Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
And that's the crux of the matter. There has to be something overriding the 2nd law.
Entropy is entropy. It applies to all physical systems everywhere. If the 2nd law is to be considered a law, it must be universal, applying everywhere to all things.
The evidence that entropy affects living organisms is in the mutations that occur in them. DNA is not exempt from entropy.
A physical law is mot waived simply because a designer wishes it to go away.
The physical law of entropy is not waived. It is temporarily overridden by something else, as in the examples of aerodynamics and buoyancy in regards to gravitation.
For all your repeated exclamations about repeatable, replicable and falsifiable, can you show us an experiment involving chemicals that just up and formed life all on their own that was NOT intelligently designed in or out of the lab?
First the meat was left out then the potatoes. What’s left?
Nothing.
That’s what I thought......
Thanks......
It exists, thus God's statement to us that he created it is affirmed.
Nice piece of circular logic there : )
It’s not just you.
Williams says his argument is "based on what [Polanyi]...argued." I think that makes his thoughts relevant to a discussion of Williams' article, which is what this is supposed to be. Williams also claims that "Polanyi identified this kind of irreducibility as a naturalistic impossibility," whereas his own writing indicates no such thing. By the way, I didn't say that Williams misrepresented him, but now that I read that part again, I guess he really did.
Regarding language, Polanyi didn't say he was referring to a child learning to speak, and neither did I. He didn't address the origin of language; I was talking about the evolution of language in humans, not language acquisition by an individual.
Excellent post, tpanther. And it is no exaggeration to say what you said REALLY moved me. But let us not cast aspersions (and not give in to those who do on this thread). Let’s invite the naturalistic evolutionists to come up with a better explanation, and treat all such explanations with the respect of assumed sincerity. For my part, I really think Alex Williams put something together that is unassailable by the other side. But what seems obvious to us, may not seem obvious to them, as they are approaching autopioesis and irreducible hierarchy from a completely different angle. If they can find holes in Williams’ paper, then we should welcome them, as they will only help us further refine the argument (and the same should apply for the true believers on the other side, I should think). Having said that, you make excellent points...points I shall use (with your permission) in the future. And if you have anything else like what you just posted lying around in your arsenal, don’t hold back!...for I can honestly attest, I have never considered what you just now so eloquently put down to electronic paper.
All the best—GGG
I'm reading that as also asserting that while life must be designed, there can be no design that permits the organism to evolve.
As I said above, I didn't say Williams was misrepresenting Polanyi, just that that's why I went looking for what Polanyi originally wrote. I apologize if that was confusing.
And I don't see that our increasing knowledge of how DNA works invalidates Polanyi's statement that "the effect of a higher principle over a system under dual control can have any value down to zero may allow us also to conceive of the continuous emergence of irreducible principles within the origin of life."
I'm not arguing that life doesn't have an irreducible structure in Polanyi's terms. But he apparently didn't seem to think that the higher-level control mechanisms had to exist prior to the development of the lower-level ones, or that they couldn't arise in conjunction with them. Williams asserts that they can't, but he doesn't demonstrate it.
Mechanism? Why do you insist on a "mechanism," when this problem is fundamentally a problem of logic?
Logic, on my understanding, is not a "mechanism." It is that which constitutes the basic "rules of the game" by which "mechanisms" can be assessed and judged for their soundness.
FWIW.
No, force increases with acceleration or velocity. Force can be static.
Yet your very own experience argues that every effect has a cause. Cause or source of energy? Isaiah 40:26 identifies our creator as the first cause of energy.
The Law of Cause and Effect is not a scientific law. It is a philosophic law.
I'm very curious about this statement because time and time again I've only been able to find only ONE person to admit this indirectly, but still won't admit it directly. Which makes me wonder if this argument is overlooking the evidence that it is the cult of evolution that is the side guilty of all that you accuse of GGG.
And if this is the case, why is it so important to demand that children be told things like "God has no place in science class"?
If God is indeed responsible for evolution and it's indeed ID, then what gives anyone the right to determine for all publically educated children where science starts and stops?
Partucularly since over the past few hundreds of years this very delineation has been adjusted and readjusted too many times to count.
And your point is? You do know that division (multiplication) by zero is undefined?
Where does Williams say that evolution is "impossible?" My takeaway was only that he doesn't believe evolution theory provides a complete, universal, exhaustive description of what constitutes biological life.
And I happen to agree with him.
A Freeper asked me to review your physics and math. It is as flawless as your mighty pristine intellect. No argument can be made with your postings.
I always thought that anyone resorting to an argument considered too stupid to use by Ken Ham automatically gets the prize.
Have you ever heard of metabolism?
I'm not sure where he makes the statement, but it was laid, quite explicitly, out as the basic premises of the theory for discussion when the thread started.
I’m not asking you to accept that common descent is a fact. I’m asking you accept the fact that IF common descent is a fact, it places constraints on the kinds of similarities and differences you would find in related organisms.
Living things not enginered by humans conform to these constrints. Living things engineered by humans do not conform to these constraints.
Metabolism is design, not random chance. Metabolism requires a designer. You’ll have to think of something else that doesn’t depend on the designs that God made.
“One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost.”
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this, let’s say we have a man making contest.” To which the scientist replied, “OK, great!”
But God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”
The scientist said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!””
Get your own metabolic systems. Don’t rely on God’s in an effort to *prove* He doesn’t exist.
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.