KnightWhoSaysNi

That's ~65 million years actually.

Even your creationist friends at AiG know not to use this argument:

From Arguments we think creationists should not use

Check scigirl's link too.

As a Catholic, any chance do you find these quotes familiar?

Albert Cipriani

Dear Scigirl,
Thanks for those most informative links. I withdraw my throwaway comment about the Paluxy Riverbed footprints. I’d only heard of them in popular literature and it is not a central support beam to my hovel of evolutionary thought. I freely and happily admit my need to educate myself in these technical matters. I appreciate being brought up short by you on that count.

The other two issues, timeline and chromosomes, your links, tho wonderfully informative, were off the mark. I’ve never questioned the timeline of the earth (4 billion) or Big Bang (12 – 14 billion), only the timeline of man. And the methodology (chromosomes) whereby we owe our design is not the issue but whether or not that methodology can re-design itself by chance.

I’m intrigued to learn that man’s chromosome #2 is a fusion of two different chimpanzee chromosomes. But this, to me, is what I would expect as nothing more than an elaboration of “The Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth” (Genesis 2:7), i.e., we were designed from pre-existing matter as opposed to the angels who were created ex nihilo.

I have come to my creationist views through the backdoor of abstraction, (In short, complexity cannot arise from simplicity, only devolve into simplicity; or to put an even finer point on the pin: Chance is not a methodology.) not the front door of hard science. The extent of my soft science on this topic comes from the decidedly un-rigorous book “The Death of Evolution” by Wallace Johnson.

So if I am destined to “lose” my arguments with you, I will have lost nothing, but rather, I will have gained. And I will be indebted to you, not antagonist towards you.

I apologize in advance and retroactively for any comments that may seem arrogant or demeaning. (Moderators Jobar and Diana, not to mention my wife, keep pointing out this personality defect, which I suspect is genetically related to my finding the Three Stooges funny.) I simply enjoy roughhousing with my fellow mortals in our mutual struggle with the Truth as we have the light to see it. If Jacob could wrestle all night long with God and received a blessing for it (Genesis 30), what’s a little rough and tumble among His creatures? – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic
Albert's Rants

KnightWhoSaysNi

Just to clarify things, human DNA wasn't a result of the fusion of chimp chromosomes, it was a common ancestor of chimps and humans (a now extinct ape-like animal) millions of years ago that gave birth to an individual with fused chromosomes. All human beings descended from this individual.

Also, are you saying that the fusion of chromosomes (and extra centromere and telomeres) that we see is merely God using apes as spare parts for humans? But don't you think it's pretty weird that God would design life in a way that looks exactly like common ancestry? Why would God be so deceptive?

pz

Chimpanzees are "the slime of the earth"? That is most unkind.
That is an assertion unsupported by the evidence, and actually in contradiction to observation.
Sure it is. Of course, evolution is more than chance, too.

Albert Cipriani

Nightshade:
That’s a crude way of saying it, but yes.

This Creationist doesn’t have a problem with “common ancestry” if by that term you mean the stuff of creation being put to a higher use as the stuff of mankind. We see the same process in a less fundamental way when we eat a baloney sandwich, flour and God-only-knows-what is transubstantiated into who we are.

I’d call it poetic, not deceptive. Poetry works on multiple levels. A single line or even a single word often has many applicable meanings. That’s high level, a sign of a creative creator, not a deceptive one. If we delight in how poets get double-duty out of their arrangement of our alphabet why not react with delight that God gets double-duty to a power of 10 out of His arrangement of the G’s A’s C’s T’s of our life’s genetic code? Such virtuosity is a delight not a deceit. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic
Albert's Rants

Albert Cipriani

Dear PZ,
Is not!

Anticipated retort from PZ:
Ergo, let’s not assert our assertions about the other’s assertions. My assertion that complexity devolves rather than evolves is based upon the second law of thermodynamics that posits all things are moving toward heat death, an energy state of zero, the molecular equivalent of simplicity.

What evidence is your counter-claim based upon, the fossil record? – Albert the Traditional Catholic

pz

Oh, no...so now you're going to add your misconceptions about the second law of thermodynamics to the cavalcade of cliched creationist misconceptions you've been shoveling here?

The SLoT doesn't apply. If it did, you wouldn't be here -- or are you going to claim now that your progress from single-celled zygote to your current state was a continual devolution, that you are now simpler than you were at fertilization? It should be apparent that our local environment quite often increases in complexity.

Your claim is ridiculous. It not only suggests that you are unlettered in basic science, but that what little uninformed consideration you've applied to the subject has been shallow and erroneous in the most patently obvious fashion.

Gregg

Thanks scigirl! And I wrote it on Monday morning! How do you explain that, except by giving all the credit to Gawd?

Feel free to use it without attribution!

Gregg

Baloo

Albert,

Welcome to the E/C forum. The second law of thermodynamics says that order can only come about from disorder at the net expense of energy. A child may wish that this weren't the case, that once their room is knee-deep in toys, they could simply say "to clean this would require an increase in order, which violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics". Unfortunately, grown-ups know the truth of the matter: of course the room can be cleaned up and ordered, it's just gonna take a little elbow grease is all.

The theory of evolution holds that organisms have become increasingly complex over a period of 4 billion years - that is, that a tremendous amount of order has been added to the organic chemicals that now comprise what we call the environment. You are correct when you posit that, lacking a source of energy, this increase in complexity and order would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Thus, to show the theory of evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you simply need to argue that the earth did not have any external source of energy for the last 4 billion years.

By the way, this is also in AiG's list of arguments creationists should not use.

Doubting Didymus

Dear albert.

You seem quite unique among most creationists in that you at least appear to be willing to learn, refine your veiws, etc. I commend you.

If that is the case, I suggest you take the small amount of time it will take to learn just a little about the second law of thermodynamics. It will not be difficult, a simple search on google should suffice. (I don't want to link you to talkorigins as that seems to put creationists off somewhat). The questions you need to get answered are:

What kind of system does the second law of thermodynamics apply to?

and: In this context, what kind of system is the earth?

Edit: I see that gregg has already answered this for you. Never mind.