Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Couple of real quick comments this morning, and then I'm off for kinda a busy day:
1-Trebek, we welcome your participation here but I just want to make sure you're actually reading the books. All of us can comment on our personal beliefs and experiences but this thread is kinda reserved for folks reading these books. Have you picked up the Geisler book because I'd like to see how it effects your current Buddhist leanings, although I thought I had seen you say you were Christian, but that, like all OT comments, is for another thread. Hope you'll get the book if you don't have it already.
2-GCSTroop, I gotta address this quote, bolded emphasis mine to specifically highlight my issue:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
Another thing that I found interesting is that he mentioned macroevolution never having been witnessed. Well, that's a pretty easy thing to take out of proportion. Because what the author seems to forget is that macroevolution takes MILLIONS of years.
OK, my issue with this is quick and I won't elaborate too much. With the specific aspects of this never witnessed, you need a big, fat 'evidently' between 'macroevolution' and 'takes'.
Since it's never been witnessed, an Evolutionist's 'god of the gaps' is time.
It's exactly why, when I was in grade school, the earth was supposedly about 3-4 million years old, and now it's several billion years old. As we progress and folks are unwilling to admit that macroevolution simply doesn't occur, we'll be told it's older and older and that this process 'evidently' takes longer and longer.....
Again, since it's never been witnessed, an Evolutionist's 'god of the gaps' is time, we all have some G(g)od in our gaps, don't we?
Your sentences would look like this:
Another thing that I found interesting is that he mentioned macroevolution never having been witnessed. Well, that's a pretty easy thing to take out of proportion. Because what the author seems to forget is that macroevolution evidently takes MILLIONS of years.
Couple of real quick comments this morning, and then I'm off for kinda a busy day:
1-Trebek, we welcome your participation here but I just want to make sure you're actually reading the books. All of us can comment on our personal beliefs and experiences but this thread is kinda reserved for folks reading these books. Have you picked up the Geisler book because I'd like to see how it effects your current Buddhist leanings, although I thought I had seen you say you were Christian, but that, like all OT comments, is for another thread. Hope you'll get the book if you don't have it already.
2-GCSTroop, I gotta address this quote, bolded emphasis mine to specifically highlight my issue:
OK, my issue with this is quick and I won't elaborate too much. With the specific aspects of this never witnessed, you need a big, fat 'evidently' between 'macroevolution' and 'takes'.
Since it's never been witnessed, an Evolutionist's 'god of the gaps' is time.
It's exactly why, when I was in grade school, the earth was supposedly about 3-4 million years old, and now it's several billion years old. As we progress and folks are unwilling to admit that macroevolution simply doesn't occur, we'll be told it's older and older and that this process 'evidently' takes longer and longer.....
Again, since it's never been witnessed, an Evolutionist's 'god of the gaps' is time, we all have some G(g)od in our gaps, don't we?
Your sentences would look like this:
Another thing that I found interesting is that he mentioned macroevolution never having been witnessed. Well, that's a pretty easy thing to take out of proportion. Because what the author seems to forget is that macroevolution evidently takes MILLIONS of years.
I understand what you are saying but the problem is that we have only even thought of evolution as a possibility in the past 150 years or so. I don't think we've truly tried to study until the early 1900's. To say it hasn't been witnessed yet is pretty obvious to me.
Couple of real quick comments this morning, and then I'm off for kinda a busy day:
1-Trebek, we welcome your participation here but I just want to make sure you're actually reading the books. All of us can comment on our personal beliefs and experiences but this thread is kinda reserved for folks reading these books. Have you picked up the Geisler book because I'd like to see how it effects your current Buddhist leanings, although I thought I had seen you say you were Christian, but that, like all OT comments, is for another thread. Hope you'll get the book if you don't have it already.
2-GCSTroop, I gotta address this quote, bolded emphasis mine to specifically highlight my issue:
[/b].[/i][/indent]
Alpha,
1) I agree, discussions here should be based on our opinions after having read the book. At the same time, anyone can jump in whenever they feel like it. Or, we can always start another thread to discuss other opinions that are not in light of reading the book
2) The other thing about macro evolution taking "millions of years" was addressed by the authors in the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that everything goes from organized to disorganized and the more time you give it the more disorganized it gets. It will not get more organized as time goes on. In this physics law we see that this macro evolution that we have never seen nor found fossil records for (in transitional animals) is that way because no matter how long you wait it isn't happening.
Also I thought I'd post this link: I think this is a marvelous discovery.
Study: Dinosaurs coexisted with their ancestors - CNN.com (broken link)
Of course, I know what the other side says. The earth is only 6000 years old right?
Well since they haven't found any complete skeletons it will be interesting to see what happens here at this site. But you know if the earth is 250 million years old...and macroevolution takes "millions" of years that doesn't leave a lot of room for all these changes to occur really does it? We should see tons of evidence for the huge transitions that have happened.
Couple of real quick comments this morning, and then I'm off for kinda a busy day:
1-Trebek, we welcome your participation here but I just want to make sure you're actually reading the books. All of us can comment on our personal beliefs and experiences but this thread is kinda reserved for folks reading these books. Have you picked up the Geisler book because I'd like to see how it effects your current Buddhist leanings, although I thought I had seen you say you were Christian, but that, like all OT comments, is for another thread. Hope you'll get the book if you don't have it already.
2-GCSTroop, I gotta address this quote, bolded emphasis mine to specifically highlight my issue:
OK, my issue with this is quick and I won't elaborate too much. With the specific aspects of this never witnessed, you need a big, fat 'evidently' between 'macroevolution' and 'takes'.
Since it's never been witnessed, an Evolutionist's 'god of the gaps' is time.
It's exactly why, when I was in grade school, the earth was supposedly about 3-4 million years old, and now it's several billion years old. As we progress and folks are unwilling to admit that macroevolution simply doesn't occur, we'll be told it's older and older and that this process 'evidently' takes longer and longer.....
Again, since it's never been witnessed, an Evolutionist's 'god of the gaps' is time, we all have some G(g)od in our gaps, don't we?
Your sentences would look like this:
Another thing that I found interesting is that he mentioned macroevolution never having been witnessed. Well, that's a pretty easy thing to take out of proportion. Because what the author seems to forget is that macroevolution evidently takes MILLIONS of years.
I considered myself a Christian Buddhist, but that offended too many people so I'm focused on strict Buddhism (don't want to be a fence straddler ya know). I was trying to make comments based on observations of other comments pretaining to the book. I was merely pointing out that science cannot disprove the existance of a Divine Creator but I'll stay out if thats OT.
2) The other thing about macro evolution taking "millions of years" was addressed by the authors in the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that everything goes from organized to disorganized and the more time you give it the more disorganized it gets. It will not get more organized as time goes on.
Creationists completely distort the meaning of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Here's a very brief description from the internet:
Quote:
The second law of thermodynamics is a general principle which places constraints upon the direction of heat transfer and the attainable efficiencies of heat engines.
This is the type of work that was useful in understanding practical matters such as steam engines and how they function. It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or things getting more complex. And when you consider how much more complexity there is in the modern world as compared to a century ago it's obvious that their references to thermodynamics fall flat on their face.
Montana,
Here is the complete definition. Entrophy = disorder. I don't see a Christian bias here.
Second law of thermodynamics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy. In simple terms, it is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how far along this evening-out process has progressed. The most common enunciation of second law of thermodynamics is essentially due to Rudolf Clausius:
“ The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. ”
There are many versions of the second law, but they all have the same effect, which is to explain the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.
Well since they haven't found any complete skeletons it will be interesting to see what happens here at this site. But you know if the earth is 250 million years old...and macroevolution takes "millions" of years that doesn't leave a lot of room for all these changes to occur really does it? We should see tons of evidence for the huge transitions that have happened.
The thing is the earth isn't 250 million years old. In fact, the time period in which the dinosaurs were around was 250 million years ago. Multiply 250 million by about 18 and now you're looking at the age of the earth....
Montana,
Here is the complete definition. Entrophy = disorder. I don't see a Christian bias here.
Second law of thermodynamics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy. In simple terms, it is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how far along this evening-out process has progressed. The most common enunciation of second law of thermodynamics is essentially due to Rudolf Clausius:
“ The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. ”
There are many versions of the second law, but they all have the same effect, which is to explain the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.
Jazzed I want to give you a perfect reason why you can't use any theory with physics and apply it to biology. By what you are saying, is that the universe must get more chaotic as it uses up energy, correct? Why are we here? Think about the answer that everyone agrees on. We are here because our parents got us here. They "created" us. How did they create us? Father had a sperm. What did the sperm come from? The sperm came from a cell. Where did the cell come from that created the sperm? By using your Second Law of Thermodynamics you are saying that no one on Earth creates a sperm in which to fertilize an egg because the chaotic state of the universe would not allow it. The same can be said for a mother and her egg.
If you want to talk about what happens in the universe when something runs out of energy the best example would be a black hole. A black hole is a star that has burned up and collapsed inwards upon itself forcing a massive gravitational pull that not even light can escape from. That is catastrophic. But, the birth of a newborn baby is not and it happens every day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
