NFLP

Would anyone care to respond to one or more of the following? They are presented by a man who claims to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit with the gift of teaching.


The Creation Model

Have you researched the theory of creation? Are you a believer in the evolution of species? The following ten facts show how the theory of creation is much more scientific than the theory of evolution. Frankly, the creation model answers the questions regarding our origins much better and much more scientifically than evolution can.

Cause and Effect

An omnipotent Creator is an adequate First Cause for all observable effects in the universe, whereas evolution is not an adequate cause. The universe could not be its own cause.

Relativity

Einstein emphasized that all frames of reference as to size, position, time and motion in the world are relative, not absolute. This argues that the universe cannot be an absolute existence. Since it could not produce itself, it must be in existence due to the omnipotence of an external Creator, who is Himself it's absolute standard.

Motion

The universe is not static; everywhere in space and time occur phenomena and processes. These manifest omnipresent energy perpetually generating motion. Even matter is composed of particles in constant motion. This fact argues for an omnipotent Cause of such energies and motion and also for a completed creation in the past, in accord with the creation model. That is, there is a "hierarchy of movements"; one type of movement or dynamic law does not evolve into another.

Energy Conservation

Energy is the fundamental physical entity and exists in a variety of inter-convertible forms. Everything that exists in space and time is energy and everything that happens is energy conversion. The Law of Energy Conservation - "energy can be converted from one form onto another, but can neither be created nor destroyed" - is the most important and best-proved law in science.

"This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make." - Isaac Asimov

Mass-Energy Equivalence

The inter-convertibility of matter and energy is one of the great discoveries of the 20th Century science. Therefore, matter can now be regarded as a form of energy, with the total of mass and energy being conserved in nuclear reactions. Apart from such reactions, matter itself is always conserved, as predicted from the creation model.

Classification and Order

The fact that categories of natural phenomena can be arranged in orderly classification systems (table of chemical elements, biological taxonomy as in the Linnaean system, a hierarchy of star types, etc.) is a testimony to creation. That is, if all entities were truly in a state of evolutionary flux, classification would be impossible. In biological classification, for example, it would be impossible to demark where "cats" leave off and where "dogs" begin. Similarities in structure, therefore, do not necessarily imply evolutionary descent from a common ancestor; an alternative and better explanation is that of creation by a common Designer of similar structures for similar functions and different structures for different functions.

Processes

Every unit of matter in the universe interacts in various ways with other units of matter or energy. The universe is dynamic, forces are interacting, processes are taking place, events are happening, energy is being utilized and work is being done. All of this activity speaks of orderly and meaningful purpose in the universe, not random stumbling and bumping. Were it not so, there would be no point to scientific study at all. "Meaning" and "purpose" in turn are predictions of the creation model.

Forces and Fields

Inter-actions in nature depend upon three types of force and the "fields" associated with them; namely, electromagnetic, gravitational and nuclear forces. All three have apparently always acted as they do now, since the beginning of the universe. There is no evidence that these entities have ever "evolved" into their present form. The field action is propagated through free space in the form of wave motion (electromagnetic waves, gravitational waves, etc.) at the same speed as that of light, 300,000,000 meters per second. There is a real mystery in this wave phenomenon because it takes place in the "nothingness" of free space - a vacuum. What vibrates in this wave motion? No one has answered that question, but it is a doubly puzzling problem for evolution. It is unlikely that wave phenomena could evolve in the void of a vacuum where there is nothing to evolve from.

Environmental Interdependence

In nature, systems normally are integrated with their environments in such marvelous ways as to give the strong appearance, at least, of creative forethought. In the organic realm, natural selection acts as a conservative mechanism to screen out any novel features which intrude on a previously adjusted system, thus tending to preserve the status quo in nature. On the other hand, if the environment itself changes, there is usually enough variational potential in the created genotype to allow it to adjust to the new environment before it is eliminated. The environment coupled with natural selection constitutes a powerful cybernetic device to conserve the created kinds and the balance of nature. This is exactly what one would predict from the creation model.

Energy Decay

Finally, there is the remarkable fact that all processes involve energy changes and these changes always tend to go in a "downward" direction, resulting in a net decrease in the "availability" of the converted energy for further useful work. Although the Law of Energy Conservation (the First Law of Thermodynamics) assures us that no energy will be destroyed, this Law of Energy Decay (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) tells us that energy continually proceeds to lower levels of utility. The Creation Model predicts directional changes in an initially perfect system are bound to be in the direction of imperfection.

"What the Second Law tells us, then, is that in the great game of the universe, we not only cannot win; we cannot even break even!" - Isaac Asimov

Doubting Didymus

Only two of these seem to have any kind of relevance to evolution at all. The others are all physics.

The author suggests: "because phylogenic classification is so obvious and easy, it must be the work of god"

Obviously, the author has never experienced phylogenic work. Biological phylogeny is hard. REALLY hard, precisely BECAUSE organisms are in a constant state of change.

The problem here is with one single erronious assumtion: that natural selection screens out novel features. Perhaps he can explain how natural selection favours a normal organism over its brother, who has a benifical mutation?

The fact is: natural selection does not favour the average organism, only the organism with the best genes. Once we insert this into the above argument, the environment + natural selection no longer supports the status quo, but supports an ever increasing journey toward better survivability.

The rest is physics, which has nothing to do with evolution.

K

Besides the gross lack of understanding of basic priciples, a criminally unorthodox definition of scientific, and directly contradictory statements, one thing really caught my attention. Does this guy actually believe that evolution is supposed ot suggest that EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE evolved into existence? I found the part about EM fields unable to evolve in the vacuum of space particularly entertaining.

euphoric

Well, he's certainly indwelt with a gift for bullshit. Not a special gift, mind you. None of these arguments are particularly original, but it's a gift nonetheless.

-brett

Nickle

Well let me give an in-depth respose to one of the points:

dumbass.

Thank you, if there are anymore biology questions I'd be happy to help.

Albion

As predicted from the creation model? Exactly how does the creation model predict conservation of matter (or even of matter plus energy)? I thought God could create anything he wanted and change the laws of nature at will.

Steven Carr

Actually, life does not violate the 2nd Law.

Living things produces a great many waste products.

We digest food and the final end-product is usually a lot simpler than the complex proteins in the food.

Why, even the preacher appears to exemplify the rule, judging by the amount of bullshit he produces.

Oolon Colluphid

Which is due to atoms being made of discrete bits: relevantly (ie ignoring neutrons), electrons and protons. One electron, negatively charged, and one proton, positively charged, equals one hydrogen atom. Two of each gives helium. And so on. If the electrons and protons aren’t in equal numbers, you get an ion. Depending on the numbers of these bits, the atoms can combine with other elements to make molecules. (Which leads to the A Level catch-all answer to any chemistry question: shielding. ) That is why these things form an ordered periodic table. There’s no mystery about it, it’s an automatic inevitability, caused by elements being made up of discrete bits. How does this evince creation?

Bwahahaha! This guy will easily be able to resolve whether Malagasy civets should be in the Viverridae or Herpestidae then! Perhaps he can tell us why the distinguishing features of the Elapidae (esp their fangs) are developed to various extents in a range of other snakes? Are the cynodont therapsids reptiles or mammals? Are skinks and flap-footed lizards the same ‘kind’ as snakes? How about amphisbaenians and slow-worms? And surely a hierarchy of groupings strongly implies evolution?

... is a new one on me. Don’t the classes of star blur at the edges? I’d have thought that things like temperature and mass would be things in a continuum, and so there wouldn’t be discrete sorts...?

By George, he’s got it, as far as biology is concerned... he just doesn’t know it!

You mean, like the way it’s impossible to say where one <a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/ring_species.html" target="_blank">ring species</a> becomes another...? Like the way it’s impossible to say where hooded crows leave off and carrion crows begin in Scotland? He defined ‘kind’ at the outset, of course...?

Like the way bird, bat, pterosaur and insect wings are constructed differently (in insects, very very differently).

Like the way bats have a tidal respiratory system which is less efficient to the through-flow one of birds.

Like the way the same framework of bones is used by dogs to run on and bats to fly with.

Like the way the same routing of the recurrent laryngeal is used despite being a waste of material, whether in whale or wolf.

Give the guy a clue, someone, urgently...

Cheers, Oolon

Steven Carr

'Apart from such reactions, matter itself is always conserved, as predicted from the creation model.'

I like this one. Surely one fairly obvious prediction from a theory that matter can be created at will, is that the amount of matter might change.

Wyz_sub10

Ummm...yeah...kind of like they had a common ancester with a series of small modifications that led, over many, many generations to differentiation.

So now that he's argued *in favour* of evolution, will he now use physics to support science over religion?

Oops! Looks like he did!!

Unless he's saying that god tends toward imperfection.