Darwins Theory of Evolution is not Fact, it is merely Theory

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Well, if the universe itself were a closed system then logically it should never have had any order at all, which probably indicates either that it's not a closed system or that there is something that we fundamentally don't yet understand.

xaos

For something to experience a decrease in entropy, it must have energy inserted into it; would it not logically follow, then, that something that has never received an influx of energy, ever, could not possibly be in any other state, and that, if the universe has existed as a closed system for an infinite period of time, that it would effectively have always been at that state of maximum entropy, given that it takes a finite amount of time to reach such a state?

I mean I suppose one could postulate that the universe suddenly came into being from nothing in a relatively ordered state, but that would seem like a rather strange thing to have occurred, which would come back to my statement that it would be indicative either that the universe is not a closed system or of something we fundamentally don't understand.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Well, if the universe itself were a closed system then logically it should never have had any order at all, which probably indicates either that it's not a closed system or that there is something that we fundamentally don't yet understand.

GabuEx

For something to experience a decrease in entropy, it must have energy inserted into it; would it not logically follow, then, that something that has never received an influx of energy, ever, could not possibly be in any other state, and that, if the universe has existed as a closed system for an infinite period of time, that it would effectively have always been at that state of maximum entropy, given that it takes a finite amount of time to reach such a state?

I mean I suppose one could postulate that the universe suddenly came into being from nothing in a relatively ordered state, but that would seem like a rather strange thing to have occurred, which would come back to my statement that it would be indicative either that the universe is not a closed system or of something we fundamentally don't understand.

Well, the whole infinite period of time thing is contrary to our current understanding of the universe; as far as I've seen, all cosmological models today tend to assume a finite time span for our universe to have existed, with a definite starting point. Whatever immediately preceded the Big Bang seems like it wasn't really subject to the physical laws that otherwise govern our universexaos

Well, yes, hence my statement that it is indicative either that the universe is not a closed system or of something that we fundamentally don't understand.

[QUOTE="xaos"]Well, the whole infinite period of time thing is contrary to our current understanding of the universe; as far as I've seen, all cosmological models today tend to assume a finite time span for our universe to have existed, with a definite starting point. Whatever immediately preceded the Big Bang seems like it wasn't really subject to the physical laws that otherwise govern our universeGabuEx

Well, yes, hence my statement that it is indicative either that the universe is not a closed system or of something that we fundamentally don't understand.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="xaos"]Well, the whole infinite period of time thing is contrary to our current understanding of the universe; as far as I've seen, all cosmological models today tend to assume a finite time span for our universe to have existed, with a definite starting point. Whatever immediately preceded the Big Bang seems like it wasn't really subject to the physical laws that otherwise govern our universexaos

Well, yes, hence my statement that it is indicative either that the universe is not a closed system or of something that we fundamentally don't understand.

It strikes me that the universe not being a closed system wouldn't really answer the ultimate question, anyway: if the universe was created and/or influenced by something, then what's up with that thing? It just moves the question up a level.

Either way, some funny business is clearly afoot here with this whole "existence" thing. :P

I don't know if I should be overly joyed that I could understand that conversation, or realize I need to get out more being that I'm still in first year university. :P

[QUOTE="gaming25"]Here is what I was trying to tell you explained further... "The questioner sets Moses against himself in Genesis chapters 1 & 2. It would seem to me that if there was a contradiction between the two accounts, Moses ought to have caught it prior to finishing his work. Yet Moses seemingly made no effort to correct any supposed error, nor did he acknowledge any such error. Genesis 1 provides a chronological order of creation. The tasks of each day are for our knowledge of the creation account. Genesis 2 is not a chronological account, nor is there anything in the text which would cause us to consider it to be. It is noteworthy that in Genesis 2, Moses records the works of God's creation in relation to man. -- God planted a garden and put the man in it (v 8, 15) -- God brought the beasts of the field before the man to be named (v 19-20) -- God took a rib from man, and created woman for him (v 21-25). The questioner makes some false assumptions and assertions which ought to be addressed: Regarding Day 6, the Scripture does not say that man and woman was made "...at the same time..." They were created in the same day, but not at the same time. Regarding "days", "evenings", and "mornings", the questioner scoffs at the idea that such distinctions could exist before the Sun was created. Do we need to see the sun for it to be day? Must we see the moon for ti to be night? If so, the extreme artic has no night through the summer months, and no day through the winter months. However, 1:3-5 mentions God's establishment of Day and Night. Moses' mention of "evenings" and "mornings" coincides with the Jewish clock, wherein the days run from sunset to sunset. Indeed, Elohim is plural. The same word is used in Deuteronomy 6:4, where Moses writes, "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD." The question then is how can more than one be one? Well, in marriage, two people are one flesh (Genesis 2:24). In the church, many are one body (1 Corinthians 12:12). Lukewise, three persons of the Godhead are one God. All three persons of the Godhead were active in creation (Genesis 1:1-2, 26; John 1:1-3). Finally, the questioner assumes that Adam was brought into a desolate Earth. Did he not read that the Lord placed him in the garden? That doesn't sound desolate to me. Perhaps such reasoning is the product of the supposed contradiction between chapters 1 & 2. If the questioner would understand that Moses' purpose in the two chapters is different, he might have an easier time understanding the specifics in the text. There is no contradiction." That was lookinguntojesus.net aplogeticspress.com explains it even more clearly... "The fact is, Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God's work of creation as set forth in chapter 1.... [C]hapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter 1 and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of creation" (Archer, 1982, pp. 68-69). In short, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious in every way. What may seem as a contradiction at first glance is essentially a more detailed account of chapter one. The text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology, but merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man."GabuEx

No offense, but neither of those two responses even read the text of Genesis 2. Let me repeat it, with extraneous text cut out:

"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth, ... the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

When God formed man from the dust of the ground, we are told in Genesis 2, "no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up". This is undeniably in contradiction with Genesis 1, which clearly places the creation of man chronologically following the creation of plant life on Earth.

Also, Moses as the author of the Pentateuch is traditional, and is rejected by all modern scholarship. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (well, minus the first few verses) were not written by the same author. See the documentary hypothesis, which covers this in detail.

What it was trying to say was that Genesis 1 started in chronological oder, while Genesis 2 was in topical order. Basically Genesis one is Chronological, Outline, creating animals and Genesis 2 is Topical order, details, and Naming animals. (via apologeticspress.org)gaming25

Once again, such an explanation quite simply does not read the text, and instead tries to get away with hand-waving. Once again, here it is:

"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth, ... the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

To say that there is no chronology here is ludicrous. It says right there in plain language that God formed man from dust when there were no plants on the earth. Why are you posting excerpts from Christian apologetic websites? Can you not read the text yourself? :?

To say that Moses writing the first five books is "rejected by all modern scholarship" is simply not true.gaming25

No, it actually pretty much is true.

That is utterly irrelevant, as, once again, such an explanation quite simply does not read the text. Once again, here it is:

"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth, ... the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

To say that there is no chronology here is ludicrous. It says right there in plain language that God formed man from dust when there were no plants on the earth. Why are you posting excerpts from Christian apologetic websites? Can you not read the text yourself? :?

No, it actually pretty much is true [about Moses authorship rejected by all modern scholarsip].

GabuEx

I believe that you dont understand the point of the second chapter of Genesis. It was made to add on what was said in Genesis 1. To detail it and serve as a companion. If what you said were true, then the verse wouldve said "then" he created humans. The whole chapter supports my claim, since it goes into detail, the things that concerned the 1st chapter. When I said "topical" it wasnt just a fancy word to describe it, it was meant to talk about what went on in the order of TOPICS that the second chapter was about.

"No, it actually pretty much is true [about Moses authorship rejected by all modern scholarsip]"

Thats a claim that you cant back up. "All modern scholarship" is a very high claim since from my personal experience it would be otherwise. Thus making your "all scholarship" claim false.

I believe that you dont understand the point of the second chapter of Genesis. It was made to add on what was said in Genesis 1. To detail it and serve as a companion. If what you said were true, then the verse wouldve said "then" he created humans. The whole chapter supports my claim, since it goes into detail, the things that concerned the 1st chapter. When I said "topical" it wasnt just a fancy word to describe it, it was meant to talk about what went on in the order of TOPICS that the second chapter was about.gaming25

...

How many times do I have to say that this explanation utterly ignores what the text says?

Here it is, for about the fourth time:

"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth, ... the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Here's a version with even more extraneous text omitted:

"When ... no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up ... the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground"

I'm not even going to offer any commentary, because it really speaks for itself here.

I'm not even going to offer any commentary, because it really speaks for itself here.GabuEx

[QUOTE="gaming25"]I believe that you dont understand the point of the second chapter of Genesis. It was made to add on what was said in Genesis 1. To detail it and serve as a companion. If what you said were true, then the verse wouldve said "then" he created humans. The whole chapter supports my claim, since it goes into detail, the things that concerned the 1st chapter. When I said "topical" it wasnt just a fancy word to describe it, it was meant to talk about what went on in the order of TOPICS that the second chapter was about.GabuEx

...

How many times do I have to say that this explanation utterly ignores what the text says?

Here it is, for about the fourth time:

"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth, ... the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Here's a version with even more extraneous text omitted:

"When ... no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up ... the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground"

I'm not even going to offer any commentary, because it really speaks for itself here.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]I'm not even going to offer any commentary, because it really speaks for itself here.v13_KiiLtz

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"]I believe that you dont understand the point of the second chapter of Genesis. It was made to add on what was said in Genesis 1. To detail it and serve as a companion. If what you said were true, then the verse wouldve said "then" he created humans. The whole chapter supports my claim, since it goes into detail, the things that concerned the 1st chapter. When I said "topical" it wasnt just a fancy word to describe it, it was meant to talk about what went on in the order of TOPICS that the second chapter was about.gaming25

...

How many times do I have to say that this explanation utterly ignores what the text says?

Here it is, for about the fourth time:

"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth, ... the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Here's a version with even more extraneous text omitted:

"When ... no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up ... the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground"

I'm not even going to offer any commentary, because it really speaks for itself here.

OK let's break it down here.

There is the word "when". This is a word that denotes temporal placement. "When X happened, Y happened" implies that Y chronologically followed X.

Then there is the word "yet". This is another word that denotes temporal placement. "Z had not yet happened" implies that Z will happen at some time in the future, relative to the temporal present of the sentence, but has not happened at that present moment in time.

Now put the two together: "When X happened, and Z had not yet happened, Y happened." This contains three instances of temporal placement. First, "When X happened" establishes the temporal present of the sentence as the moments following X. Second, "Z had not yet happened" establishes that, at the temporal present of the sentence - i.e., the moments following X - Z has not happened. Third, "Y happened" establishes that Y happens at the temporal present of the sentence - i.e., the moments following X.

So, let's recap: as established by the temporal placement language in this sentence, X happened, then Y happened, but Z had not happened yet.

Now fill in "the LORD God making the earth and the heavens" for X, "the LORD God forming the man from the dust of the ground" for Y, and "shrubs of the field appearing on the earth, and plants of the field springing up" for Z, and see what you get.

If you do not understand after this explanation, then I do not believe I could possibly offer any further help. This is maybe grade 6 reading comprehension, tops.

Light defined is not the sun. There isnt an "inconsistency" there at all.gaming25

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.On the First Day

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good."On the Fourth Day

The sun is irrelevant. Logically speaking this is inconsistant because its the same event taking place on two seperate time periods

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

...

How many times do I have to say that this explanation utterly ignores what the text says?

Here it is, for about the fourth time:

"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth, ... the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Here's a version with even more extraneous text omitted:

"When ... no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up ... the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground"

I'm not even going to offer any commentary, because it really speaks for itself here.

GabuEx

OK let's break it down here.

There is the word "when". This is a word that denotes temporal placement. "When X happened, Y happened" implies that Y chronologically followed X.

Then there is the word "yet". This is another word that denotes temporal placement. "Z had not yet happened" implies that Z will happen at some time in the future, relative to the temporal present of the sentence, but has not happened at that present moment in time.

Now put the two together: "When X happened, and Z had not yet happened, Y happened." This contains three instances of temporal placement. First, "When X happened" establishes the temporal present of the sentence as the moments following X. Second, "Z had not yet happened" establishes that, at the temporal present of the sentence - i.e., the moments following X - Z had not happened. Third, "Y happened" establishes that Y happens at the temporal present of the sentence - i.e., the moments following X.

So, let's recap: as established by the temporal placement language in this sentence, X happened, then Y happened, but Z had not happened yet.

Now fill in "the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" for X, "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground" for Y, and "shrubs of the field had appeared on the earth, and plants of the field had sprung up" for Z, and see what you get.

If you do not understand after this explanation, then I do not believe I could possibly offer any further help. This is maybe grade 6 reading comprehension, tops.

Oh teacher, will the grade 6 lesson include why verses are implemented into scripture? Will it go over quotations and marks and how they are made to make a certain point? Or will it cover ancient history or why the teacher thinks that the old cavemen were so stupid into keeping 2 chapters that he thinks contridict each other one after the other? And why didnt teacher noticed that the plants couldve been made before the mention of "man" since it was already explained that it isnt going to talk about everything that was made???

Dont speak to me as if I am dumb. Learn why different verses are numbered in the ways they were, learn about how some recorded history in ancient times, and learn that all mordern scholarship doesnt teach that Moses didnt write the Bible, when he actually did. And UNDERSTAND that plants didnt need to be mentioned to know that they came before man, since the second chapter wasnt go into all of the things that were created. Please dont get beside yourself into thinking that you were given me some lesson into how chronology works. I know how it works real well.

The sun is irrelevant. Logically speaking this is inconsistant because its the same event taking place on two seperate time periods

Oh teacher, will the grade 6 lesson include why verses are implemented into scripture? Will it go over quotations and marks and how they are made to make a certain point? Or will it cover ancient history or why the teacher thinks that the old cavemen were so stupid into keeping 2 chapters that he thinks contridict each other one after the other? And why didnt teacher noticed that the plants couldve been made before the mention of "man" since it was already explained that it isnt going to talk about everything that was made??? Dont speak to me as if I am dumb. Learn why different verses are numbered in the ways they were, learn about how some recorded history in ancient times, and learn that not all mordern scholership doesnt teach that Moses didnt write the Bible, when he actually did. And UNDERSTAND that plants didnt need to be mentioned to know that they came before man, since the second chapter wasnt go into all of the things that were created. Please dont get beside yourself into thinking that you were given me some lesson into how chronology works. I know how it works real well. gaming25

You seem to be making it rather clear that you are interested in everything except actually reading the text about which we're speaking, so I believe this conversation is at this point over, unless you wish to begin doing so.

[QUOTE="gaming25"]Oh teacher, will the grade 6 lesson include why verses are implemented into scripture? Will it go over quotations and marks and how they are made to make a certain point? Or will it cover ancient history or why the teacher thinks that the old cavemen were so stupid into keeping 2 chapters that he thinks contridict each other one after the other? And why didnt teacher noticed that the plants couldve been made before the mention of "man" since it was already explained that it isnt going to talk about everything that was made??? Dont speak to me as if I am dumb. Learn why different verses are numbered in the ways they were, learn about how some recorded history in ancient times, and learn that not all mordern scholership doesnt teach that Moses didnt write the Bible, when he actually did. And UNDERSTAND that plants didnt need to be mentioned to know that they came before man, since the second chapter wasnt go into all of the things that were created. Please dont get beside yourself into thinking that you were given me some lesson into how chronology works. I know how it works real well. GabuEx

You seem to be making it rather clear that you are interested in everything except actually reading the text about which we're speaking, so I believe this conversation is at this point over, unless you wish to begin doing so.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"]Oh teacher, will the grade 6 lesson include why verses are implemented into scripture? Will it go over quotations and marks and how they are made to make a certain point? Or will it cover ancient history or why the teacher thinks that the old cavemen were so stupid into keeping 2 chapters that he thinks contridict each other one after the other? And why didnt teacher noticed that the plants couldve been made before the mention of "man" since it was already explained that it isnt going to talk about everything that was made??? Dont speak to me as if I am dumb. Learn why different verses are numbered in the ways they were, learn about how some recorded history in ancient times, and learn that not all mordern scholership doesnt teach that Moses didnt write the Bible, when he actually did. And UNDERSTAND that plants didnt need to be mentioned to know that they came before man, since the second chapter wasnt go into all of the things that were created. Please dont get beside yourself into thinking that you were given me some lesson into how chronology works. I know how it works real well. gaming25

You seem to be making it rather clear that you are interested in everything except actually reading the text about which we're speaking, so I believe this conversation is at this point over, unless you wish to begin doing so.

There is no rebuttal necessary. As I have already detailed, your argument defies basic reading comprehension. Context and related points of data are relevant only when a text is ambiguous. Genesis 2:4-7 is as unambiguous as can be. Yet you insist on putting your doctrine before what the Bible actually says. As such, I will not be responding any further, as there is nothing more that can be said on the matter. This conversation is over.

Most of the stuff in science are made up of theories that are put on top of other theories. They are theories that make most sense to us.

I have my own theory on Evolution.

They are theories that make most sense to us.Gaming-Planet

[QUOTE="gaming25"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

You seem to be making it rather clear that you are interested in everything except actually reading the text about which we're speaking, so I believe this conversation is at this point over, unless you wish to begin doing so.

GabuEx

There is no rebuttal necessary. As I have already detailed, your argument defies basic reading comprehension. Context and related points of data are relevant only when a text is ambiguous. Genesis 2:4-7 is as unambiguous as can be. Yet you insist on putting your doctrine before what the Bible actually says. As such, I will not be responding any further, as there is nothing more that can be said on the matter. This conversation is over.

Genesis 1 tells you when plants were created. Genesis 2 doesnt. You instead cop out of the argument by questioning my reading comprehension. This is beneath you Gabu, it indeed is.