Give Us Scientific Proof For Creationism

[Skankboy]

1. Choas can simply be said as the absence of order. God didn't create sin but sin still exist. Why becuase its the absence of his will.

Chaos and Order are not and either/or dynamic. Often it's just a matter of perspective.

[Yaoi Huntress Earth]

One problem I have with Creationism/Intelligent(they're pretty much the same thing in some forms) design is if there were only two people at the start of the world (Adam and Eve) so their kids would have to mate with each other to populate the world and then the genepool is cut even shorter during the flood when eight people who are spared (Noah, his wife, sons and daughters-in-law) with half of them being blood relatives, wouldn't this lead to a massive inbreeding problems? If you thought the European royal families were bad, this would be worse.

[Not4Prophet]

 

God makes every Goddamned little friggin' snowflake. That's why he's too busy this time of year to answer prayers.

 

 

Give one example of something you observed that came from chaos. Just one. Science has never observed this nor will they ever because the simple fact is if chaos did create the world then science is a waste of time.

 

Uh, FD, I already did.

 

Stop and think: Water vapor = chaos. Snowflake = ordered chrystalline formation with symmetry.

 

I could give more, like diamonds. And even more than that. Lots more.

 

Water vapor didn't come from chaos. You boil or heat water and you get vapor that vapor didn't just pop out of no where.

 

Simply because no two snowflakes are alike doesn't mean they came from chaos. No two bags of skittles are alike and they are created.

 

Diamonds come from coal and pressure.

 

If a diamond fell from the sky that might prove chaos but that doesn't happen. If I mixed up a bag of alphabet cereal and wound up with Othello or the Gaelic Wars that would prove order from chaos. But unfortunately we don't see that happen. You might get a sentence like See spot run or a word or two but immediately after its going to go right back to jibberish.

 

 

Water vapor is not "higher ordered" than snowflakes.

"Order" is potential.

Order does not come from chaos... Chaos, is a term used to describe the decay of order... the reduction of potential.

 

Water vapor has higher potential than a snowflake. It has more heat energy.

As the water vapor loses heat... as potential dissipates from higher to lower potential, the matter (water) finds an equilibrium state.

 

A snowflake is the result of seeking that equilibrium state.

The elecromagnetic domains of a "seed" particle which is usually a small bit of dust but can be anything as small as a single halide ion, catalyzes the condensation of water vapor into a solid with lower kinetic potential.

 

The result has structure, which we subjectively see as "order," but the potential of the snowflake is reduced, the snowflake is actually lower order, lower potential, than the water vapor.

The snowflake doesn't have structure because it gained potential, but because it lost potential.

The structure occurs because the water vapor seeks the lowest energy state possible when condensing onto the crystal. Condensation is a heating process. As the water vapor condenses and freezes, it releases heat.

If the difference in potential then is not great enough then the release of heat turns the precipitation into rain instead.

 

If you want to see what gave the water vapor the initial potential to become water vapor, go outside and look up.

 

Sunlight + liquid water = water vapor.

Again, the water seeks equilibrium with its environment.

When water evaporates, it reduces the energy of the liquid water.

Evaporation is a cooling process...

 

Add heat to liquid water and water vapor balances the heat of the liquid water EXACTLY, with the heat of the environment.

 

No magic... just physics.

 

Amino acids will form spontaneous structures for the exact same reason.

Above a solubility threshold, formation of additional of that amino acid requires more heat than is available to keep it in solution. Amino acids can join together, releasing heat back to the system.

Structures have been observed to form in exactly this way in amino acids.

 

It is because the system becomes LESS ordered that structures appear.

...and again. "Order" is potential... heat energy. It is NOT the structure with symmetry... That is the result of chaos... the loss of potential.

 

Life... CONDENSED out of higher energy potential and adopted structure to balance the heat energy of the environment. The higher potential was induced by ionizing radiation. The ionizing radiation came from... the sun.

[Shyone]

No magic... just physics.

 

Amino acids will form spontaneous structures for the exact same reason.

Above a solubility threshold, formation of additional of that amino acid requires more heat than is available to keep it in solution. Amino acids can join together, releasing heat back to the system.

Structures have been observed to form in exactly this way in amino acids.

 

It is because the system becomes LESS ordered that structures appear.

...and again. "Order" is potential... heat energy. It is NOT the structure with symmetry... That is the result of chaos... the loss of potential.

 

Life... CONDENSED out of higher energy potential and adopted structure to balance the heat energy of the environment. The higher potential was induced by ionizing radiation. The ionizing radiation came from... the sun.

I wasn't arguing "chaos" per se, but entropy. Water vapor has higher entropy/disorder than a snowflake.

 

Entropy has often been loosely associated with the amount of order, disorder, and/or chaos in a thermodynamic system. The traditional qualitative description of entropy is that it refers to changes in the status quo of the system and is a measure of "molecular disorder" and the amount of wasted energy in a dynamical energy transformation from one state or form to another.[

 

Changes in energy applied to water vapor can change a chaotic/disordered state into a more ordered state.

 

Order from Chaos.

 

Clearly water vapor is more disordered than the solid state (ice or snowflake).

[Not4Prophet]

No magic... just physics.

 

Amino acids will form spontaneous structures for the exact same reason.

Above a solubility threshold, formation of additional of that amino acid requires more heat than is available to keep it in solution. Amino acids can join together, releasing heat back to the system.

Structures have been observed to form in exactly this way in amino acids.

 

It is because the system becomes LESS ordered that structures appear.

...and again. "Order" is potential... heat energy. It is NOT the structure with symmetry... That is the result of chaos... the loss of potential.

 

Life... CONDENSED out of higher energy potential and adopted structure to balance the heat energy of the environment. The higher potential was induced by ionizing radiation. The ionizing radiation came from... the sun.

I wasn't arguing "chaos" per se, but entropy. Water vapor has higher entropy/disorder than a snowflake.

 

Entropy has often been loosely associated with the amount of order, disorder, and/or chaos in a thermodynamic system. The traditional qualitative description of entropy is that it refers to changes in the status quo of the system and is a measure of "molecular disorder" and the amount of wasted energy in a dynamical energy transformation from one state or form to another.[

 

Changes in energy applied to water vapor can change a chaotic/disordered state into a more ordered state.

 

Order from Chaos.

 

Clearly water vapor is more disordered than the solid state (ice or snowflake).

 

Only if you are defining "order" as a superficial appearance...

Entropy is the trend from higher to lower potential.

 

The entropy of a system can never decrease.

 

The precipitation of water vapor into a solid is not an increase in order...

It is the result of loss of potential.

 

sure... you can grow crystals and the molecules will line up neatly...

That isn't an increase in order.

 

Drop a boulder off a cliff. The potential is realized.

An increase in order would be rolling a boulder BACK UP THE CLIFF so that it once again had potential.

[Shyone]

 

The precipitation of water vapor into a solid is not an increase in order...

It is the result of loss of potential.

 

sure... you can grow crystals and the molecules will line up neatly...

That isn't an increase in order.

 

Drop a boulder off a cliff. The potential is realized.

An increase in order would be rolling a boulder BACK UP THE CLIFF so that it once again had potential.

I think you are confusing "potential" with entropy.

 

Here are some situations in which entropy increases:

 

The entropy increases whenever heat flows from a hot object to a cold object.

It increases when ice melts, water is heated, water boils, water evaporates.

The entropy increases when a gas flows from a container under high pressure into a region of lower pressure.

It increases when you spray something out of an aerosol can or you let air out of a tire

 

Here you can do the calculations yourself.

[Not4Prophet]

 

The entropy increases whenever heat flows from a hot object to a cold object.

It increases when ice melts, water is heated, water boils, water evaporates.

The entropy increases when a gas flows from a container under high pressure into a region of lower pressure.

It increases when you spray something out of an aerosol can or you let air out of a tire

 

 

The entropy increases whenever heat flows from a hot object to a cold object.

heat source: water vapor possessing heat... heat conduction to cold air -> equilibrium state -> ice crystal.

 

It increases when ice melts, water is heated, water boils, water evaporates.

heat source: solar radiation... Snow melts -> equilibrium state -> Liquid Water

 

The entropy of a system never decreases.

[Asimov]

The entropy of a system never decreases.

 

Closed system.

[Mr. Neil]

That's the view of Theistic Evolution, which isn't of a big concern for me.

It is for me, and I'll explain why, hopefully without completely derailing this topic. (...any more than it already has, anyway.)

 

 

Or maybe since God is all powerful and able to do anything him designing that didn't take much time at all.

Time? Much time?

 

Why would it take any time at all?

For that matter, what IS time? I'm tired of theists abusing this term as though the universe itself exists within time, and somehow the creation of the universe took time.

 

It's like that one Way Of The Master episode, where they represent the Big Bang as though it were an actual explosion, as if the universe exists in a vaccuum, and there's a vantage point from which said "explosion" can be observed.

 

 

Why because thats how God chose to do it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

 

 

3. Exactly and some how its scientific to believe this could happen and happen right the first time around with no guiding force. If evolution happened it would have been a miracle in which case that proves God's existance right there.

And this is why theistic evolution annoys me, because it warps what evolution actually is. What FaithDefector just described is NOT evolution, because he thinks that evolution is something that has to be guided.

 

But for those of us who've bothered to READ Origin of Species and a small fraction of the hundreds of publications that have come out since then, the whole point of evolutionary theory is to provide a framework from which a complex structure could arise without any guidance whatsoever. As I pointed out on my own blog recently, Origin Of Species was pretty much a refutation of Paley's Watchmaker, and any attempt to retrofit design into evolutionary theory is to miss the point.

 

Saying that evolution is a miracle is to say that you don't believe in evolution.

 

"WHOA, Neil! That's crazy talk! Where do you get off making such a bold and outlandish claim such as this?!"

 

Wait! I'm not done. Saying that evolution is a miracle is like saying that water freezing is a miracle. "Balderdash!", you say. "We know why water freezes. It's the inherent property of water which makes it become solid at low temperatures." Exactly! And guess what. We know why life evolves based on the inherent properties of life and what happens when life replicates. It's random mutation and natural selection. If you believe in evolution as a guided process, you've pretty much relieved BOTH of those components of their function, and what you have left is a very warped and contrived version of Intelligent Design.

 

So, either you believe in evolution, or you believe in design. You can't have it both ways, FailDefender.

[sudhamike]

I find myself literally compelled to attempt the impossible-convince christians of the reality of evolution, the age of the earth, scientific theory, etc. WTF is wrong with me?

[Dillinger]

its not easy to explain something to people who want to "believe" its so easy to asign anything to a god that is so hard to explain.

 

 

 

Away With All Gods!

Is believing in gods actually harmful?

How has Christianity for centuries served as an ideology of conquest and subjugation?

Why is the "Bible Belt" in the U.S. also the "lynching belt"?

Why is there a rise of religious fundamentalism throughout the world?

In the intensifying conflict between U.S. imperialism and Islamic fundamentalism,

is the only choice to take one side or the other?

Why is patriarchy and the oppression of women foundational to so many religions?

Can people be good without god?

[AlphaToOmega]

Creationist theory of life:

Let there be light.

[lostman42]

Here's the responses I get when I ask a creationist for proof.

1. Everything can't come from nothing.

2. Monkeys can't turn into humans

3. There are still monkeys so that disproves evolution

4. The odds that evolution would occur is smaller than the odds of a tornado in a junkyard creating an air plane.

5. Radiation dating is completely unreliable

6. If the world was millions of years old the moon would be covered in a layer of 50 feet tall dust.

7. Bible prophecies that have come true prove that the bible is 100 percent true.

 

God christians are idiots.

[Ouroboros]

Here's the responses I get when I ask a creationist for proof.

1. Everything can't come from nothing.

Or "something must come from something."

 

Which means in the believers view that "all this something must come from something, but that something did not come from something."

 

Good list, btw.

 

God christians are idiots.

Yup. I believe religion tends to stupefy people.

[LivingLife]

Creationist: 2 Chapters in genesis - easy

 

Realist: mountains of scientific research, evidence, fossil records, ice cores, varves, cave formations, old earth etc. IOW GB of info on the internet - hard

 

Conclusion

 

Creationists hate science cause its hard. Much easier to read genesis.

 

I did chuckle at the pier review on page 1

[PinkSky777]

For those that really are curious to know the Christian perspective on Creationist theories, below are two websites.

 

Creation Ministries International

Answers in Genesis

 

[LivingLife]

PinkSky

 

This is ex christian site. It's not like we do not know the AiG waffle. Not that we will bother clicking the link as they have no new information.

 

Let me offer you NoAnswersInGenesis All the AiG nonsense is refuted

[PinkSky777]

LivingLife,

 

Just as all the atheistic...uh.... theories are refuted by Creationists.

 

Being a Christian who likes to think and ponder, I know about your recommended website as well, but thank you anyway for wanting to help.

 

People here might know of those sights already, but random people stumbling in from Cyberspace may not! hehe

 

P.S. Do I use too many emoticons? Oh well....

[LivingLife]

LivingLife,

 

Just as all the atheistic...uh.... theories are refuted by Creationists.

 

Being a Christian who likes to think and ponder, I know about your recommended website as well, but thank you anyway for wanting to help.

 

People here might know of those sights already, but random people stumbling in from Cyberspace may not! hehe

 

P.S. Do I use too many emoticons? Oh well....

What atheist theories are refuted? You mean the mountains of evidence for evolution. If so please present them is a separate thread.

 

This one is for you theists to present positive proof of creationism. For example, the fossils of Adam and Eve would help your case immensely, after all, they should be no older that 6k or so and as such you should not have to dig too deep b/c I am sure you all know exactly where the GoE is - no?

[Sexton Blake]

My theory about creationists:

 

 

There is a long queue at the Pearly Gates and a nervous creationist is waiting in line. He listens to the sinners in front of him and they are all let in so he knows he's OK since he's a true believer in the lord.

 

It comes to his turn and St Peter looks through a scroll with his life story on and says "Hell!"

 

The creationist is shocked and can't believe it.

 

Creationist: "But I've always believed in the bible. I know god made the world in six days, and made Adam and Eve and that the evil serpent tempted them. I know how everything was created and I know it's all true."

 

St Peter: "But how about science which shows an old Earth in an older universe? How about science which shows Man has been around for millions of years?"

 

Creationist: "It's all lies. It contradicts the bible so it can't be true, despite them claiming they have proof."

 

St Peter: "But it is true. Science can be proved so it must be true. Creationism is a test and you failed it."

 

Creationist: "What do you mean 'failed'? I believed it all."

 

St Peter: "Of course you did but only an idiot would believe such nonsense and god does not want heaven to be full of idiots, so he made up creationism as a test."

 

The ground opens up under the creationist and he vanishes.

 

"Next please!"

[Sexton Blake]

LivingLife,

 

Just as all the atheistic...uh.... theories are refuted by Creationists.

 

 

Typical creationist lie which you cannot offer any examples of because there are none.

 

Being a Christian who likes to think and ponder, I know about your recommended website as well, but thank you anyway for wanting to help.

 

Creationists neither think nor ponder. That is why they are creationists.

 

People here might know of those sights already, but random people stumbling in from Cyberspace may not! hehe

 

 

The only site you need is talkorigins which explains why every creationist lie is wrong.

 

P.S. Do I use too many emoticons? Oh well....

 

Yes. No matter how many smilies you use, it does not improve a poor post.

[leftjohn]

The laws of thermodynamics tell us there is no such thing as a system that can sustain itself forever. Eventually, all systems run out of energy. No way around that.

 

Therefore, the universe cannot be viewed as eternal. The universe will eventually wind down and run out of energy. If it is not eternal, there had to be a point at which it was created. Some call this point of creation The Big Bang.

 

Even beyond the laws of thermodynamics, the overwhelming majority of evidence supports the theory of The Big Bang. For me, the most compelling evidence is the fact that the universe is expanding.

[oddbird1963]

Point of order. The Big Bang is the point of the sudden expansion of the universe. It has not been established that the universe was created at the point where the expansion began, only that spacet-time began.

[Ouroboros]

The laws of thermodynamics tell us there is no such thing as a system that can sustain itself forever. Eventually, all systems run out of energy. No way around that.

 

Therefore, the universe cannot be viewed as eternal. The universe will eventually wind down and run out of energy. If it is not eternal, there had to be a point at which it was created. Some call this point of creation The Big Bang.

 

Even beyond the laws of thermodynamics, the overwhelming majority of evidence supports the theory of The Big Bang. For me, the most compelling evidence is the fact that the universe is expanding.

That's not a proof of Creationism but rather just an argument for a problem with Big Bang.

[bornagainathiest]

More points of order, concerning the Big Bang.

 

If you are going to toe the Mainstream scientific line on this, then that means accepting the Cosmological science that supports the theory. Therefore, accepting the Big Bang theory means accepting the the universe inflated in size, super-luminally and exponentially, from a singularity with an infinite mass and energy, 13.7 billion years ago. If you accept the notion of Inflation, you also obliged (to maintain consistency with the math and the evidence) to accept the following notions.

 

1.

From the Wikipedia page on Inflation(Cosmology)

Inflation from the global point of view is often called eternal inflation. On a global constant-time slice, regions with inflation have an exponentially growing volume, while regions which are not inflating don't. This means that the volume of the inflating part of the universe in the global picture is always unimaginably larger than the part that has stopped inflating. If the probability of different regions is counted by volume, one should expect that inflation will never end, or applying boundary conditions that we exist to observe it, that inflation will end as late as possible. Weighting by volume is unnatural in the local point of view where inflation is not eternal—it eventually ends as seen by any single observer.

This is just what we (the observers) see.

To us, inflation appears to have ended, yet the maths clearly show that once begun, Inflation will either never end or won't end for many billions of years. In either case, inflation continues to create regions of the space-time continuum, much as it did with our universe. This process hasn't stopped, just because we (locally) see that it has appeared to stop. That kind of slamming-on-the-brakes runs contrary to the observed data, the maths and the underlying logic of Big Bang theory. Thus the universe we see is just an unimaginably small portion of an infinitely large and still-expanding whole.

 

2.

What the creator of Inflationary theory says about it's full consequences.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178

"I summarize the arguments that strongly suggest that our universe is the product of inflation. The mechanisms that lead to eternal inflation in both new and chaotic models are described. Although the infinity of pocket universes produced by eternal inflation are unobservable, it is argued that eternal inflation has real consequences in terms of the way that predictions are extracted from theoretical models. The ambiguities in defining probabilities in eternally inflating spacetimes are reviewed, with emphasis on the youngness paradox that results from a synchronous gauge regularization technique. Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past: it can be proven under reasonable assumptions that the inflating region must be incomplete in past directions, so some physics other than inflation is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region."

 

This is just what we (the observers) see.

The infinity of pocket universes that exist alongside ours are unobservable.

An inifinite quantity of pocket universes (ours being just one) is the logical outcome of the infinitely high mass and density of the initial singularity from which ALL currently existing universes are postulated to have come from. Postulating just one universe (ours) runs contrary to the basics of Big Bang theory. In short, it's cherry-picking to suit a desired outcome.

 

3.

The Thermodynamics of Infinity.

The Big Bang model requires a starting point of infinite density and energy, a.k.a. the singularity. Without this, there is no viable theory. It also requires that no false boundary be placed upon Inflation, once that process has begun. This is why Inflation cannot explain the existence of only one universe (ours), but aptly explains the existence of infinitely many.

Therefore, to invoke a boundary and then apply the use of the Law of Thermodynamics is a misuse of both the Big Bang model and Thermodynamic theory.

 

(cont...)