Kent Hovind - Creation vs Evolution Debate

[Sergeant Thorne]

Returning to your statement, cbb056...

Thermodynamics says entropy in the universe increases with time, not entropy of a system. The evolution of humans took place in a system. Essentially for the math to work out if humans were to evolve (decrease of entropy) the rest of the universe would have to increase in entropy.

Where is the evidence for evolution (new information) from a decrease of entropy?

[ccb056]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

What is \"information\"?
How is information measured, what are it's units?

[Sergeant Thorne]

Something new that wasn't there before--right down to a complex information system like DNA.

[ccb056]

Well I still don't have a grasp of what you mean by information.

If your question relates to mass/energy conservation and how that relates to entropy, well they aren't really related. No one is using entropy to prove/disprove mass/energy conservation.

[dissent]

Dawkins on information -
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm

(linked from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html )



People, the starting place for dispelling a lot of the silliest YEC arguments (some of which are being repeated yet again in this thread) is Mark Isaak's Index to Creationist Claims.

[woodchip]

So are the young earthists saying that only the earth is 6000-10000 years old or the whole universe?

[TechPro]

So are the young earthists saying that only the earth is 6000-10000 years old or the whole universe?

In truth, it doesn't matter if the earth is "young" or if the whole universe is "young". What does matter is 1) how you live your life, who you try to help along the way and 2) what you learn along the way as you study this world and the universe.

[Sergeant Thorne]

No, I'm sorry, ccb, I guess I'm not really explaining myself very well. Forget \"information\". Evolution claims that all of the complexity we see or know of (and Darwin didn't know, by the way) came from much simpler forms. How do you get new forms from what is merely an observation of order in a decrease of entropy? And have you, personally, ever heard of the concept of irreducible complexity?

Woody, there are probably a lot of different arguments, but I accept the Bible's history as the account of creation, which includes the \"heavens\", the \"earth\", and the stars and planets--the universe, as far as I'm concerned (in six literal days).

[ccb056]

I have not heard of the term: irreducible complexity.

As far as naturally going from simple forms to complex forms there are 2 examples I can cite off the top of my head.

Plants take water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight (chemically simple) and produce carbohydrates (chemcially complex).

When water liquid water (structurally simple) freezes it forms ice (structurally complex).

How do you get new forms from what is merely an observation of order in a decrease of entropy?

Unfortunately, you can't. Changes in entropy alone do not determine if a chemical process is spontaneous.

As I linked to earlier, the change of Gibbs Free Energy is what determines if a reaction is spontaneous.

Here is the governing equation:

dG = dH - T * dS

dG = change in gibbs free energy
dH = change in enthalpy
T = absolute temperature
dS = change in entropy

A process proceedes in the forward direction if dG is negative (assembly).
A process proceedes in the reverse direction if dG is positive (disassembly).
A process is at equilibrium when dG is 0 (assembled).

As you can see from the equation, you can proceed forward if the change in entropy is either positive or negative, since the change of entropy is only 1 of 3 independent variables.

[woodchip]

The problem I have if creationist say the universe was created 6000-10000 years ago, would be the speed of light. I'll let you all ponder the implications there-in before I submit my view.

[Spidey]

Is the universe 6000 years old, or just the earth? Hell, when they wrote the Bible the entire world was only slightly larger than the Middle East. And flat too, as I recall.

Remember, there weren’t even any Galaxies before hubble .

I see what you are getting at Woody, but if only the earth was created 6000 years ago…

[ccb056]

The problem I have if creationist say the universe was created 6000-10000 years ago, would be the speed of light. I'll let you all ponder the implications there-in before I submit my view.

Anything further than 10,000 lightyears away we wouldn't be able to see.

[Foil]

The problem is that young-Earth creationists like Hovind and Ken Ham and others are reading their own interpretations into scripture. First and foremost, they have utterly lost the truth of Genesis 1 by reading the passages through their own perspective on science. It's not only that they look at science with an agenda (which causes all kinds of issues), the problem stems from fundamentally bad exegetical interpretation, where nothing is true unless every word has a dual literal meaning.

Foil, my father did a root-word literal translation of Genesis 1 using the original text. It's much more specific as to what actually happened than our English translation. If you would like, I can get the translation from my Dad and post it here. I also have a powerpoint slide presentation that is quite interesting, but it doesn't focus specifically on creation.

That's the problem, JF. You can do a literal translation on the Genesis 1 & 2, but doing so completely misses the incredible meaning of the passage.

The creation accounts in Genesis are amazing - poetic in structure... profound in theme about God as the original source of our reality... and from an exegetical perspective, clear in the way it points to a single creator rather than the gods of the time (sun, moon, earth, animals, etc.).

Reading it as a literal passage like the law in Leviticus or the geneaologies in Numbers misses the point and lessens the truth in the creation accounts by turning them into a list of science notes.

(Even then, the Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1 is used many, many different ways throughout the Old Testament - insisting that it "must be" a literal 24-hour period is questionable.)

[Foil]

So are the young earthists saying that only the earth is 6000-10000 years old or the whole universe?

Based on their Biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists nearly always believe the entire creation (earth, observable universe, everything) is only 6-10,000 years old.

Of course, that also begs some questions about things like light from distant stars... some of the young-Earth defenses are really interesting (including some explanations which include God giving the universe the appearance of great age, etc.). :p

[Sergeant Thorne]

What about observation(s) that the speed of light is slowing down? I'll have to do some digging to get the source, if you haven't heard of that.

Hell, when they wrote the Bible the entire world was only slightly larger than the Middle East. And flat too, as I recall.

That's kind of generalizing history. Was the view really that pervasive--is there evidence that people from early Biblical times held that to be true ("flat earth")?

Plants take water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight (chemically simple) and produce carbohydrates (chemcially complex).

This is a bad example, because of all of the information needed for the transformation is contained within the plant.

When water liquid water (structurally simple) freezes it forms ice (structurally complex).

Yes, it forms ice... every time.

I have not heard of the term: irreducible complexity.

I'll try to get you a video on it.

[Sergeant Thorne]

(Even then, the Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1 is used many, many different ways throughout the Old Testament - insisting that it "must be" a literal 24-hour period is questionable.)

Not so. I thought you were familiar with Ken Ham's material? He poses the question, when does the word "day" mean a literal day, and why? And then demonstrates that the 6 days of creation are indeed, inescapably meant to be understood as literal days.

[Lothar]

You can do a literal translation on the Genesis 1 & 2, but doing so completely misses the incredible meaning of the passage.

Indeed. Traditionally, Genesis is considered to be the first "book of Moses", written to the Hebrew people as they were wandering in the desert after witnessing God's series of miraculous plagues etc. In other words, they experienced the events of the book of Exodus and then read (or heard) the stories of the book of Genesis.

Genesis 1 is not an introduction to world history. It's an introduction to theology -- an introduction to who God is. It was written to people who no doubt knew some things about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but who also knew Egyptian mythology. It was written to people who, for the next several centuries, struggled with the concept that God is the only God, God is sovereign over everything and not just one particular area, and that other "gods" are fictional and useless. It was written to people who thought Abraham had his god and others had their own gods, and weren't sure there was all that much difference between them.

Understanding the Genesis 1 creation account requires knowledge of the Egyptian creation account, because Genesis 1 was written to people who knew the Egyptian myth, in order to teach them how God differed from the concepts they were already familiar with. Here are a few differences that show us key points about who God is:

• In the Egyptian account, the Nun (water) and the Ogdoad (8 gods) pre-existed the "creator" Amen-Re, who hatched from an egg. In the Genesis account, God pre-exists everything (eternally) and creates everything.
• In the Egyptian account, there are several sub-creators, like Thoth, Ptah, Maat, etc -- gods of truth, air, moisture, light, the sun, and so on. There are gods who birth other gods, who each take responsibility for something different, and who compete with each other. In the Genesis account, there is only one creator, who is responsible for the whole creation and who has no rivals. Things like the sun, moon, and rivers are not treated as gods or powerful beings, but merely as objects that God creates.
• In the Egyptian account, stuff keeps going wrong -- some of the gods get lost, the main creator's wife cheats on him, and so on. The creator isn't fully in charge, and some bits of creation require great effort or trickery. In the Genesis account, whenever God creates, it happens exactly as He declares, and He sees that it is good (except in Genesis 2 where "it is not good for man to be alone".)
• In the Egyptian account, mankind is created along with all of the other creatures of the earth; when the creator wants a companion he makes new gods. In the Genesis account, mankind is created separately "in the image of God, male and female" -- in other words, humans are God's special companions.

Genesis 1 gives us a clear picture of how God differs from the Egyptian gods and how God is not just another of the Egyptian gods, much like the plagues in Exodus 7-12 give us a clear picture of God's supremacy over the Egyptian gods. This is a clear example of a parable -- it illustrates key truths about God in a poetic way. If you were intimately familiar with the Egyptian account and then read Genesis 1 for the first time (whether in a "highly literal" translation or not), each of the above points would hit you like a ton of bricks.

[Spidey]

Yes Thorne, it’s a generalization. The belief that the earth was flat was common place up until the Greeks started discussion on the earth’s shape and started to have doubts.

Now, if you have a counter challenge that the ancients had other beliefs, I’m all ears.

Is your ancient history up to snuff, outside the realm of religion? Because up till science came along, the beliefs were something like this…

The Earth was flat.
The Earth was the center of the cosmos.
Stars were light coming thru a curtain.
And God lived in a mountain.

Now, I’m sure there were more enlightened people at the time, but I “am” speaking in generalizations.

I really don’t see these kinds of challenges doing anything for your side of the argument. Maybe you should try a different tact, like seeing the Bible as a metaphor, or such.

[Jesus Freak]

If anyone would like to see the whole PDF with the actual symbols and their direct translation, PM me with your email address and I'll send you the full pdf.

Masoretic test of Genesis 1:1-8 as published in 1866
by the British and Foreign Bible Society and republished by Jay Green[49]
Smooth English Translation of Genesis 1:1-8
1. When God began to create the heavens and the earth,
2. the earth was nothing but empty space, darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God brooded upon the face of the deep;
3. then God said, “Let a luminary be” and there was a luminary.
4. And God saw the luminary, that it was a good thing: and God separated the luminary from the darkness
5. And He called the luminary (creation) heat, and He called the darkness a folding back of the light. And there was darkness and light, the first (creation) heat.
6. And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8. And God called forth the firmament aloft (to the top of the waters). And dawn and dusk were the second heat.

[ccb056]

Plants take water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight (chemically simple) and produce carbohydrates (chemcially complex).

This is a bad example, because of all of the information needed for the transformation is contained within the plant.

I don't understand why its a bad example. Plants just carry out chemical processes. If youre using information as a synonym for DNA I still don't understand your argument. Of course the DNA controls how the plant operates is within the plant, thats been proven, if you change the DNA you change how the plant operates. Thats the whole basis behind the science of GMO.

It looks like this thread is trending into an argument about the scientific and historical accuracy of the bible. I'm not going to argue any further than to make the statement that any book written thousands of years ago, copied by hand thousands of times, translated hundreds of times, and claims to be factually correct is not correct.

From where I stand, the bible has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, if we are discussing evolution why is the bible even being mentioned?

If you want to continue the discussion on the science of evolution, I can provide information about some of the chemical and mechanical processes, as far as biology, geology, etc go, I would be treading into uncomfortable waters.

[woodchip]

Thorne, I don't know about light slowing down, but the real curious thing about the universe is until just recently, the big bang proponents all thought over time all outward expanding objects (like galaxies) would slow down (entropy). Alas what they found out to be true is these objects are in fact speeding up.

[ccb056]

I don't know how much of an argument that is.

If you take a ball and drop it from a 10 story building, neglecting friction the total energy of the ball remains constant until it hits the ground and the energy is transfered to the ground.

The ball is accelerating as it falls, just like the universe may be accelerating. That does not violate anything as far as I am aware of.

[woodchip]

The ball is reacting to the force of gravity. The universe is reacting to the explosive force of the big bang. A rifle bullet is fastest just after it leaves the barrel, then starts slowing over distance due to air friction and gravity. Interstellar objects have frictional items like dust and micrometeorites that over billions of years may have some affect. More powerful would be the gravity wells between solar systems and between galaxies. All should have create a net reduction in speed of celestial objects.
The question is, what force is giving everything a boost in speed?

[Lothar]

any book written thousands of years ago, copied by hand thousands of times, translated hundreds of times, and claims to be factually correct is not correct.

.... why is the bible even being mentioned?

The thread title has both the words "evolution" and "creation" in it, so of course you should expect people to bring up the Bible.

Also, your characterization of the Bible is incorrect. It was written thousands of years ago; that part is true. The Old Testament was also copied by hand many times (not "thousands"), using a letter-by-letter process that included such things as "counting how many times each letter appears" and "finding the middle character of each book"; copies separated by a thousand years show only minimal changes from each other. The New Testament copies we have are perhaps 3 copies from the originals, not "thousands". And our modern English translations are made directly from the original languages (often using other language translations for comparison); it's not a translation of a translation of a translation.

[ccb056]

My description of the bible may be incorrect, however I do not understand if evolution does not mention the bible how the bible can become a point of argument for or against evolution.

Its like describing the rankine cycle and using computer encryption algorithims to make a point. The two are completely unrelated and independent.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I really don’t see these kinds of challenges doing anything for your side of the argument. Maybe you should try a different tact, like seeing the Bible as a metaphor, or such.

LOL

You never know what it could do for my argument, but I see it as a gross generalization based on huge assumptions, which never lends itself to understanding.

[Sergeant Thorne]

cbb056, I don't know if you've seen Ben Stein's new movie \"Expelled: no intelligence allowed\", but he presents the argument, essentially that there is a third player in the Creationism VS Evolutionism argument, which is Intelligent Design (or I.D.). People who approach the argument primarily (or solely?) from a scientific perspective, and have found themselves very much opposed to the theory of Evolution. The point is that this is not the case here, to whatever degree. For myself, the Bible is my basis, and it is then confirmed by science, rather than the other way around. There is a mixing, to some degree, because I do appreciate and even use Intelligent Design study, but whereas they are not necessarily sure who this creator is, I believe that the Bible tells us exactly who it is. Scientific discussion is all very well, but Evolution is not merely a scientific creation, it depends on the philosophy that there is no creator. As the Bible is the basis for my views (and I suspect the views of a few others on here), and also the views of the creationist side in the video, it definitely has a place in the discussion.

[Spidey]

Sure it does, it lead to the understanding that as our information expands, so does the universe. And our interpretation of any books written when our information was more limited should be augmented, given more information.

[Nightshade]

\"Intelligent Design\" is a fraud- a new sales product in the arsenal of religious dogma. It is a tragedy that \"ID\" is being forced into the classroom.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Not when the \"augmentation\" of our interpretation is contrary to scripture. Unless you go and make it poetry, which is wrong, the \"interpretation\" of Genesis based on Evolutionary theories just doesn't work. But since the time of Darwin Evolution has been anti-Theistic, so why should it be expected to work anyway?

[Spidey]

Scripture is based on the view of the world at the time, so it’s as flawed as that view.

[ccb056]

I don't think anyone can participate in a meaningful debate when the bible is used to disprove science.

Once you guys start talking about science again I'll participate in the discussion. But as long as you stay on the topic of religion, I think I'm going to back off.

[Sergeant Thorne]

when the bible is used to disprove science.

eh?

[Sergeant Thorne]

Scripture is based on the view of the world at the time, so it’s as flawed as that view.

I beg to differ, Spidey. The Bible is the word of God. If it's other than that then it's a lie, and it isn't worth the paper that it's written on, except as a historical document, and anyone who forms a religion or a church around it is an idiot. Anyone who forms a church or a religion around the Bible, believing that it is other than the inspired word of God (as it says), is a poor deluded fool. I say that as someone who has had a pretty darn good grasp of the Bible, and as someone who demands the truth in everything, and realizing full-well that I've just stepped on the toes of a good 95% of "Christianity", in America at least.

[woodchip]

The problem with any religion can be summed up in one word...interpretation.

[ccb056]

I see we are still discussing the bible, and it still has nothing to do with the topic of evolution, so we are still off topic.

[Spidey]

Thorne, I am not debating that the Bible was inspired by God. My position is in the articulation of the people at the time, as you point out “ inspired by God” not written by God. Therefore the inspiration is translated by the mind of people thousands of years ago, reflecting the world as they understood it. That’s my point.

What if the Bible was inspired by God in this day and age, would it still be the same?

ccb056, please note the thread title….

[Kilarin]

There are problems with both Young Earth Creationism AND with Naturalistic Evolution. The biggest problem is that both sides are actually arguing philosophy and pretending it's science. BOTH sides.

For example, you hear over and over from Dawkins and the rest of the Naturalist Evolution crowd that there are plenty of explanations for how the complexity in life could have come about by random chance and natural selection alone. It's all easy, there are plenty of papers, no one questions any of this. They say the same thing over and over. BUT, then, you keep getting things like this.

Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective

Note this quote in particular:

The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin: How can organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like a 'blind watchmaker'?

When arguing about ID, the evolutionist claim that there is no difficulty explaining the apparent complexity in life. But then as soon as they come up with a new theory about that complexity you get comments about how THIS theory will now cover the huge complexity gap that biologist have been clueless about before now.

Which means, of course, that they are lying when they argue with the ID scientist. They reject their points on philosophical grounds, not scientific ones. Exactly the same problem that Young Earth Creationists have.

I happen to be VERY lucky in that I went to college under one of the very few honest creationist paleontologist in the world: Dr. Art Chadwick from Southwestern Adventist University. We got to go on an honest to goodness REAL Dinosaur dig with him last summer at one of the richest bone beds in the world in Wyoming. My wife, son, and I dug up real dinosaur bones with our own hands. It was incredibly educational, not to mention fun. <link> <another link>

Dr. Chadwick is a Young Earth Creationist, but unlike most, he is perfectly willing to admit when the evidence does not line up with his theory. For example, Dr. Chadwick was part of a team of Creationists that examined the supposed "Human Footprints" found in the Paluxy River, and determined them to NOT be human prints. <Article Here>

You'll note that most Creationists simply ignored their assessment, you still hear them going on about those tracks to this very day. They didn't ignore the teams work because it was incomplete or weak. The ignored it because it didn't fit with their philosophy.

The same reason the Naturalistic Evolutionists ignore, misrepresent, or lie about the research of Dembski, Behe, etc.

BOTH sides are so dogmatically stuck on their philosophical points of view that they refuse to even look at any science that doesn't line up with what they want to see. It's a very BAD way to do science.

[MD-1118]

There are problems with both Young Earth Creationism AND with Naturalistic Evolution. The biggest problem is that both sides are actually arguing philosophy and pretending it's science. BOTH sides.

Philosophy is merely the bridge between religion and science. In a way, it's both.

[Foil]

There are problems with both Young Earth Creationism AND with Naturalistic Evolution. The biggest problem is that both sides are actually arguing philosophy and pretending it's science. BOTH sides.
...
BOTH sides are so dogmatically stuck on their philosophical points of view that they refuse to even look at any science that doesn't line up with what they want to see. It's a very BAD way to do science.

Exactly!

---------

For the non-religious folks here, you may not agree, but need to understand that for Christians, we simply can't put anything ahead of our faith. Putting an outside belief ahead of the Bible is inexcusable.

From my perspective, maybe it will help clarify things:

When I was a young-Earther, I subscribed to the interpretation of Genesis that saw the six days of creation as simply literal notes about how it happened. From my perspective, I was beginning with truth from my faith (universe was created in six literal days about 6-10,000 years ago), and seeing the study of origins in light of that truth. I studied the young-Earth literature, I knew the arguments and points, and I was convinced that any Christian who believed in an older universe was reading an outside view into scripture.

But then as I got older and began studying theology and physics, I realized that the truth was exactly the opposite; it was me that was reading an outside view into Genesis. This was a difficult thing for me to accept and I fought it. I challenged professors in class and in my coursework, I debated with classmates, and I studied the subject even more. Eventually, however, the conclusion was inescapable: the way I was approaching my study of physics (trying to find reasons to discredit the big-bang model, among other things) was dishonest, as a result of the flawed young-Earth interpretation I was following.

Now, as a Christian, the truth from my faith still comes first; my belief in God as the creator of our universe hasn't changed, and it never will. What has changed is my perspective on the current theories regarding human development and the early universe. I no longer see them as conspiracies or attacks on my faith, I see them for what they are: scientific models, subject to change if more information comes along, but based on the best understanding we currently have.

[Of course there are naturalists who claim that the current models preclude God or supernatural creation; I think they're farther off-base than the young-Earth folk.]