]-12[/SUP] × 50 × 10^[SUP]9[/SUP] = 0.32 grams.
This is less than the weight of one aspirin.

“... there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. ... There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 116–117.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Fishbait · Jul 24, 2014

Lad said:

Most young people believe as you do. You've been taught evolution all your life.

Tintin · Jul 24, 2014

People, stop responding to this thread. Jack's having a grand ol' time with his lackeys. Don't feed them.

Esanta · Jul 24, 2014

Fishbait said:

Because when people discovered that all that church propagated stuff about the Earth being a flat centre of the universe was false, they began to discover all manner of things the church was blatantly wrong about, even though the church had forced such nonsense down peoples' throats at penalty of death for 'heresy' for hundreds of years beforehand.

Evolution gets taught in schools because it's a scientifically consensual theory held by a vast majority of people who study evidence and can test such theories with freedom to do so. Nobody is under penalty of death if they deny evolution.

Pahu · Jul 25, 2014

Esanta said:

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION:

Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19."In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

Scientists Speak About Evolution

Esanta · Jul 26, 2014

Pahu said:

There is a show called 'Wonders of Life' that anybody unfamiliar with evolutionary theory's utter plausibility should watch immediately. As for your sources:

This quote is from 'Evolutionism in the Pulpit', written in 1911; over 100 years ago.

This was written in 1930. There is definitely a basis for this theory now. It is no longer an 'assumption'.

1933. Really .. These arguments are no longer relevant. The theory is upheld.

"

This author died in 1956, and was a journalist only until 1953. Again, as with all these quotes, there is no actual evidence given for these claims, only the claims themselves. At best, they are outdated and misinformed, at worst they are scientifically unfounded entirely.

Sir John Ambrose Fleming (the original author of this quote) died in 1945 and the book in which it was quoted received scathing reviews from reputable scientists.

Lipson actually wrote this in the context of repeating the absurdity of the creationist argument. In a later edition of Physics Bulletin he clarified this.

This guy actually was asked by a publisher to write an introduction that they could put in their new 1950's edition of the Origin of Species. The man has really no right to write such things inside copies of Darwin's book, and his credentials are limited.

This author was a vehement creationist without any scientific background.

If evolution were a 'theory in crisis', it wouldn't be so near unanimously accepted by scientists all around the world.

This doesn't say anything. It's old, outdated and really hollow.

It's safe to say the pattern goes on like this. Very old, very biased, often unsubstantiated, long disproved claims without real substance or merit.

Pahu · Jul 27, 2014

Esanta said:

When was the idea upheld?

Where is the evidence for evolution?

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Esanta · Jul 27, 2014

Pahu said:

This is nothing more than ill informed attempt to belittle the genuine endeavours and accomplishments of geneticists, biologists and geologists alike. In fact, contrary to your remarks, the vast majority of geneticists', physicists', biologists' and geologists' work confirms the validity of evolutionary theory, rather than disprove it. While you seem to think that evolutionary theory is a doctrine conspiratorially assigned to conceal the minority Christian theological viewpoint, evolutionary theory is continually corroborated by an ever expanding culmination of many years of committed scientific research carried out by a preponderance of people much further qualified than either you or I. If I am mistaken then the scientific method has been entirely thrown out, but last I checked unfounded scientific assertions still undergo intense scrutiny as in the case of the plethora of scientifically unjustifiable creationist claims.

Contrary to your ideas that scientists specialize in fields too narrow to form comprehensive theories about the origins of species, modern scientists are becoming increasingly interdisciplinary and the need for broad understanding continues to illicit a positive response from the worldwide scientific community.

On a more intrinsic note, the theories you uphold from cut-and-paste sections of creationist websites are refuted daily by reputable scientists who easily poke holes in your 'evidence' and make your assertions look embarrassingly uninformed. Six-day creationism and a 6000 year old Earth are two theories so incompatible with modern scientific discoveries that the advocates of these theories resort to basing their claims on stagnant, repudiated, out-of-date statements from authors whose credentials are inadequate.

I recognize myself that the scientific reasoning of 6000 year old Earth advocates is almost always illiterate and often blatantly incendiary. Those 'scientists' who endorse such seditious scientific standards are not the champions of genuine discovery that you think they are; they are people who wilfully subvert genuine methodology, openly distort evidence and flagrantly misrepresent hard-won scientific discoveries to further the cause of a restrictive amalgam of the purely evidence-based methodical study of energy/matter in all its constructs and the unscientific claims made by a minority of literalistic interpreters of a several thousand years old religious text.

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Literalistic, extraordinary beliefs formed from a book of faith, backed by misrepresented studies where facts are continually omitted, cannot be genuinely considered scientific conclusions.

Hashe · Jul 27, 2014

Wow the head banging goes on in this thread just as much in the Bible forum. Great stuff.

Esanta · Jul 27, 2014

Hashe said:

Banging heads against the wall, perhaps.

Pahu · Jul 28, 2014

Esanta said:

You make a lot of evidence free assertions. There is no conflict between science and the Bible: For example:

The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have listed statements on this page that are consistent with known scientific facts. Many of them were listed in the Bible hundreds or even thousands of years before being recorded elsewhere. Many concepts and notes on this page are adapted from ideas and statements that appear in The DEFENDER’S Study Bible.[1]

Statements Consistent With Paleontology

Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1. We think you will agree that 1½ chapters about dinosaurs is a lot—since most people do not even realize that they are mentioned in the Bible. (Actually reading the Bible would help, though.) Click this sentence to see our Dinosaurs page if you would like more information in this subject area.

Statements Consistent With Astronomy

The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. Here are two examples.

Genesis 22:17 “Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.“

Jeremiah 33:22 “As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.”

Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 10^[SUP]21[/SUP] stars—which is a lot of stars.[2] (The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 10^[SUP]25[/SUP]. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)

The Bible also says that each star is unique.

1 Corinthians 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others.[1] (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)

The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe.

Jeremiah 31:35,36

Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The LORD of hosts is His name):
“If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the LORD,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”

The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.

Job 26:7

He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

Statements Consistent With Meteorology

The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.

Ecclesiastes 1:6

The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.

The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.

Job 28:25

To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.[1] (If you are a physics enthusiast, please ignore our omission of the terms mass, gravity, and density from this comment.)

Statements Consistent With Biology

The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood.

Leviticus 17:11

‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’
The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.[1]

The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.

Genesis 1:11,12

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21

So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:25

And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.[1]
The Bible describes the chemical nature of flesh.

Genesis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 3:19

In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.

It is a proven fact that a person’s mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health.[1] The Bible revealed this to us with these statements (and others) written by King Solomon about 950 BC.

Proverbs 12:4

An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,
But she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones.

Proverbs 14:30

A sound heart is life to the body,
But envy is rottenness to the bones.

Proverbs 15:30

The light of the eyes rejoices the heart,
And a good report makes the bones healthy.

Proverbs 16:24

Pleasant words are like a honeycomb,
Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones.

Proverbs 17:22

A merry heart does good, like medicine,
But a broken spirit dries the bones.

Statements Consistent With Anthropology

We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men.

Job 30:5,6

They were driven out from among men,
They shouted at them as at a thief.
They had to live in the clefts of the valleys,
In caves of the earth and the rocks.

Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth. Then for some reason they deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually.[1] (Go into a bad part of your town and you will see this concept in action today.)

Statements Consistent With Hydrology

The bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle.[3]

Psalm 135:7

He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.

Jeremiah 10:13

When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
“And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.”
In these verses you can see several phases of the hydrologic cycle—the worldwide processes of evaporation, translation aloft by atmospheric circulation, condensation with electrical discharges, and precipitation.[1]

Job 36:27-29

For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?

This simple verse has remarkable scientific insight. The drops of water which eventually pour down as rain first become vapor and then condense to tiny liquid water droplets in the clouds. These finally coalesce into drops large enough to overcome the updrafts that suspend them in the air.[1]

The Bible describes the recirculation of water.

Ecclesiastes 1:7

All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.

Isaiah 55:10

For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there,
But water the earth,
And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower
And bread to the eater,

The Bible refers to the surprising amount of water that can be held as condensation in clouds.

Job 26:8

He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it.

Job 37:11

Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
He scatters His bright clouds.

Hydrothermal vents[4] are described in two books of the Bible written before 1400BC—more than 3,000 years before their discovery by science.

Genesis 7:11

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Job 38:16

Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?

We discuss the “fountains of the great deep” further in our Creation Versus Evolution page.

Statements Consistent With Geology

The Bible describes the Earth’s crust (along with a comment on astronomy).

Jeremiah 31:37

Thus says the LORD:
“If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the LORD.”

Although some scientists claim that they have now measured the size of the universe, it is interesting to note that every human attempt to drill through the earth’s crust to the plastic mantle beneath has, thus far, ended in failure.[1]

The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

Isaiah 40:22

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in his book On the Heavens.

This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, “theologians” of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)

We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties—an effect we still feel to this day.

Statements Consistent With Physics

The Bible suggests the presence of nuclear processes like those we associate with nuclear weaponry. This is certainly not something that could have been explained in 67 AD using known scientific principles (when Peter wrote the following verse).

2 Peter 3:10

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

The television is a practical (if not always worthwhile ) device that uses electromagnetic waves (which transmit its video signal). The Bible contains passages that describe something like television—something that allows everyone on earth see a single event. (Note: such passages typically refer to the end of time. It may not be long before all of us learn for sure whether the Bible is true or not.)

Matthew 24:30

Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Revelation 11:9-11

Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth. Now after the three-and-a-half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.

Things In The Bible That Science Can Not Explain

The purpose of this page is not to explain what a great science text the Bible is, but to show that it is consistent with scientific facts. Still, the Bible mentions some things that we can not explain. Yet, if God is really God, He should have the ability to do some things we can not explain.

In the last 100 years (and especially in the last ten) scientists discovered many proofs that confirm the Bible’s accuracy. Since these proofs support the accuracy of the text we can understand scientifically, it makes sense to trust the Bible’s text that we can not yet understand. (For example, how many people knew what hydrothermal vents were 30 years ago?) If you would like to see the proof we have for the accuracy of the Bible, click on the link below.

How Do You Know The Bible Is True?

If you like reading books, a good one that addresses the facts that support Christianity is Know Why You Believe by Paul Little. There is an advantage to a book—it does not change as a page on the Internet can. Plus, a million copies of Paul Little’s book have been printed (about 40 times the number required to be called a “best seller”) which proves it is not an isolated person’s opinion.

References
[1] The DEFENDER’S Study Bible, Word Publishing, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1995).
[2] The Number of Stars
[3] The Hydrologic Cycle
[4] Submarine Volcanic Ecosystems (An article on hydrothermal vents.)

Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2003 by Clarifying Christianity (SM).
Printed copies of this article may be circulated if it is reproduced in its entirety, along with this copyright notice. You may not charge for, request a donation for, or seek reimbursement from anyone for such copies. Links are OK. All rights reserved.
All Bible passages were taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Science and the Bible

Fishbait · Jul 28, 2014

Atheist cosmologists hold to the idea that “‘in the beginning there was nothing and one day it exploded to produce everything’. No-one has ever observed something coming from nothing, and it is illogical; ‘nothing’ can’t do anything, least of all create everything. And the idea violates several laws of science, including the First Law ofThermodynamics which is that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural process). It also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that the total entropy of the universe must always increase. That is, it will go from order to disorder. So the idea of chaos (an explosion) going to cosmos violates this law. (Organic Chemist Gary Baxter)

Pottyone · Jul 28, 2014

Fishbait said:

Ooops Fishbait...you've gone and done it now.....I guarantee you Santa is about to go off on one about Abiogenesis and entropy decreasing in closed systems...just wait and see...these are two of their favourite subjects.....

Esanta · Jul 29, 2014

Pahu said:

You make a lot of evidence free assertions. There is no conflict between science and the Bible: For example:

The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have listed statements on this page that are consistent with known scientific facts. Many of them were listed in the Bible hundreds or even thousands of years before being recorded elsewhere. Many concepts and notes on this page are adapted from ideas and statements that appear in The DEFENDER’S Study Bible.[1]

Statements Consistent With Paleontology

Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1. We think you will agree that 1½ chapters about dinosaurs is a lot—since most people do not even realize that they are mentioned in the Bible. (Actually reading the Bible would help, though.) Click this sentence to see our Dinosaurs page if you would like more information in this subject area.

Statements Consistent With Astronomy

The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. Here are two examples.

Genesis 22:17 “Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.“

Jeremiah 33:22 “As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.”

Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 10^[SUP]21[/SUP] stars—which is a lot of stars.[2] (The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 10^[SUP]25[/SUP]. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)

The Bible also says that each star is unique.

1 Corinthians 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others.[1] (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)

The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe.

Jeremiah 31:35,36

Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The LORD of hosts is His name):
“If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the LORD,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”

The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.

Job 26:7

He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

Statements Consistent With Meteorology

The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.

Ecclesiastes 1:6

The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.

The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.

Job 28:25

To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.[1] (If you are a physics enthusiast, please ignore our omission of the terms mass, gravity, and density from this comment.)

Statements Consistent With Biology

The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood.

Leviticus 17:11

‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’
The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.[1]

The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.

Genesis 1:11,12

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21

So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:25

And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.[1]
The Bible describes the chemical nature of flesh.

Genesis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 3:19

In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.

It is a proven fact that a person’s mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health.[1] The Bible revealed this to us with these statements (and others) written by King Solomon about 950 BC.

Proverbs 12:4

An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,
But she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones.

Proverbs 14:30

A sound heart is life to the body,
But envy is rottenness to the bones.

Proverbs 15:30

The light of the eyes rejoices the heart,
And a good report makes the bones healthy.

Proverbs 16:24

Pleasant words are like a honeycomb,
Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones.

Proverbs 17:22

A merry heart does good, like medicine,
But a broken spirit dries the bones.

Statements Consistent With Anthropology

We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men.

Job 30:5,6

They were driven out from among men,
They shouted at them as at a thief.
They had to live in the clefts of the valleys,
In caves of the earth and the rocks.

Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth. Then for some reason they deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually.[1] (Go into a bad part of your town and you will see this concept in action today.)

Statements Consistent With Hydrology

The bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle.[3]

Psalm 135:7

He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.

Jeremiah 10:13

When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
“And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.”
In these verses you can see several phases of the hydrologic cycle—the worldwide processes of evaporation, translation aloft by atmospheric circulation, condensation with electrical discharges, and precipitation.[1]

Job 36:27-29

For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?

This simple verse has remarkable scientific insight. The drops of water which eventually pour down as rain first become vapor and then condense to tiny liquid water droplets in the clouds. These finally coalesce into drops large enough to overcome the updrafts that suspend them in the air.[1]

The Bible describes the recirculation of water.

Ecclesiastes 1:7

All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.

Isaiah 55:10

For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there,
But water the earth,
And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower
And bread to the eater,

The Bible refers to the surprising amount of water that can be held as condensation in clouds.

Job 26:8

He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it.

Job 37:11

Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds;
He scatters His bright clouds.

Hydrothermal vents[4] are described in two books of the Bible written before 1400BC—more than 3,000 years before their discovery by science.

Genesis 7:11

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Job 38:16

Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?

We discuss the “fountains of the great deep” further in our Creation Versus Evolution page.

Statements Consistent With Geology

The Bible describes the Earth’s crust (along with a comment on astronomy).

Jeremiah 31:37

Thus says the LORD:
“If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the LORD.”

Although some scientists claim that they have now measured the size of the universe, it is interesting to note that every human attempt to drill through the earth’s crust to the plastic mantle beneath has, thus far, ended in failure.[1]

The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

Isaiah 40:22

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in his book On the Heavens.

This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, “theologians” of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)

We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties—an effect we still feel to this day.

Statements Consistent With Physics

The Bible suggests the presence of nuclear processes like those we associate with nuclear weaponry. This is certainly not something that could have been explained in 67 AD using known scientific principles (when Peter wrote the following verse).

2 Peter 3:10

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

The television is a practical (if not always worthwhile ) device that uses electromagnetic waves (which transmit its video signal). The Bible contains passages that describe something like television—something that allows everyone on earth see a single event. (Note: such passages typically refer to the end of time. It may not be long before all of us learn for sure whether the Bible is true or not.)

Matthew 24:30

Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Revelation 11:9-11

Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth. Now after the three-and-a-half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.

Things In The Bible That Science Can Not Explain

The purpose of this page is not to explain what a great science text the Bible is, but to show that it is consistent with scientific facts. Still, the Bible mentions some things that we can not explain. Yet, if God is really God, He should have the ability to do some things we can not explain.

In the last 100 years (and especially in the last ten) scientists discovered many proofs that confirm the Bible’s accuracy. Since these proofs support the accuracy of the text we can understand scientifically, it makes sense to trust the Bible’s text that we can not yet understand. (For example, how many people knew what hydrothermal vents were 30 years ago?) If you would like to see the proof we have for the accuracy of the Bible, click on the link below.

How Do You Know The Bible Is True?

If you like reading books, a good one that addresses the facts that support Christianity is Know Why You Believe by Paul Little. There is an advantage to a book—it does not change as a page on the Internet can. Plus, a million copies of Paul Little’s book have been printed (about 40 times the number required to be called a “best seller”) which proves it is not an isolated person’s opinion.

References
[1] The DEFENDER’S Study Bible, Word Publishing, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1995).
[2] The Number of Stars
[3] The Hydrologic Cycle
[4] Submarine Volcanic Ecosystems (An article on hydrothermal vents.)

Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2003 by Clarifying Christianity (SM).
Printed copies of this article may be circulated if it is reproduced in its entirety, along with this copyright notice. You may not charge for, request a donation for, or seek reimbursement from anyone for such copies. Links are OK. All rights reserved.
All Bible passages were taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Science and the Bible

The part you quoted wasn't an assertion, it was a dictionary definition.

Esanta · Jul 29, 2014

Fishbait said:

Do you honestly believe cosmologists and physicists are so obtuse as to observe and testify to the laws of thermodynamics and then to assert something blatantly against them? No reputable scientist claims energy came from nothing. Potential energy, that's your inflationary starting point. Potential energy is latent, not non existent.

'Nothing', by its very nature, cannot exist.

The 'big bang' is essentially a mathematically equal, zero-energy quantum fluctuation inciting an agglomeration of potential energy, becoming unstable and eventually spreading out fairly uniformly to bring into existence matter, motion and therefore our concept of time.

Talking about 'before' the beginning is in many ways an oxymoron, though, because if energy cannot be created or destroyed, then energy has always existed, thus time itself is non existent; presence is just a reference to motion from a specific view.

Pahu · Jul 29, 2014

Esanta said:

Nothing is the absence of anything.

Evidence free speculation.

Since there was a beginning, there was a time before that beginning when nothing existed including the laws of thermodynamics. 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. Therefore, the universe 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 came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. 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.

Esanta · Jul 29, 2014

TO PAHU.

And if there is a complete absence of anything, then existence is therein impossible. If there is a complete absence of anything, then nothing exists at all. Thus, nothing, by its very nature, is not an existent thing. So, if energy can't be created or destroyed, then something from nothing is utterly impossible. Thus, 'something' must have always existed. Which is why I said 'Nothing, by its very nature, cannot exist'.

Don't be a hypocrite, this whole post of yours is evidence free.

There was only a 'beginning' in the sense of a release of what already existed in a potential state. You could call it 'the beginning of time', but that inference creates a paradox wherein nothing can be 'before' the beginning of time in a temporal sense, thus the statement 'before the beginning' is intrinsically flawed. There cannot be a temporal before the temporal came to be. In fact, if we look at this from a purely thermodynamics standpoint, if energy cannot be created or destroyed, then energy itself has always existed, even before motion. Thus time itself is little more than reference to universal motions from a specific point of view.

There is an irreconcilable conflict between your ideas that the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) prohibits an eternal universe and your ideas that something came to be from nothing with a specific cause - something can't come from nothing at all, and within 'nothing', no causation can exist. No reputable scientist believes something came from nothing. The next issue with your ideas is that if motion, matter and mass only began several billion years ago, and energy was hitherto in a state of super dense potentiality, then the concepts of entropy are frankly irrelevant and the billions of years ageing of the moving universe is in fact in no contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics at all.

See above.

See above. Something doesn't come from nothing, therefore, there was not 'nothing'. There was potential energy.

I am not the one asserting something came from nothing. You are.

Your understanding of the big bang is flawed. See above.

What caused that cause, if something cannot come from nothing without a cause and something cannot exist within nothing? Paradox logic, Pahu.

Do you even science, bro?

Pahu · Jul 29, 2014

Esanta said:

By any natural cause.

Since there was nothing before the universe existed, it did come from that nothingness. You correctly state that "Something doesn't come from nothing" by any natural cause. Therefor the cause must be supernatural.

Your responses make no sense because you cannot accept the existence of God. You ignore the statement that "All things that came into existence were caused to exist" which appears just before the next statement, which answers your question: "Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed." That means God has always existed. That fact does not conflict with the facts of science, but your belief that the universe and energy have always existed does conflict with the facts of science. Your problem is the illogical notion that God does not exist. Here are some facts to help eliminate your ignorance:

A Logical Argument for God's Existence

1. Something exists.

That seems pretty simple, right? Can we all agree that this is true? Even the atheist will agree that this is true. This seems to be undeniably true. Anybody who would say that “nothing exists” would have to exist in order to say that in which case he would be defeating his own statement.

2. Nothing does not produce something.

This statement is of course true as well. Think about it. It would be absurd to say that nothing could create or produce something.

Nothing is no-thing. Nothing does not have the power to do anything at all, does it! Even David Hume one of the most zealous skeptics of Christianity ever agreed to the truth of this second premise. He said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” (Feb. 1754).

To propose that nothing could do anything at all sounds utterly foolish. A basic law of physics (and if you ever had a physics class you’ll recall this) is called the Law of Conservation. It states: “From nothing, comes nothing.”

This supports our second premise as well. So if the first two premises are true, that 1. Something exists and 2. Nothing does not produce something, then a rather astounding conclusion logically follows...

3. Something must have always existed.

Why’s that? Okay, well, let’s walk back through this. Something now exists. Nothing does not produce something, then something must have always existed.

Why must something have always existed? To have brought the “something” that now exists (in No.1) into existence. Why? Because premise number two is true (Nothing does not produce something). But the critic asks, “Why does that something have to be eternal? Aren’t you just assuming the eternality of that something that brought into existence the something that now exists (no.1)?"

Not at all. Stay with me on this. There is a reason why that something (no. 3) must be eternal. To say that that something (in premise no. 3) did not always exist would be to say that it was finite. Right?

If that something (in premise no. 3) was finite, that means it had a beginning. If that something had a beginning we are back at our start. How did that something (premise no. 3) begin? Did nothing create something? No, that’s impossible. Nothing can’t do anything.

Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. If we deny this we are saying that nothing produced something from nothing and by nothing. But this is absurd. So we are left with the only other option and that is that something in no. 3 must have always existed.

Do you understand why premise 3 must be true?
Now, there are only two options as to what that “something (No.3) [that] always existed” might be:

A. The universe, or
B. Something outside the universe

The fourth premise in my argument is this:

4. The universe has not always existed.

In 1948, a theory known as The Steady State Theory, was set forth, that proposed that the universe was eternal (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 102). It stated that the universe has always been. “If this theory is correct” the critics of Christianity said, “there is no need for a Creator.” Well, the theory sounded good on paper for the atheist, for a while but the scientific evidence against it has since demolished the theory.

Numerous evidences from the field of astronomy now overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe actually began to exist a finite time ago in an event when all the physical space, time, matter, and energy in the universe came into being.

And that is exactly what the Bible affirms, that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).

Let me share with you just 2 facts of science that deal a fatal deathblow to the theory of an eternal universe. The first blow to this theory that universe is eternal is…

A. THE MOTION OF THE GALAXIES

Prior to the 1920’s, scientists had always assumed that the universe as a whole was stationary. [Of course they acknowledged that there was movement of planets in solar systems, etc.]

But in 1929 an alarming thing happened. An astronomer named Edwin Hubble discovered that the light from distant galaxies appeared to be redder than it should. The startling conclusion to which Hubble was led was that the light is redder because the universe is growing apart; it is expanding! When the source of incoming light is moving away from an object the light that you see is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. The light of the galaxies was redder because they are moving away from us. But here is the interesting part: Hubble not only showed that the universe is expanding, but that it is expanding the same in all directions. Scientists have concluded that the galaxies in the universe are not stationary but are expanding further and further away from each other from what appears to be some stationary point.

Imagine that I were to draw a bunch of dots on a balloon that represented galaxies and then blow up the balloon. If you were to suck the air back out, or let’s say rewind the film, go back in time—what would happen? The dots would converge, i.e. get closer to one another. The same is true with our universe. If you go back in time scientists say that the stars would converge into a singular space, where they exploded into being:

This explosion or beginning of the universe is often referred to as, you know the name:

“THE BIG BANG." We call it Genesis 1:1!! It’s incredible that the scientific evidence that helps establish Big Bang theory also helps verify what the Christian theist has always believed: That the universe actually had a beginning!!

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens..."

A second blow to the theory that the universe is eternal comes from the facts behind...

B. THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

[The first law says that the actual amount of energy in the universe remains constant—it doesn’t change.]
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of the best, most established laws in all of science. In fact, there is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts it. It states that: the amount of useable energy in any closed system (which the universe is) is decreasing. In other words, the useable energy in the universe is dying out like the batteries in a flashlight.

Scientists acknowledge that the sun can not burn forever, and that even our galaxy itself will one day, if left to itself, burn up and die out. So we reason that if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true for all closed systems, and it is, then it is true for the universe as a whole. The universe according to the atheist is a gigantic closed system, since to them it is all there is and there is nothing outside it. This means that the universe is currently running out of useable energy.

If it is running out of useable energy, then it cannot be eternal, for a finite amount of energy (no matter how large the quantity.) could never have brought the universe through an eternity of time.

Flashlight Illustration: Let's say you stumbled upon this flashlight and you’re curious how long it has been burning. So you do a little investigation. Through your investigation you discover that the batteries are going down hill. They are running out of energy. You turn to a scientist standing nearby and ask him: “How long do you think the flashlight’s been burning?” Now, what if he was to tell you: “It’s always been on. It’s been lit like this and burning like this forever.”

Hunh? Would you believe that? Of course not. There’s a problem with that isn’t there?

Batteries with a finite amount of energy (seen in the fact that they are steadily running out of energy) could never have kept the light burning for an eternal amount of time. It would have run out of batteries trillions of years ago!! So it is with the universe. The amount of useable energy is steadily decreasing, thus proving it impossible that it has been burning for all eternity. So, it is scientific discoveries like…

1. The Motion of the Galaxies
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (and other discoveries like the background radiation echo discovered by Penzias and Wilson) ...that have blown the Steady State Theory into smithereens.

Now, if my premises are all true:
1. Something exists.
2. Nothing does not produce something.
3. Something must have always existed.
4. The universe has not always existed
...then a conclusion can be validly drawn from these premises.

5. There must be an eternal power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.

Do you think this is a sound argument thus far? I believe it is! The whole argument could come crashing down, if even just one of the premises could be proven to be false. Causing the argument to crash wouldn’t prove that God doesn’t exist, it would just prove that the argument is not valid. Let’s take it a bit further.

6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.

I take that to be self-evident. This also seems to be undeniable. Anybody who would say that there is not intelligent life in the universe would be uttering an intelligent statement from an intelligent being.

To understand any of this study this far (even if you disagreed with what I was saying) would prove that this sixth premise is true...for it has taken a great degree of intelligence to understand the thousands of combinations of syllables that I have been uttering.

So this premise is undeniably true as well.
Let’s take it further.

7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.

How could a material, inanimate, unintelligent, unconscious force produce on intelligent living, breathing being? It takes a living, intelligent being to create a living, intelligent being. Non-life does not produce life. You could leave the barren side of a mountain exposed to...

--wind
--rain
--the forces of nature
--chance
--and millions of years of time and you would never get a Mount Rushmore, let alone a living, breathing human being. Why? It takes intelligence. You need intelligent intervention.

It would take great intelligence to create a robot that operates like a human, and even more so, it takes intelligence to create a real human being.

8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.

That intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe that created the universe is God.

If the universe has not always existed, and something must have always existed, then something or someone outside of the universe must have always existed, I propose to you that that person is an intelligent, living, powerful being, i.e. God.

CONCLUSION

For me it is more reasonable to believe, based on the laws of logic as well as the observable scientific evidence that God exists, rather than to believe what the atheist believes that nothing, times nobody, equals everything we see in the universe.

Throw in the fact that we also have the testimony of our conscience and the revelation of God in the scriptures and I believe we are standing on solid ground when we affirm:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

[Charlie H. Campbell adopted major premises from a debate heard on the existence of God by Norman Geisler]

AlwaysBeReady.com

Esanta · Jul 29, 2014

Pahu said:

Pahu, latent potential energy doesn't entropize. The Big Bang was not 'the creation of energy' it was the beginning of the thing we call 'time'. According to relativity, time is nothing but observing motion from a specific point of view. Thus, without motion, there is really no 'time'.

The big bang was the moment that potential energy became free energy, thus giving the universe motion, therefore time. Something was not created from nothing. The universe sat in a state of potentiality wherein the laws of entropy were quite irrelevant - every piece of matter and energy was contained within a tiny space at unfathomable density, in a singularity with ZERO ENTROPY.

The first law states that within a closed system, any amount of energy given will remain constant, though it will change in form. The second law states that overall entropy always increases, leading towards a thermodynamic equilibrium, or total entropy.

Under the conditions of 'before time', and 'before the big bang', the universe was at zero entropy, because all its energy was potential and usable.

The universe, which by definition is what came as a result of the big bang, is not eternal, but the ENERGY around us is eternal. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form.

I can't believe I'm simplifying it so much, but think of it like this. Before the big bang, there was no motion, so there was no actual 'time', just all the energy in the universe laying as a potentiality, with no entropy. When the big bang happened, time happened, and now we have motion towards total entropy.

dabodab · Jul 29, 2014

I discovered this thread today and am amazed that we can walk (post) among these genius minds and be able to respond and ask questions of them in real time, give or take a couple of hours. These guys could write text books with their knowledge and they are right here. Much appreciation and thanks!

Science Disproves Evolution

Senior Member

Fishbait

Guest

Tintin

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Hashe

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Fishbait

Guest

Pottyone

Guest

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

dabodab

Guest