Posted on 03/07/2008 4:40:38 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The argument that small amounts of order that might appear at random is justification to assume that larger amounts of order occur, is the same argument used by evolutionists that variation within species (microevolution) being observed is enough to conclude that speciation (macroeveolution ) must have occurred.
It’s a huge assumption made by extrapolating that has no basis.
It’s not surprising that the same flaw in reasoning occurs in in both fields. If you’re going to do it in one area, it will spill over to others.
Crystals of any kind form as a result of the inherent properties of the atom itself. A system working the way it is designed to does not *prove* that order can come about with no external influence.
If crystals would form of substances that normally don’t because of the nature of their chemical bonds, then there just MIGHT be something to be said for that argument. But again, the orders of complexity that exist between a snowflake and DNA are so vast as to make that argument ludicrous.
The very term *created* means that it not always was.
LOL, Scripture clearly teaches a definitive beginning to the universe as we understand it. Try Gen 1:1.
If somebody who doesn't believe in God can't grasp Gen 1:1 after 16 years of immersion in that type of environment, he/she provides a marvelous testimony of how the Word of God is not without effect. To those who reject Him, their hearts are simply hardened.
Not to worry though, every person alive still has opportunity to return to Him prior to the first death and be blessed with eternal life and many ther blessings by Him resulting from just a smidgeon more faith than absolutely no simple faith alone through Christ alone.
Entropy rules
You've said it better than I.
It's not hard to understand that only GOD can create matter out of nothing. Science can exam and attempt to understand how matter is transformed, but not how it appears from nowhere. Acceptance of the big bang theory leads to the ultimate question "where did all the matter of the universe that was held in a singularity come from".
Okay, I’ll note for the record that creationists have always advocated the Big Bang theory and that they somehow convinced scientists a few thousand years later of the fact.
Any thoughts as to what God was doing for infinity prior to creating the universe?
Punctuation, grammar, and spelling are our friends. May I may be so bold, as to edit your post to grasp your meaning? ....
We’re still citing the law, because we have yet to hear how ice crystals and gas molecules equates to immensely more complex dynamic living structures. Such complex structures were supposed to violate the law at trillions of steps of even higher complexities and organizations.
Inorganic materials following their own natural laws, separately from living structures, are irrelevant, because we have nothing to show beyond the simplistic for self-organization.
Ice crystals forming simple geometric patterns do not imply the creation of a woodshed from the sun beating down on a pile of wood in an ‘open system’.
It’s only going to result in wood rot, as the pile perfectly obeys the second law (as does every other living structure).
IMHO, order doesn't evolve from disorder, unless something more intelligent designs and acts upon it, as is evidenced above.
Whatever He wanted to do.
“Any thoughts as to what God was doing for infinity prior to creating the universe?”
The logical answer to your question (although not the answer that will make people feel good) is that God possesses the intellectual capacity to answer and understand it while humans do not.
But you focus well on the fact that we have no answer to the question of how to describe process of the chemical origin of life and that we’re not even close. And this fact is very helpful to illustrate something central to the debate.
The creed of atheism operates according to the premise that science can answer the origin of life question, a premise which cannot be defined as anything except faith. Thus atheism is grounded in that which it presumes to renounce, and it is irrational.
That’s not a logical answer. It’s an answer, which might be correct, but based entirely on faith. Faith is not to be confused with logic.
Faith is a belief, based in hope and trust, but unsupported by actual facts.
How would a question not have an answer, or perhaps an infinity of answers? Assuming it is a well-formed question.
That's a true fact. Then add in other disciplines besides objective science and some of the 'hot' terms acquire technical and common meanings multiplied beyond utility. It's not a bad plan to simply sit and watch the parade.
I think that was my point.
The 'why' mode throws the inquiry into the intention aspect. Intention means intelligence, a prejudice.
Possibly a result of applying science of laws where descriptive science should apply.
Helmholz mentioned that since we can't see the entire universe we can't say with certainty that the increase of entropy isn't reversed somewhere else. We can postulate, of course, for the time being.
It is imprtant to stipulate that overtly since most questions are not well-formed.
Disorderly Democrat Party — evidence of Soros?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.