Did God use evolution to create life

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by coadie

And you don't have the original values for these chemicals. You speculate and extrapolate to arrive at the original values.

We have fun with these dating schemes because it is like measuring the distance to the moon with a 12 inch ruler.

Who made the elements?

We know EXACTLY what the original "values" of these elements are because we (at least scientists) can see the actual element and know EXACTLY how it behaves.

And where were these elements created? The hearts of stars. Our own sun is a 2nd generation star.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by coadie

Your analogy won't work. The car has reached stasis.
Darwinism says the molecules lined up and the car self created itself without external intelligence and created it's own energy from nothing to reach velocity.

The fact that it is no longer moving is irrelevant. We see the skids and can tell the speed and distance it traveled based on the marks it left while still in motion. In other words, we are reading its history. You want us to believe that God created a FALSE history (speaking to the appearance of age argument used by young Earthers). This would be identical to God creating the wreck, and then creating the false history, aka, 'skid marks' to show something that never really happened.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by coadie

You need to cut and past from wiki.


Yesterday you proved to me you couldn't quote the bible or other posters with accuracy.


If this is true, you are saying the bible is false.

There were many other women around at Eve's time with descendants alive today,

More from wiki.



The darwinist apologists say the bible is a lie. Adam the first human male with descendants living today and eve the original woman with descendants living today lived tens of thousands of years apart.

This is how they peddle false doctrine and say evolution is true, the bible is false and there was death before Adam.

Is wiki article true or false?

uhhhhhh Codie..... Who was the last man that everyone is a descendant of? It sure ain't Adam.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

We know EXACTLY what the original "values" of these elements are because we (at least scientists) can see the actual element and know EXACTLY how it behaves.

And where were these elements created? The hearts of stars. Our own sun is a 2nd generation star.

Yes we can see how elements behave.
6.63 × 10−34 J-sec The fundie constant in quantum theory.

Actually you do not know..You think you know. We have no truthfull and accurate measurements back then and rely on Models. Estimates and linear regression equations were what i wrote programs for in my own research in the early 70's. Fortran is great for this. It has been a long time since I wrote programs in Fortran in grad school. And no, we do not know how rapidly the sun decreased in diameter and radiation over time Planks constant.

E = h * c / wavelength
h = 6.626 x 10^(-34) joules-sec
c = 299,792,458 meters/sec
wavelength = 9.7 meters
We are several equations away from getting joules and then go the way of net energy reduction from the sun and finally watts per m2 absorption on the earth. We have far too much heat for life to come from the primordial soup at temps under lets say 308 degrees Kelvin

You are still unable to tell us how matter and energy was created that formed stars.

The Earth's Magnetic Field
The magnet is thought to be formed by circulating electrical currents in the outer core, which would then decay as any other magnet would. [See Genesis 1:2]
The half-life of decay of the earth’s magnetic field is 1,400 years. The magnetic field has declined by 10% since 1829. The magnetic field is only 1/3 as strong as it was when Jesus walked the earth.
Current magnetic moment is 8.0 x 1022 amp-meter2
3400 AD = 4
4800 AD = 2
6200 AD = 1
7600 AD = 0.5
9000 AD = 0.25
This half-life would mean that 100,000 years ago, the earth’s magnetic field would have been comparable to a neutron star.
In 8,000 years there will effectively be no magnetic field.
A magnetic field protects the earth and its inhabitants from harmful cosmic irradiation.
Old earth advocates claim a perpetual self-exciting “dynamo” mechanism that would continually replenish the magnet exists.

Even with polar charge reversals, the ongoing recent reduction in magnetic field strength disallows life developing with out being fried as in the old Raytheon radar range.

I just touched on how the cooling earth would have cooked live in the old earth model.
Can you put all this together plus a few more and tell us how much energy hit the earth? Then calculate IR and we can get there.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

uhhhhhh Codie..... Who was the last man that everyone is a descendant of? It sure ain't Adam.

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
No Adam was the first man.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by coadie

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
No Adam was the first man.

Yep, Adam was indeed the very first man, he had no human father or mother, he was created directly by God as a fully complete human.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Yep, Adam was indeed the very first man, he had no human father or mother, he was created directly by God as a fully complete human.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

There is so much doctrine in so few verses. By Adam sin entered. There was no death before Adam.
You gave a great list of conflicts the ToE faces. They have unprovible canned responses for most of them.

I can provide a lengthy list of anatomic details that show differences between man who is bipedal and diifferent than apes and not a single one has ever seen an ape anatomy that was similar to the human anatomy or even close.
Almost zero evolutionists have ever worked with live humans in a surgical setting.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by coadie

There is so much doctrine in so few verses. By Adam sin entered. There was no death before Adam.
You gave a great list of conflicts the ToE faces. They have unprovible canned responses for most of them.

I can provide a lengthy list of anatomic details that show differences between man who is bipedal and diifferent than apes and not a single one has ever seen an ape anatomy that was similar to the human anatomy or even close.
Almost zero evolutionists have ever worked with live humans in a surgical setting.

Good point, since the Bible shows there was no death before Adam, then IF Adam had any ancestors they would still be alive since they would not have inherited Adam's sin nature and the death that went with it. (of course we know Adam had no ancestors)

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Yes we can see how elements behave.
6.63 × 10−34 J-sec The fundie constant in quantum theory.

Actually you do not know..You think you know. We have no truthfull and accurate measurements back then and rely on Models. Estimates and linear regression equations were what i wrote programs for in my own research in the early 70's. Fortran is great for this. It has been a long time since I wrote programs in Fortran in grad school. And no, we do not know how rapidly the sun decreased in diameter and radiation over time Planks constant.

E = h * c / wavelength
h = 6.626 x 10^(-34) joules-sec
c = 299,792,458 meters/sec
wavelength = 9.7 meters
We are several equations away from getting joules and then go the way of net energy reduction from the sun and finally watts per m2 absorption on the earth. We have far too much heat for life to come from the primordial soup at temps under lets say 308 degrees Kelvin

You appear to accept Plank's Constant, but you appear to dismiss conclusions drawn from this.

You are correct in saying that "we don't [exactly] know how rapidly these processes took place." However, you must have been exposed to material which demonstrates the ranges of time that were involved. That's why "evilutionists" don't try and pin things down to exact dates and years. They're being honest. None of us has enough information to be that specific.

Compare this honesty, humility and candor to your good friend Bishop Ussher and his "extrapolation" that the earth was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC.

Originally Posted by coadie

You are still unable to tell us how matter and energy was created that formed stars.

Google "quantum vacuum flux."

My own take is:

And all this science I don't understand
It's just my job five days a week
A rocket man, a rocket man

And I think it's gonna be a long long time
Till touch down brings me round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home
Oh no no no I'm a rocket man
Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone

What did you do with the other "coadie?" The cranky one? Anyway, I like you better.

Again, you appear to accept Plank's Constant, but you appear to dismiss conclusions based upon it. Your good buddy Sir Fred Hoyle demonstrated (along with Chandra W.) that the Plank Constant could be utilized to determine the movements of interstellar dust and to project its behavior under different conditions such as collapsing to form a star.

From there, Chandra W. and Hoyle accurately projected the life cycle of stars of various masses and the elements that would be transmuted at different stages before the star "died."

Their collaborator, William Fowler (along with his Hindu counterpart Chandrasekhar) went on to win Nobel Prizes for this work. All of this was begun as deductions from the Plank Constant. The Nobels were not handed out until after several years of observation and testing confirmed their hypothesis in the early 1980s.

Originally Posted by coadie

The Earth's Magnetic Field
The magnet is thought to be formed by circulating electrical currents in the outer core, which would then decay as any other magnet would. [See Genesis 1:2]

hmm... I can't find the word "magnet" in Genesis 1:2, nor anywhere in my Strong's... but I will allow you to extrapolate because, Hey! I'm a pretty swell guy.

Originally Posted by coadie

The half-life of decay of the earth’s magnetic field is 1,400 years. The magnetic field has declined by 10% since 1829. The magnetic field is only 1/3 as strong as it was when Jesus walked the earth.
Current magnetic moment is 8.0 x 1022 amp-meter2
3400 AD = 4
4800 AD = 2
6200 AD = 1
7600 AD = 0.5
9000 AD = 0.25
This half-life would mean that 100,000 years ago, the earth’s magnetic field would have been comparable to a neutron star.
In 8,000 years there will effectively be no magnetic field.
A magnetic field protects the earth and its inhabitants from harmful cosmic irradiation.
Old earth advocates claim a perpetual self-exciting “dynamo” mechanism that would continually replenish the magnet exists.

Even with polar charge reversals, the ongoing recent reduction in magnetic field strength disallows life developing with out being fried as in the old Raytheon radar range.

I just touched on how the cooling earth would have cooked live in the old earth model.

Ah, no. You gave a brief break down of the equation known as Plank's Constant, and then you misrepresented conclusions that could be based upon it. You then completely ignored the highly publicized and much celebrated conclusions that Sir Fred Hoyle (and others) had made using the Plank Constant - and that after quoting Sir Fred as an authority on other matters just yesterday.

Originally Posted by coadie

Can you put all this together plus a few more and tell us how much energy hit the earth? Then calculate IR and we can get there.

"Hit the earth?" When? When our Mr. Sun first "ignited" the fusion engines at its core? Yes, that would have fried even the 7-11 burritos on Pluto. However, it was a "flash" of energy at a time when the earth itself hadn't even completely formed yet. It would have blasted lighter elements far out into the depths of the solar system and left the planetary nebulae closer to the sun (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars along with the asteroid belt) quite rocky and barren.

And then, the rocky material would have continued to aggregate forming new planets (or not as in the case of the asteroid belt which is too close to Jupiter's gravitational tides). Subsequently, large doses of those "lighter elements" would return to the inner solar system deposited by comets and other debris. Somehow, for whatever "reason" - those comets today are still a rich source of amino acids - just ask Sir Fred.

The magnetic field is also interesting... to save eyestrain I will deal with it in another post... after I run a couple of errands.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by coadie

There is so much doctrine in so few verses. By Adam sin entered. There was no death before Adam.
You gave a great list of conflicts the ToE faces. They have unprovible canned responses for most of them.

I can provide a lengthy list of anatomic details that show differences between man who is bipedal and diifferent than apes and not a single one has ever seen an ape anatomy that was similar to the human anatomy or even close.
Almost zero evolutionists have ever worked with live humans in a surgical setting.

Here is some interesting info I found:

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

In spite of this admission, Darwin clung to his theory when he should have rejected it because the formation of the eye by natural selection is just not plausible!

Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

After well over a hundred years of intense scientific research and investigation, we must conclude that no one has shown how the human eye could have come into existence by numerous, successive slight modifications.

By using Darwin's own criteria and viewing the other aspects of science that relate to evolution we can conclude that Darwin's theory has broken down.

Probability says 'no' to evolution
Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'"