Creation vs. Evolution

First I must ask you, howcome "Fear is Religion" and "Courage is Science" when the Bible and Creationism teaches our origins with ever bit of scientific proof and evidence?

How come the Evolutionist cannot account for why The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which includes Entropy, does not apparently pertain to Evolution? It is a Law of Science isn't it? Wouldn't that mean that it is something that is for certain and cannot be proven wrong and that all theories must abide by it. Entropy states that everything gets less organized and degrades and less complex (That is of natural things). Evolution states just the oppisite, and says that everything gets more complex on its own and evolves. How is this possible?

"Fear believes--Courage doubts" Yes, in a way this is true. I, and many other Creationist are courgeous enough to stand against the flow and doubt the common and accepted (For who nows why it is) belief of Evolution. We search for proof and reasons to beleive what we beleive also, we do not just believe as you apparently used the "Fear believes" statement, we back up our beleif with Proof. We allow others to comment on our believes and are kind about it.

With the statement "Fear believes in witchcraft, devils and ghosts" you are also mistaken, because we do not believe in any of these things, at least the Born Again Christian, who is a Creationist, does not believe in any of these except the Devil who is real but not as the world portrays him.

Creationist do not beleive what they beleive because of Fear. If they did that would be very odd, because you believe in fear what you think you have to believe in because it is the most accepts, you fear that others will look down on you if you do not, whereas Creationist believe in the way less accepted view of Creation and do it in Courage, nowing that the one and only God will help them through.

Yup..had my eye on this forum for some time now and I just finally got an account. I am also a firm believer in a God created universe as the Bible states. Also I believe in the 7 literal days. I mean come on people, there are so man ways to disprove evolution, and in doing so prove that God created us.

As I stated in the begginning of this Thread, I believe in Creation as the Bible would present it. Now that everyone is begginning to actually believe that I am sincere in my effort to obtain knowledge of the subject, and that I am not trying to cause trouble, I can begin to give my beliefs. I hope that you will read over the below information, and then comment on your beliefs also, even if they may be the same.

First, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy is neither destroyed or created. This means that energy could not randomly appear, then create life. Especially, to go and all of a sudden a unicellular organism appears in this primordial soup, from who knows where, and is struck by lightning (Where did that come from), and then start "Evolving" into higher multicellular organism. How can this be? How can something come from nothing like this, and energy appears to start the process? Where did the Energy come from? Where did the unicellular organism come from?

I would like to get your opinions and comments on this part of the Creation vs. Evolution debate.

The Second Law merely states that net Entropy in the universe is always increasing. It does not say that disordered systems cannot become more ordered. It is true that in all reactions, a system prefers to become less ordered. However, things can become more ordered as long as the reaction has an sufficient input of energy.

I am sorry I must disagree with you. I find the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMIC is not a theory or philosphy as is Evolution, it is a firm undeniable LAW of PHYSICS and of LIFE. Everything gets less orderly. Nothing really ever gets better when you get down to it, as a whole.

If you do not believe that Entropy proves anything, here is something else to look at:

The Sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 foot per hour every hour. If the Earth was really as old as they say, life could not have formed, neither could Earth for that matter. Just a million years ago, the sun would have been too close. Comment on this.

This assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. That assumption is baseless. (In fact, it is the uniformitarian assumption that creationists themselves sometimes complain about.) Other stars expand and contract cyclically. Our own sun might do the same on a small scale.

There is not even any good evidence of shrinkage. The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades.

Also, while I agree with your assertion that the Second Law is undeniable Law, I disagree with your interpretation of it. What it really intends to say is that in any closed system, the energy within that system has a tendency to disperse away from concentration and toward equilibrium, unless it is hindered. The thing is that the Earth is not a closed system. The only truly closed system is the entire universe, so that is why the Law is listed in textbooks as, basically "The entropy in the universe is always increasing."

Think of a tire. Consider the tire and its surroundings to be a system. If you pop a tire, air is expelled because potential energy is concentrated in the tire, and it wants to reach equilibrium with its environment, thus increasing Entropy. On the other hand, if you pump the tire up it has an energy input and entropy within the open system decreases as energy becomes more concentrated.

Furthermore, it is oversimplistic to say "things never get better." If by better, you mean more orderly, that is simply not true. Water freezes, carbon crystallizes into diamond matrices, there are infinite examples in nature of things becoming more orderly.

I am sorry, I did not state that that is a unifomitarian concept, that of which I know is not right for this and many other instances. I do beleive that in the past the sun actually would have shrunk at a greater rate, due to it being hotter. But to easily put it in a formula, you use the uniformitarian concept that it stays the same and then you must realize that whatever your result is, the sun was actually bigger than what the calculation states

Here are some researchers who came up with the Sun's Rate of Shrinkage. "John A. Eddy (Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (a mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston) have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century…corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour." This was in fact in November of 1979. Another, "Evolutionists claim that the sun probably undergoes temporary shrinkages and expansions as small fluctuating oscillations on its overall regular evolutionary development.6 They point to other cyclic solar occurrences such as the 11-year sunspot cycle on the surface of the sun. This claim is made in spite of the evidence that the shrinkage rate of the sun has remained essentially constant over the past 100 years when very accurate measurements have been made on the size of the sun. Less accurate astronomical records spanning the past 400 years indicate the shrinkage rate has remained the same for the past 400 years." This is from the ICR (Institute of Creation Research). It states that it has been constant for the last 400 years from what we know.

According to you how long does it take for these the sun, or stars to "expand and contract cyclically"?

In the realm of Evolution, and of one unicellular organism, by complete chance, evolving into many different multicellular organism defying the law of Entropy. If the Law of Entropy applies to the Universe then why do you say that it does not involve Earth?

By the way, if there is certain name you would like for me to refer to you as, just tell me. You can call me Jordon. TY

I'm not saying it doesn't involve earth, I'm saying you're misinterpreting what the Second Law is. Creationists assume that a change characterized by a decrease in entropy can not occur under any circumstances. In fact, spontaneous entropy decreases can, and do, occur all the time, providing sufficient energy is available. The fact that the water wheel and pump are man-built contraptions has no bearing on the case: thermodynamics does not concern itself with the detailed description of a system; it deals only with the relationship between initial and final states of a given system (in this case, the water wheel and pump).

A favorite argument of creationists is that the probability of evolution occurring is about the same as the probability that a tornado blowing through a junkyard could form an airplane. They base this argument on their belief that changes in living things have a very low probability and could not occur without "intelligent design" which overcomes the laws of thermodynamics. This represents a fundamental contradiction in which (they say) evolution is inconsistent with thermodynamics because thermodynamics doesn't permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder, but creationism (in the guise of intelligent design) doesn't have to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

A simpler analogy to the airplane/junkyard scenario would be the stacking of three blocks neatly on top of each other. To do this, intelligent design is required, but stacking does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. The same relations hold for this activity as for any other activity involving thermodynamical energy changes. It is true that the blocks will not stack themselves, but as far as thermodynamics is concerned, all that is required is the energy to pick them up and place them one on top of the other. Thermodynamics merely correlates the energy relationships in going from state A to state B. If the energy relationships permit, the change may occur. If they don't permit it, the change can not occur. A ball will not spontaneously leap up from the floor, but if it is dropped, it will spontaneously bounce up from the floor. Whether the ball is lifted by intelligent design or just happens to fall makes no difference.

On the other hand, thermodynamics does not rule out the possibility of intelligent design; it is just simply not a factor with respect to the calculation of thermodynamic probability.

First of all, it should be noted that whenever one talks about the "evolution" of the sun, it has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution of Species.

I'm no astrophysicist, so I won't claim to have a theory on the frequency of any oscillations the diameter of the sun may be making, nor do I have any proof that it is oscillating at all.

That said, the notion that the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 feet per second originated from a study by Eddy and Boornazian, but it was popularized by one Russel Akridge. Exerpts from his writings on the subject are often cited by creationists. Strangely enough, he appears not to have even read Eddy and Boornazian's paper - he does not refer directly to it, but only to a popularization. It is also interesting to note that Akridge (as you do), implies that E&B observed 400 years of shrinking, whereas the title of the E&B paper is 'Secular decrease in the solar diameter, 1863-1953', with only a 90-year period. Despite these (and other) obvious flaws, Akridge's claim has nevertheless become standard creationist fare, repeated in numerous creationist publications. Eddy & Boornazian themselves do not interpret their result as evidence of an ongoing change. Their interpretation of their own data is dismissed out of hand by Akridge. Other measurements, not showing any significant shrinking, were available in 1980, but were completely ignored by Akridge. Subsequent measurements, published between 1980 and 1987, do not support Akridge's claim.

I would also note that the Institute of Creation Science is not exactly an objective source.. Nevertheless, a recent measurement of the solar diameter is that of Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998). From data taken over the period 1981-1988, they report a radius of 695,508 ± 26 km, with no evidence of change over time. Even over a small time scale such as this, their result shows no appreciable difference comparable to E&B's 5 feet per hour.

By the way Jordan, my name is Chris. Since it appears to be just us on here, feel free to email me at cwd128@psu.edu if you want to discuss this or anything else now or anytime.

Alright, Chris, you said, "First of all, it should be noted that whenever one talks about the "evolution" of the sun, it has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution of Species." I am talking about Evolution of everything. Not just limited to the Evolution of Species, but to Species and the entire Universe.

About the sun you said, "the notion that the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 feet per second originated from a study by Eddy and Boornazian", when the sun is shrinking 5 feet per HOUR. About it being from the Institute of Creation Research, it is literaly impossible to find a totally unbiased source. Everyone has their own oppinion and belief.

Lets keep the debate on here, I like here. This way others can put their oppinion in.

My mistake about the per-hour thing, just a typo hehe. I figured you meant the evolution of everything, but I wanted to make sure because alot of times in literature people will see the phrase "evolution of the sun" and connect it in their mind to the evolution side of the evolution/creation debate, it was just a sidenote.

And the reason I went on about Dr. Akridge's flaws is because he's the one who wrote the paper at ICR, I didn't really make that clear.

He says "Scientists have not always attributed the energy source of the sun to thermonuclear fusion. Prior to the discovery of thermonuclear fusion, Helmholtz predicted that the energy of the sun was supplied by the gravitational collapse of the sun.7 This model was accepted until the theory of evolution began to dominate the scientific scene. "

He *would* have a point, if he was actually living in Darwin's time.. He kindof ignores a century of scientific advances which confirm the energy source to be thermonuclear fusion.

I made another typo.. the Christensen study spanned 1991-1998 not 1981-1988

If the sun does occilate (however you spell that), it would not be disproof for Evolution, it could then very well fit their concept of our begginnings. Let us move on to another aspect of Evolution...

The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Here is a part from an ICR Article:

"Uranus is remarkable. Even though it rotates around the sun in the same direction as the other planets in an orbit inclined less than a degree (46') from the ecliptic (the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun), the axis of rotation of Uranus is nearly in the plane of its orbit. Thus, the inclination of the equator of Uranus to the plane of its orbit is 98°, and its axial rotation is retrograde. The five moons or satellites of Uranus move exactly in the equatorial plane of the planet and they revolve in the same direction as the planet rotates. Their motion, with respect to the remainder of the solar system, is, therefore, also retrograde. Thus the direction of the axial rotation of Uranus and the motion of its satellites is opposite to that predicted on the basis of an evolutionary origin.

Saturn has nine satellites. The motion of the outermost, Phoebe, is retrograde, moving in a direction opposite to the other eight moons and opposite to that predicted, of course, from an evolutionary origin. Jupiter has twelve satellites. The five inner moons revolve around their planet in orbits only slightly inclined to the planet's equator at distances from about 110,000 miles for the innermost to about 640,000 miles for the outermost. Then there is a group of three moons whose orbits are inclined to the planet's equator by almost 30° at distances of about 7 million miles from Jupiter. These three moons also revolve around the planet in the predicted direction. The four outer moons, however, move around the planet in retrograde motion, or opposite to that of the other eight satellites, at distances from about 12 to 13 million miles from the planet.

Neptune has two satellites. Nereid, a small moon, moves around Neptune in the predicted direction, but Triton, one of the larger satellites in the solar system with a mass almost twice that of the earth's moon, moves in a retrograde orbit."

The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, if I am correct, has the idea that if something was to slung off of some other spinning object that it would spin in the same ANGLE, and DIRECTION. Whereas Uranus is not at the same angle as the sun. Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus all of satellites that spin in the oppisite directions and at different angles. This is impossible to happen if it was a natural occurence, therefore implying a supreme being of some kind, being GOD, had to form the Solar System or it could not possibly have happened.

First of all, I couldn't find the article this is from but I'll try to rebuke it anyway. I haven't studied astronomy in awhile, so I'll admit I'm in no way an expert.

The Laws of Conservation of Momentum (angular included), merely state that momentum must always be conserved. The writer is correct to say that if the moons of the planets were merely "spinoffs" of the bodies they orbit, then they would orbit in the same direction, unless some collision changed that. It should be noted though that all of the planets orbit in the same direction, and I'd venture that 99% of the angular momentum in our solar system rests on those plantets' orbits and not their rotations or the orbits of their moons. That said, the writer seems to think that evolutionists say that the planets' moons were spun off from them. In fact, the universe was not created in this top-down manner but in a bottup-up way. Part of the hypothesis is that the nebula of gas and dust from which the solar system originated would accrete into planetessimals. Catastrophic collisions between these would be part of planet-building. Such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons.

The only moons that orbit retrograde are small asteroid-sized distant satellites of giant planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, plus Triton (Neptune's large moon) and Charon (Pluto's satellite). The former were probably asteroids captured by giant planets long after formation of the solar system. It is actually easier to capture into a retrograde orbit. The Neptune system also contains one moon, Nereid, with a highly eccentric orbit. It appears that some sort of violent capture event may have taken place. The Pluto-Charon system is orbiting approximately "on its side", technically retrograde, with tidally locked rotation. As these are small bodies in the outer solar system, and binaries are likely to have been formed through collisions or gravitational capture, this does not violate the nebular hypothesis.

Uranus is rotating more or less perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. This may be the result of an off centre collision between two protoplanets during formation. Venus is rotating retrograde, but extremely slowly, with its axis almost exactly perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. The rotation of this planet may well have started out prograde, but solar and planetary tides acting on its dense atmosphere have been shown to be a likely cause of the present state of affairs. It is probably not a coincidence that at every inferior conjunction, Venus turns the same side towards Earth, as Earth is the planet that contributes most to tidal forces on Venus.

99.9% of the angular momentum of the solar system is in the orbital motions. A "real" evidential problem would be presented if some of the planets orbited the Sun in the opposite direction to others, or in very different planes. However, all the planets orbit in the same direction, confirming the nebular hypothesis, and nearly in the same plane. A further confirmation comes from the composition of the giant planets, which are similar to the Sun's composition of hydrogen and helium. Giant planets could hold on to all their light elements, but small planets like Earth and Mars could not.

Hello everyone, I am new to this forum, and this is my first post here YAY! Since it seems that we are discussing the big bang theory here, allow me to interject my oppinion. I am also a Young Earth Creationist, and I beleive in the Six literal days of creation.

The first problem with the big bang involves the three predictions that the big bang theory makes, that the universe is expanding, that the cosmic background radiation exists and that the abundances of light elements are correct. The idea that the universe is expanding is based upon an assumption that may be false. This assumption is that the observed red-shift is a cosmological effect and is not an anomoly. Photographs taken by Halton Arp suggest the possibility that some objects which appear to be physically connected show widely divergent red-shifts. If it can be shown that the red-shifts are not cosmological, this would undermine Hubbles law, and the big bang theory. In the same way the cosmic background radiation could be a general nature of the universe, and have nothing to do with a big bang event.

Though these problems are not fatal by any means, superclusters have presented another problem for this theory. If the big bang occurred 20 billion years ago, it seems logical to assume that nothing in the universe can be older than this. Yet, mammoth clusters of galaxies have been discovered that are billions of light years across. Such clusters would take hundreds of billions of years to form, far longer than the universe has existed.
Another one of the large problems is that the universe according to the big bang theory must be smooth, and homogenus, however observation shows that matter in the universe is overall unequal, and is far closer to being described as discontinuous and clumpy than smooth and evenly distributed. Worse yet, all the alleged 'dark matter' has never been observed. however the background radiation conflicts with the distribution of the universe, because the background radiation at least from the data gathered by the Data from the COBE probe in 1989 seemed to be confirmed as perfectly smooth. These are huge problems for anyone who decides to beleive that the universe is the result of a Big Bang.

Though cosmology interests me, I would have rather discussed biology. but since thats where this thread has gone, I might as well stick to the topic.