LOL. You've just destroyed the validity of modeling entirely. Go back to that model of a tornado I posted earlier. Are real tornadoes contained within glass jars? No? Obviously, by your logic, this model is invalid.
Get real. The model is not the thing itself. So long as it accurately reflects the aspect of the real thing we are studying, no amount of handwaving by you will make it invalid.
I still see no alternative proposal.
Nobody is required to provide one in order to demonstrate the absurdity of your calculations. They fall apart all by themselves, on their own merits - or lack thereof - regardless of whether alternatives exist or what the merits of such alternatives might be.
I have given anti-IDers and anti-creationists the benefit of every doubt. The magnitude of the numbers are just too great.
The magnitude of the numbers you invented with no basis in reality? Convenient, that.
The rest of us will continue to seek the truth.
Obviously not. It is increasingly apparent that you are simply inventing this schema as a means of propping up a predetermined conclusion, that this is not a search for truth at all, but is instead a search for a rationalization.
Perpetual motion is possible. All I have to do is have an experimenter spin a flywheel with instructions to his progeny to do the same.
Come on General...Modern Physics may have problems with the laws of thermodynamics...now you too?