Otseng, I’d like to roll back to one of your earlier posts in this thread. I have a few points in disagreement with your initial premises.
Otseng wrote:
The Creation Model (CM) is consistent with the first law of thermodynamics. That is, the sum of the energy and matter in a closed system is constant. If we consider the entire universe as a closed system, the only way it could have been created is if a system outside of the universe created it.
The problem I see here is that you simply state that CM is consistent with the first law of thermodynamics (1st LOT) without evidence, present the universe as a closed system at the point of creation without evidence, and then say that because the universe was closed (as required by the first law), it must have been created by an outside system. In short, you make two claims without evidence, and then use them as evidence to support an additional claim. Sorry, but that doesn’t work.
Your statement also raises other questions. How do you know that the universe was a closed system at the point of creation? And if it was a closed system – that is, not open to energy flows from the outside – how did the energy from outside used to create it get inside? There is a logical and physical inconsistency here.
Otseng wrote:
The CM is also consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. That is, the amount of useful energy decreases after any work process in a closed system. Creationism does not violate this rule. The second law also shows that there had to have been a finite time for the existence of the universe.
It’s not clear what you’re getting at here. Are you saying that at the moment of creation the creating whatsis exerted energy to do the work of creation and that this process increased the entropy of the entire system, that is, the universe and the creator? If that is the case, can you verify this? Are creators subject to the 2nd LOT? When a creator does creative work, does the creator, as a system, experience increased entropy?
Otseng wrote:
CM is also consistent with Mendel's laws. Diversity among living things is generally attributed to this law. Animals that were created at the very beginning had the genes to account for practically all the variations that we see today. Microevolution would account for the remainder of the variations.
This statement raises three sets of questions:
Mendel’s laws are mathematical rules that describe the inheritance and expression of unlinked dominant and recessive alleles that effect a single trait. How, given other verified mechanisms for genetic variation such as gene linkage, chromosomal crossover, spot mutations, gene inversions, and gene duplication, can you say that the diversity among living things is generally attributed to this law? And if CM is only consistent with Mendel’s laws and does not take into account the other mechanisms, then why should we even continue this discussion? Isn’t CM falsified right at this point?
What evidence do you have that all animals (and I’m assuming you mean all other living things as well) that were created at the very beginning had the genes to account for practically all the variations we see today? Are you suggesting, for example, that in sexually reproducing populations where there are multiple alleles for a given trait, that the originally created pair somehow managed to have more than four alleles for that trait between the two of them?
What evidence do you have that microevolution and the original genetic variation in created organisms accounts for the variation we see today? We know that morphological and genetic commonalities can only be inherited. If what you say about microevolution and original genetic variation is true, which puts severe limits on descent with modification, then how do you explain the morphological and genetic commonalities between, say, chimps and humans, or between humans and all mammals? If the commonalities were not inherited, than what other observed mechanism would you name as the cause?
.
