1. Conservation of mass and energy (e=mc2), first law of thermodynamics -- conservation of energy.

Science: It is OBSERVED and measured in the lab - -confirmed through science to be TRUE.

5 minutes before the "big bang" the law is preserved -- 1 second into the big bang story it is totally being violated. Shortly after the big bang we are back to preserving the law again.

2. Entropy - confirmed in the lab --

As atheist darwinist Isaac Asimov notes the story for molecule to human mind evolution requires a "MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy" over billions of years of time.

No such thing is observed in the lab.

3. Fossils "can not tell you who they are ancestor to or decendant of" -- this due to the limits of science when dealing with the fossil itself. (As Colin Patterson (atheist darwinist) - sr Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history confirmed).

And yet "stories easy enough to make up" about how one thing came from another - based on fossil evidence are everywhere in Darwinist material. Patterson argues "these are stories easy enough to make up -- but they are NOT science".


4. As objects approach the speed of light their effective mass increases and momentum approaches infinity. Yet the entire universe is speculated to have expanded many many times fater than the speed of light in the story of the Big Bang.

5. We have not been able to assemble even one single living cell from abiotic matter - and yet Darwinism is forced to speculate that this happened in nature through undirected natural processes - no matter what we see to the contrary in the lab.

By contrast SCIENCE shows us just how infinitely complex a single cell is BEYOND anything that Darwin had imagined!


FANTASTIC Animated Cell shows Protein Synth – argues ID
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSasTS-n_gM&feature=related

(Bottom line is that as chemistry is seen to be applied physics so microbiology is observed to be "applied chemistry" -- try getting out your chemistry set and making it do that!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WwIKdyBN_s&NR=1


Do you have other examples where the storytelling of Darwinism is forced to contradict observable science?

in Christ,

Bob

In my opinion SDA scientists and educators should be way out in front of this effort to define the difference between actual science and what passes for science but is in fact "stories easy enough to make up" about how one thing came from another.

Here is an example of a leading atheist darwinist proponent totally flummoxed when asked to give an actual example in nature of the most basic argument in Macro evolutionism.


Dawkins; 11 Second flummox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g


There is a skeptics site where he attempts to explain the innexplicable response he has to such a basic question -- and there we see him dig the hole even deeper.

Contrast this with the expected response from an actual Physics professor asked to "give an example of gravity where an object in space is seen to be pulled toward earth".

The careful study of that contrast is "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

in Christ,

Bob

Couple of problems in your first post there, Bob, just in relation to classification, before we even get to the content. I know you prefer the term 'Darwinism', but it really applies only to the biological processes of developing new species well adapted to their environment. So the issues about the Big Bang are unrelated to Darwinism.

I don't have time to get into the detail on each of the individual claims right now but will do so later this morning.

OK, let's have a go at Bob's specific points:



(as noted above, this relates to cosmology, not to the biological evolution with which Darwin concerned himself, so it's not really accurate to call it a problem for 'Darwinism')

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Big Bang. Nothing was conserved 5 minutes before the Big Bang, because there was nothing to *be* conserved. In fact, the phrase '5 minutes before the Big Bang' is meaningless, since time itself was created in the Big Bang - there was no time before that (for our universe at least). The Big Bang event is a singularity, a miracle if you like. The laws of physics themselves appeared at some point well after the beginning of the Big Bang, and didn't apply before that point. These are not simple things to understand, and I strongly recommend reading a good popular scientific account of the Big Bang. Space-time and matter-energy were created as part of the Big Bang event.



Yes it is, it is observed all the time. The key to understanding entropy is understanding that it increases for a system. In the case of life on earth, the system has to be at least as large as the solar system. Energy comes from the sun, comes to earth, passes through living things, and ends up as heat energy radiated off into space - the highest-entropy, most-disordered form possible. It makes no sense at all to consider the entropy for a single living thing in isolation, since if you stop feeding in low-entropy energy in the form of food or excreting high-entropy energy in the form of heat, you will very soon not be a living thing.

So the net entropy for the solar system: from the hydrogen in the sun fusing to produce energy all the way to the heat energy heading off into the universe, is increasing in accordance with the Second Law, exactly as we'd expect.



This is true: Sir Karl Popper considers *all* scientific theories, including those about gravity, as 'the free creations of the human mind'. We make our best informed guesses. The key step with science, though, is that we then test those guesses to destruction, trying to falsify them. We test them against the evidence, and if they are disproved we reject them.

Creationists often rail against the 'arrogance' of scientists, but they also often miss the humility of scientists. Scientists *know* that our scientific knowledge is tentative, incomplete and continually changing and growing. I've just finished reading Bill Bryson's excellent 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' from 2004 - and, because I've also just finished co-authoring a series of high school science textbooks, I know that there are quite a few areas where, even in those very few years since Bryson wrote, scientific knowledge has changed significantly.

So yes, there have been mistakes and dead ends, revisions and corrections in evolutionary biology. There will continue to be. But science is not Scripture - it never claimed infallibility, so its fallibility does not require it to be thrown out.



See above on the Big Bang. The speed of light is relative to the intertial frame (gravitational field, better understood as curved space-time) within which it moves and the expansion phase of the Big Bang was the *establishment* of space-time. The Big Bang was not matter exploding out into pre-existing space, it was the creation of space. For that reason, from a solid understanding of the Big Bang and general relativity, this critique is not coherent.



This is true - we understand vastly more about the incredible complexity of cells than Darwin did. In fact, we know vastly more today than we did a year ago, and so on.

And it's true: the question of where the very first life arose is a very, very difficult and vexed one. Scientists agree on that, and only have very tentative theories about how it happened. Incidentally, it's not really a question that Darwin concerned himself with, very much - he was much more concerned with the origin of species, as his book title suggests.

Of course, as I've said before, there are possible positions other than Young Earth Creationism and Atheistic Evolutionism. A Theistic Evolutionist position that simply suggests God touched off the Big Bang and God touched off life is completely consistent with all the evidence.

The argument that matter and energy are preserved -- neither created nor detroyed is not violated in that 5 minutes prior to the Big Bang in which "matter was neither created nor destroyed" as much as that might be a "detail" it is worth recognizing.

The argument that all of our laws of science did not apply there either -- is also extreme speculation since nothing in the lab is giving us that data.

The argument that "gravity did not exist" in the early moments AFTER the initiation of the Big Bang also is more speculation than lab "science".

The sequence for introducing barionic matter or even DM is also highly speculative since we have no way of doing it ourselves.

Basically - you have story telling going on and the bold statement that the events in the story DO NOT fit any science we know of!

But is ok to simply say - we are telling a story not doing science IF in fact that is all we have.

in Christ,

Bob

The problem is that we SEE entropy INCREASE in the lab EVEN though the "sun is shining outside".

We don't need the sun to "turn off" so that we can finally see entropy INCREASE in the lab.

Every chemical reaction completely described SHOWS an increase in entropy if you are not isolating one of the participants.



As I said - we can still make salt in the lab and SEE an increase in entropy simply using the reactants invovled -- no "sun shine" needed to see the increase.





The point is -- it is all just chemistry and no amount of sun shine brings a dead thing to life nor do we need sun shine before we can see entropy increase when we melt ice and ALSO increase when we freeze water in the lab, no sun shine needed in the equation for making sodium chloride as a precipitent before once again we see entropy increase!.

We SEE the increase in entropy at each point as long as all the reactants are accounted for.



I have yet to see a lab experiment that "needed the sun to shine" because no other source of light would yield an increase in entropy.

The space station still works when in the earth's shadow as do all those things we put up to orbit earth and moon as they are on the dark side. We don't find that entropy ceases while shielded from the sun.

The sun does not generate life from abiotic matter NOR does it even bring things back to life - and in fact it does kill things at specific intensity. It takes "chemical engineering" to USE sunlight. Gas floating by the sun will never produce a living cell much less a human mind.

Isaac Asimov's from "molecule to human mind" sequence requiring a MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy -- stands out by contrast to OBSERVED science.

in Christ,

Bob

I think you have sidestepped the point. IF fossils can not show us a transitional sequence "from ancestor to descendant" THEN we have no basis for arguing that transitions were ever seen - unless we actually see one in real life.

To show a transition between fossils you have to claim to know who it's ancestor was and who it's descendant is.

But as Patterson points out -- such a story is "not science".

Fundamental problem.

You argue that gravity is no more scientific - but I beg to differ with that equivocation between real science and what Patterson calls "stories easy enough to make up".

On behalf of real science as in the case of physics and gravity - WE DO see objects pulled toward the earth and we can measure the force of gravity acting AND we can even see the equivalence between gravity and acceleration.

By contrast -- there is no manipulation of reptiles that we can do - to see them become birds. As Patterson points out "there is no way of knowing" if Archaeopteryx is in fact "a transitional form" to or from anything!!

For the sake of this dicussion "real science" refers to math, physics, biology etc.






in Christ,

Bob

When you look closely - chemistry is merely applied physics.

Biology is merely applied chemistry.

Where the one who is applying the principles - is the master designer Himself.

But evolutionism by contrast is just story telling.

For the sake of the ID argument - I usually ignore the fact that chemistry itself is the work of the designer and let that be referenced as "natural causes" -- part of the background noise.

in Christ,

Bob

The sun shining is not the point. Net energy for a system is the point. The energy comes from somewhere, and all the energy in all the examples of lab reactions that you mentioned comes from the sun initially. If the ice is melted using gas, that's a fossil fuel, made from ancient plants, fed by the sun. And so on.

You're a smart man, Bob, but that whole response was very obtuse. My sole point was that you need to look at the energy flows in the whole system to be doing Thermodynamics properly... and looking at the body as separate from the environment is not doing that.

It's true that the Big Bang is speculative - it's very new science indeed. It's also true that it can't be observed in the lab. Thank goodness, because a new Big Bang in the lab would likely completely replace our existing universe with particles hotter than the heart of the sun in an instant! The idea that 'science is what we can observe in the lab' is very narrow, and for example gets rid of most of astronomy...