Archives - Evolution/Creation: The Truth e-newsletter
12/24/2004 -
Scrappleface commentary, responding to an agnostic, more
recent dinosaurs
3. A couple of humourous Scappleface articles - enjoy
4. A response I recently gave for a friend addressing a couple of typical arguments by evolutionists (in this case his cousin)
Here's the blurb from Crossroads COMPASS (Dec. 2004)
Dec. 27. 2004 ["100 Huntley Street" telecast]
With a master's degree in science (biotechnology) and years of investigative studies on creation, Laurence Tisdall has become the founder and president of the Creation Science Association of Quebec. His keen interest in this topic began during his final year of high school as a result of watching Crossroads' Creation Series. Through sound analytical reasoning, Laurence is able to point skeptics to the Creator of the universe, whose intelligent design validates not only the Genesis account of creation, but the entire Bible.
3. Scappleface articles (www.scrappleface.com)
ACLU Sues to Remove 'Primordial Soup'
Displays
by Scott Ott
(2004-12-22) -- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) today filed a class-action suit on behalf of monotheists seeking the removal of wetlands from government-owned property because they visually portray the 'primordial soup' where some believe life began and from which humanity evolved.
"These swamps represent a government endorsement of philosophical naturalism--a faith-based belief system tantamount to religion," said an unnamed ACLU spokesman. "Christians, Jews, Muslims and other monotheists shouldn't be forced to see such things, nor to fund them with their tax dollars."
The lawsuit claims that philosophical naturalism is a de facto religion that includes a dramatic, if fanciful, story of the origins of humanity which scholars call creation ex nihilo via nihilo (out of nothing by means of nothing).
"For many years, the government has been protecting and funding the restoration of these symbols of all that naturalists hold dear," said the source. "This violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment has extended to the government-controlled schools where this religion is taught as fact, rather than faith. The situational morality of naturalism has been forced on America's children using tax dollars. This is, in effect, an involuntary tithe to the church of naturalistic philosophy."
The ACLU does not oppose primordial soup displays on private property, just those funded with taxpayer dollars in national parks and on other government-controlled land.
The lawsuit seeks the destruction of all government-owned wetlands, and a refund to taxpayers of all school tax dollars paid during the past 50 years.
Cell Phone
Radiation May Speed Human Evolution
by Scott Ott
(2004-12-21) -- A new study by European Union (EU) researchers shows that the electromagnetic radiation from cellular phones can cause DNA mutations that reproduce, "opening the door to new vistas in human evolution," according to a spokesman for the cell phone industry.
"A lot of the news you'll hear in the coming days will dwell on the potential for health damage, tumors and the like," said the unnamed industry source. "But if Darwin was right, mutations are good for our species. The faster our cells mutate the faster we'll evolve and fulfill the dreams of generations of evolutionary biologists."
The spokesman acknowledged that during the initial waves of mutation the natural selection process "could get messy," but he insisted that "most mutations would be beneficial -- potentially yielding larger brains, additional ears ('Can you hear me now?') or even an extra appendage for holding a cell phone while driving."
"Thanks to cell phones, you can accomplish everything more quickly," said the source. "We've taken Darwinian evolution from the realm of wishful thinking for atheists, to something that may produce results in a generation or less. We've just turbo-charged the time factor and reduced the element of chance making evolution faster and more reliable."
One cell phone company is reportedly already focus-group testing ads with the slogan "We're the missing link."
The laws of thermodynamics that he quotes are indeed correct, but the usage he makes of them are incorrect. Those laws have been established based on systems that are very small compared to the whole Universe. In cosmology, it isn't yet proven that those laws apply to the universe itself. In other words, it's like trying to apply Newton's gravitation to explain black-holes.
There are so many unanswered questions in cosmology, that it is prententious of your friend to jump directly on the simple three laws of dynamic and apply them on a cosmological scale.
How do you explain black holes ? How do you explain that the galaxies are moving away from each other ? How do you explain that the visible mass of the universe don't explain the dynamic observed of the galaxies in the universe ? Using those laws of thermodynamics on a such a large scale is very simplistic.
I'm not saying that the theory of Big Bang is correct, far from it, but it's only that, a theory, not a dogme.
Another point. The notion of "law" in physics is not the same as in the legal system, or in religion. Laws religion really mean "dogme", i.e. things that cannot be discussed, or questioned. In physics, they are statements that describe a particular theory, which itself is only that: a theory, i.e. something that can be debated, and questioned, and obviously proven wrong. After all, science has a long history of theories proven wrong by observation.
Finally, I don't know if Pasteur proved that creationism is correct, but what is certain is that he is definitely not remembered for that. He should be a bit more careful when saying this kind of things!
Also, "atheism" is not a religion: he should also be careful about that. There is no "spirituality", religious or political systems in atheism.
Anyway, Nicky, I think you have a point. I don't know for you, but I'm quite a busy man, and I have a lot of work to do. Even though those dicussions would be pleasant activities to do on holiday, I'm afraid I can't continue writing emails on that matter.
It would be a waste of time for me, simply because no one can discuss Faith. Like I said before, and you didn't contradict me on that, Faith is not founded on reason, or the usage of reason or scientific reasoning. It is based on something else (spirituality ?). So it's pointless to try to reason it out.
Take care,
Frederic
>From: Nick W
>Subject: Evolution...not !
>Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:16:22 -0500 (EST)>Hi Fred,
>I must admit that when it comes to science and biology,I don't really have the education in those fields to really debate.So what I did was consult with a friend of mine who is a scientist and a Christian.So a lot of this are direct quotes concerning major points you brought up in your last email.>I'll deal with the social subjects of your previous email in a separate communication.This is getting too big to be contained in one email!
>The following will deal with the subject of evolution :>First of all, you contradict yourself when you say you "don't believe in evolution" but in the previous paragraph maintain that "the evidence in overwhelming"
>1) "but the scientific evidence is too large", " It's the evidence, and it's overwhelming">OK, give me some examples? You should read http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1203 (How do we detect design)
>2) "But remember that my wife works in the field of biology, and she sees evolution at work nearly everyday. She couldn't progress at all, or produce useful work without accepting evolution.">What part of Biology requires evolution? I think you are confused between adaptation and macro-evolution. At what point was the foundational concept of biology "All living cells come from living cells" refuted? This concept "life must come from life" has been proven for more than 145 years by Louis Pasteur in 1859 and is totally in line with a creationist approach to nature. Evolution requires that life come from non-life - not possible and thus not scientific. Thus the molecules to man concept of evolution has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with religion (dogma).
>When was a frog becoming a prince actually observed (aside from in fanciful fairy-tales for children)? Takes too long, then its not scientific, its a belief !>3) "So far in the fields of medicine and biology, nobody has come up with a theory better than Evolution to explain things. And creationism miserably fails far more at doing that. But agreed, there could be a better theory."
>This is patently not true. Intelligent Design and Creationism is a much better theory at explaining what we observe in nature.>The laws of science prove that there is a God and they reveal His character
>Laws of science : a law of science is a basic, unchanging principle of the natural physical world; a scientifically observed phenomenon that has been, and still can be, subjected to very extensive measurements and experimentation and has repeatedly proved to be invariable throughout the known universe, no matter who is conducting the experiment. Examples of scientific laws are the law of gravity, the laws of motion and the laws of thermodynamics. The theories of evolution are not laws of science but are unproven, philosophical theories of the religion of atheism promulgated by many (but not all) scientists and philosophers. The laws of science prove that there is a God who is exactly as the Bible reveals.>· The scientific law of biogenesis
>The scientific law of biogenesis was discovered and proved by the great French creationist scientist, Louis Pasteur. This law of science states that life can come only from life and so life cannot spontaneously “arise”. Life can come only from pre-existing life. So the first life on earth must have been created by a living (and therefore personal), intelligent, supernatural Being. No one has ever made new life from scratch in a laboratory (and if they did it would prove intelligent creation by people in a laboratory, not evolution !) Chemicals and dirt can never come to life of their own accord, no matter how much energy is added to them nor how much time is available.>Time and energy work against the theories of evolution. The more time there is, the worse it is for evolutionists; and the more energy, the worse it is for evolutionists because of the scientific laws of thermodynamics.
>· The 1st Law of Thermodynamics (“the law of conservation of mass / energy”) (“E = mc2 ”)>“The sum total of energy plus matter in a closed system is constant. Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed but can only change form. There is no overall gain or loss in the sum total of ‘energy plus matter’.”
>This law of science means of course that there is nothing in the universe (a closed system) capable of bringing the universe into being because energy and matter cannot be created by anything in the universe ... Therefore the universe must have been created by Someone outside the universe.>Apart from information, everything that exists in the universe is some form of energy (even matter is a form of energy) and everything that happens in the universe is some form of energy transfer. The three laws of thermodynamics are the scientific laws that govern the relationship between heat and work – they govern all transfers of energy and so govern everything that has ever happened in the physical universe :
>“The process of evolution requires energy in various forms, and thermodynamics is the study of energy movement and transformation. The two fields are clearly related. Scientific laws that govern thermodynamics must also govern evolution.”>(Dr Emmett L. Williams, PhD in metallurgical engineering, former Professor of Physics at Bob Jones University, 1981 [58] )
>· The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (“the law of entropy”)>“In a closed or open system, spontaneous processes lead to a decrease in order. Energy moves to a lower potential, becoming less available to do work. Things move in a direction from order to chaos.”
>In other words, things fall apart ! This law of science means that if the universe (a closed system) were infinitely old (i.e. without beginning), the universe would now be in a state of complete disorder and would have died the heat death that astronomers predict. Since the universe is not currently in a state of complete disorder, the universe must have had a beginning a finite time ago – and this beginning cannot have been very long ago as everything we see in the universe is still in a state of high order and available energy :>“Another way of stating the second law then is, ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly !’ Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order : how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself – and that is what the second law is all about.”
>(Isaac Asimov, evolutionist, 1970)>The second law of thermodynamics is just as valid for open systems as it is for closed systems :
>“… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.”>(John Ross, scientist from Harvard University, 1980)
>The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics have caused many evolutionists to forsake the theories of evolution for scientific creation. Even death is a manifestation of this law of science.>· The 3rd Law of Thermodynamics
>“Order is at a maximum at absolute zero temperature. Adding energy (e.g. raising the temperature) results in disorder.”>This law of science is the reason you put your food in the fridge or freezer rather than leaving it out in the warmer air. The 3rd law of thermodynamics means that adding energy from the sun (or any other energy source) cannot bring chemicals to life in a hypothetical primeval soup – it can only increase the disorder of these chemicals. Just as a bull in a china shop adds a lot of energy to the contents of the china shop, that increased energy results in increased disorder – and the china figurines do not somehow come to life. A bull in a china shop adds undirected energy. What is needed to create life is directed energy with information. As the hypothetical “primeval soup” contains no information, “primeval soup” is thus scientifically ruled out as the precursor of life ...
>No experimental or scientific evidence has ever disproved any of the Laws of Thermodynamics, which therefore remain some of the best science that exists :>“There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries …”
> (G.N. Hatspoulous and E.P. Gyftopoulos, physicists, 1970)>“It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. … In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted.”
>(Dr Emmett L. Williams, PhD in metallurgical engineering, former Professor of Physics at Bob Jones University, 1981)>· The Law of Cause and Effect
>The law of cause and effect follows directly from the laws of thermodynamics and states that :>“Every effect must have a cause. The effect cannot be greater, in size or in kind, than the cause.”
>This means firstly that every effect we see in the physical space-time universe must have had a cause, and we can therefore trace all effects back to a First Cause. There must exist somewhere outside of the physical space-time universe a First Cause that brought the universe into being. Secondly, this First Cause must be greater in size and in kind than time, therefore the First Cause must be eternal and must itself have had no origin or beginning in time.>Third, since space stretches beyond the limits of human detection, the First Cause of space must be greater than this, and hence probably infinite. Fourth, the universe contains a lot of energy – in the sun, the stars, gravitational attraction, etc. The First Cause of all the energy in the universe cannot be less than the sum total of all the energy in the universe. So the First Cause must be omnipotent.
>Fifth, there is a vast information content in the universe – the intrinsic properties of matter and the genetic information in all the varied animal and plant life we see, living and extinct. The First Cause of all this information in the universe must be greater in size and in kind than all the information in the universe, therefore the First Cause must be all-knowing or omniscient. Sixth, we human beings have a personality and volitional will. In order to create the effect of personality in people, the First Cause must have personality. The effect (human personality) cannot be greater in size or in kind than the cause. Therefore human personality cannot have come from some impersonal “cosmic Force” of pantheism. Seventh, we (as human personalities) are interested in other personalities and so it is not unreasonable to suppose that the First Cause created us so that He (a personal Creator) could have fellowship with us and us with Him …>Of course it is also possible to show that according to mathematical sciences, such as probablility science - the idea that the cell was created is not a question but an absolute truth.
>For more on this topic you can go to www.creationnisme.ca .It's in french too!>Nicky