What do you think?

[Dr. John Nay]

What do you think the odds (chances) of life forming through time and chance mutations would be?

[Tyler]

Hmm..

[Scott]

I think that a mature christian can pray for things to happen and they do.
With enough mature christians praying for different things all over the world, we end up with what we know as creation.
However, it takes time, and trial and error, and correction; for christians to become effective with their prayer.

[Jukia]

I am not sure that your response makes much sense given the original question posed.

Life is here, best evidence is that it arose naturally and all living things evolved. To think otherwise is to ignore science and to go back to "the Bible is correct, it has to be because it is from God".

[Guest]

I think a mature Christian can pray for things to happen and they don't. Think about this: What if every prayer of mature Christians were answered? What would that make prayer? Magic?
What would that make God? A magician?

Yes, God answers prayer. But not all the time.

I suppose if enough mature Christians pray for different things all over the world something could happen. The only creation in that might be new creatures.

Well, what do you know! Someone does read these forums.
SQ

[Dr. John Nay]

Which makes the most sense?

Divine Creation or Spontaneous Generation (Scientifically Disproven)
Life from Life or Life From Non-life (Law of Biogenesis)
Purposeful Design or Accidental Order
Infinite God or Infinite Odds
God the Creator or Time & Chance the Creator
Second Law of Thermodynamics (universe wearing out) or Evolution (Getting better)
Catastrophism or Uniformitarianism
Purpose or No purpose
Absolutes or No Absolutes (Truths)
Mutations Are Harmful or Mutations Are Beneficial (Mechanism for evolution from Kind to Kind)
Degenerate man or Man getting Better (Morally)
Future Hope or Hopelessness, i.e. An Endless Hope, or An End Without Hope.

[Dr. John Nay]

S.Q. I do not understand what you mean by "The only creation in that might be new creatures."

[Jukia]

Dr. Nay
I do not believe your choices make much sense. I do not need to choose between those. And your reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics vs Evolution makes no sense whatsoever. It is a nice creationist tool however to make it seem as though real science might be involved. But to date, no one has been able to explain to me why the Second Law invalidates evolution.

[Dr. John Nay]

"About three or four billion years ago, there was born in the limitless space of the heavens a tiny speck of cosmic dust which became the earth."
(Zebel, Sydney and Sidney Schwartz, Past To Present, A World History, The Macmillan Company, N.Y., N.Y., 1960)

"The sun and the planets probably formed from aggregates of dust particles and debris about 4.6 billion years ago." (Mader, Sylvia S., Biology: Evolution, Diversity, and the Environment, Wm. D. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, 1985)

"The universe began, according to current theory, with an explosion that filled all space, with every particle of matter hurled away from every other particle...some 18 billion years ago..." (Curtis, Helena, Helena Curtis: Biology, Worth Publisher, Incorporated, New York, New York, 1983)

"Imagine, billions of years ago, a star exploding, blasting a cloud of gas with tiny bits of matter. Rotation flattening the cloud into a disk. And at its center, our new sun beginning to shine, as smaller particles gather themselves into planets -- among them, Earth." (National Geographic, December, 1988)

?Most scientists believe that the universe began with a big bang between ten and twenty billion years ago. The entire universe was compressed into an infinitely small, dense concentration of matter called a singularity. At the instant of the big bang, the singularity exploded outward in an act of creation that accounts for all the matter in our universe today. (National Geographic Magazine, June 1983)

Webster?s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the Big Bang as follows:

?a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density.?

When one reads of the "Cosmic Speck of Dust" that exploded, usually somewhere between 4.6 and 20 billion years ago, what is the first question that comes to mind?

Where did the "Cosmic Speck of Dust" come from? (At least, this is the first question that comes to my mind.)

It is important to understand what matter is and what laws apply to it (unless God intercedes).

Matter Defined: "The substance of which a physical object is composed; material substance that occupies space and has weight, that constitutes the observable universe . . . "
(Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)

Matter Comes in Three States:

1. Solid (e.g. ice)
2. Liquid (e.g. water)
3. Vapor (e.g. steam)

Note: It will help in our understanding of this area to remember that what we refer to as a solid is in fact not solid. We refer to a rock as solid; however, it is made up of atoms which are in a continual state of motion as electrons move about the nuclei millions of times in a millisecond. All matter is composed of atoms, whether it be classified as solid, liquid or vapor.

The Cosmic Speck of Dust of the Big Bang was composed of matter, as is everything within the first two heavens (2 Corinthians 12:2ff.). The laws that pertain to matter are referred to as the Laws of Thermodynamics. These Laws came about as a result of man's experimentation relative (pun?) to the viability of perpetual motion after the invention of the steam engine.

Thermo = Heat Dynamics = Power

There are two laws of Thermodynamics:

First Law:

Energy can be transformed in various ways, but it can neither be created nor destroyed, and therefore the sum total of energy remains constant.

I.e., Anything you have is a result of energy and possesses energy. A log has energy. If you burn the log, you are putting some of the log?s energy to work in the form of heat. When you finish with the burning, you have ashes remaining, which are chemicals, and in which molecules are moving, so you still have energy. Add the energy of the heat released from the log to the energy of the ashes, and you have the sum total of energy that was within the log. You have not destroyed the energy but only transformed it from one form to another. In this sense, energy is conserved, thus the First Law of Thermodynamics is also referred to as the Law of Energy Conservation.

Especially note in the definition that the First Law of Thermodynamics says " Energy can be transformed in various ways, but it can neither be created nor destroyed . . . "

If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and it is present within matter, where did it come from? Answer: Genesis 1:1

Second Law: (Entropy, or Heat-death)

In any system in which energy is being transformed into other forms, at least some of it is transformed into heat energy, which cannot be converted back into other useful forms. That is, although none of the energy is destroyed, some of it becomes irretrievable in that it is dissipated in the form of heat. In a more general sense, this Law expresses the fact that in any closed system (Universe propsed to be a closed system, reference First Law) there must always be a decrease of order or organization, unless external energy or intelligence is applied to counteract this Law.

Let?s stay with the burning log to help us to understand. There is heat put off while the log is burning. And when finished burning, you have a pile of ashes left (chemicals). There is still energy present within the ashes, however, the heat that was dissipated is irretrievable, but not non-existent. The measurement of energy that can no longer be put to work (irretrievable) is referred to as Entropy. Thus, due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Entropy is ever increasing and will eventually lead to the death of the Universe (If the Lord doesn?t come back first and destroy this Universe (2 Peter 3:5ff.).

Another way of explaining the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that complexity moves to less complexity, order to disorder, organization to disorganization, etc. Things wear out. Our Sun is burning out, Earth is slowing down on its rotation on its axis, Earth is slowing down on its elliptical orbit about the Sun, etc.

Evolutionist Response to Second Law:

The question comes to mind, what do evolutionists say in response to the Second Law of Thermodynamics? They say that Earth is an open system, i.e. Earth receives energy from the Sun.

Response: Yes, the Earth is an open system, but the Universe is not, reference the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Earth receives energy from the Sun, but the Sun is burning out, as is the galaxy and the rest of the universe.

In keeping with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Universe and everything in it is running down; the Sun is burning out; the Earth is gradually slowing in its elliptical orbit around the Sun, the Earth is gradually slowing in its rotation speed, etc. Eventually, all temperatures within the first two heavens will equalize, via the Law of Entropy (Heat-death). Remember, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also referred to as the "Law of Entropy (Heat-death). Romans 8:18-23 is a very interesting passage which, in my opinion, refers to the Second Law of thermodynamics:

?I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.? (NIV)

Dr. Edward Luther Kessel made the following statement in reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy):

"Science clearly shows that the universe could not have existed from all eternity. The Law of Entropy states that there is a continuous flow of heat from warmer to colder bodies. Therefore the universe is headed for a time when the temperature will be universally uniform and there will be no more useful energy. Consequently there will be no more chemicals and physical processes, and life itself will cease to exist. But because life is still going on, and chemical and physical processes are still in progress, it is evident that our universe could not have existed from eternity, else it would have long since run out of useful energy and ground to a halt. Therefore, quite unintentionally, science proves the reality of God, for whatever had a beginning did not begin of itself but demands a Prime Mover, a Creator, a God." (I Believe Because, Batsell Barrett Baxter, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1987, pp. 55-56)

Dr. Henry M. Morris (Institute For Creation Research):

". . . the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we would reach the beginning point, where available energy equaled total energy. Time could go back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must have come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

?Rethinking the Big Bang: Maybe It Didn't Happen" (National Geographic Magazine, December, 1988, vol. 174, no. 6)

Wernher von Braun (1912-1977)

Leading German rocket engineer, developed the V-2 during World War II. He immigrated to the U.S. in 1945. He directed U.S. guided missile development and became Director of NASA.

"Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (Morris, Henry M., Men of Science, Men of God, Master Books, P.O. Box 1606, El Cajon, CA 92022; 1988)

Conclusion: The concept of the Big Bang runs contrary to good science and most certainly is not a Scriptural concept.

[Jukia]

Actually, the concept of the Big Bang does not run contrary to science. I also do not think it runs contrary to scripture. Why could not God have created the Big Bang 15-20 billion years ago?

[Dr. John Nay]

I apologize that my formatting does not hold when transfered to the site. This makes this a little difficult to follow.

First, the First & Second Laws of Thermodynamics are scientific laws, i.e. a result of the application of the Scientific Method; please check this out.

Secondly, as to whether the Big Bang runs contrary to the Scriptures or not:

EVOLUTION
Matter Eternal
BIBLE
Matter Created (Col. 1:16-18; Heb. 11:3; Ps. 33:6-9, Gen. 1:1)
EVOLUTION
The Big Bang
BIBLE
The Big Splash (Gen. 1:2 & 2 Pet. 3:5)
EVOLUTION
Evolution over eons of time
BIBLE
Six Literal Days (Ex. 20:8-11)
EVOLUTION
Land before oceans
BIBLE
Oceans before land (Gen. 1:2,9)
EVOLUTION
Evolution continuing
BIBLE
Creation completed - Past completed tense in both Hebrew & Greek (Gen. 2:3 & Col. 1:16ff.)
EVOLUTION
Sun, then Earth
BIBLE
Earth, then Sun (Gen. 1:14)
EVOLUTION
No canopy
BIBLE
Canopy (Gen. 1:6ff.)
EVOLUTION
Life began in water
BIBLE
Life began on land (Gen. 1:11)
EVOLUTION
Life, simple to complex
BIBLE
Man fully man from the beginning (Mark 10:6)
EVOLUTION
Fish before fruit trees
BIBLE
Fruit trees before fish (Gen. 1:11,20,21)
EVOLUTION
Insects before birds
BIBLE
Birds before insects (Gen. 1:21,24)
EVOLUTION
Fishes before birds
BIBLE
Both on same day (Gen. 1:20-21)
EVOLUTION
Reptiles before whales
BIBLE
Whales before reptiles (Gen. 1:21,24)
EVOLUTION
From Kind to kind
BIBLE
Reproduce only after their kind (Gen. 1:11,12,21,24,25)
EVOLUTION
Rain before man
BIBLE
Man before rain (Gen. 2:5)
EVOLUTION
Woman first (Lucy)
BIBLE
Man first (Gen. 2:21,22)
EVOLUTION
Sun - then light
BIBLE
Light - then Sun (Gen. 1:3 cf. l:14)
EVOLUTION
Sun - then plants
BIBLE
Plants - then Sun (Gen. 1:11,14)
EVOLUTION
Man and Ape from
Common Ancestor
BIBLE
Man from dust (Gen. 2:7)
EVOLUTION
Man a carnivore
BIBLE
Man a vegetarian (Gen. 1:29 cf. 9:3)

Not only are the postulates that go along with the Big Bang non-synchronistic with the Scriptures, they are in diametric opposition to them.

[Jukia]

You jump from the origin of the universe to a whole sale attack on evolution. Sort of the standard creationist attempt to connect two things that are not necessarily connected. In any event the weight of scientific evidence is that the universe is old, that while the story of Genesis is enlightening to show God's relationship with man, it is not factual. Evolutionary theory is the result of the scientific method as are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, believe in the Genesis creation story is not--check it out.

In addition, some of your comments/beliefs are just plane silly. Woman before man because a fossil humanoid was called "Lucy", that is not really an argument you are making is it?

[Dr. John Nay]

Attack: The reason for my comparison between the postulates of evolution and the Genesis account of creation was your statement, ?I also do not think it [Big Bang] runs contrary to scripture.?

Soooooooo, my point being that ?it?, i.e. the Big Bang, DOES run contrary to Scripture.

Lucy: ?Woman before man because a fossil humanoid was called "Lucy", that is not really an argument you are making is it??

You are correct, it is NOT an argument that I am making.? It is an argument that Donald Johanson (well-known paleontologist/apologist of evolution) makes. He made this discovery in 1974 and proposes that Lucy is the common ancestor from which came ape and man. Again, he is one of the most outspoken apologists of evolution in the world.

Genesis Factual?

If one can not believe the Bible with what it has to say about the various scientific disciplines, how can one believe the Bible with what it has to say about Jesus? How does man, who is finite in knowledge, differentiate between what is or is not true in the Bible? It is my personal belief that the Bible is God?s revelation to man and that the writing are the work of the Holy Spirit. Is it reasonable that God would create man and then leave him in a position of not being able to differentiate between what is or is not true? In my opinion, this would NOT be reasonable.

[Jukia]

Your comment about Lucy remains silly. Just because a particular fossil is a female does not mean that women came before men. Plus I am not certain that currently the consensis is that particular hominid is in a direct line to man, ape or otherwise.

And while you believe that the Bible is from God and therefore word for word true, yet claim that God would not put man in a position to determine what is not true, you are willing to ignore the weight of the scientific evidence regarding the age of the universe, evolution etc. There seems to be a disconnect there. Man can use his intellect to understand the Bible but not the world around him if the Bible does not support the physical evidence. Sorry Doc, you lose me on that one. God gave us an intellect but we can't use to try to understand the natural world. Makes no sense at all.

[Skepti Que]

Several screens above this one Doc asked me about a statement I had made:
S.Q. I do not understand what you mean by "The only creation in that might be new creatures."

Doc, it was an attempt, lame perhaps, at a biblicism, 2 Cor 5:17

Finally some action here!

SQ