[Louis Foxwell]

In actuality, entropy, or disorderedness, must always increase.

You use the sun as an illustration of increasing entropy. The sun's breakdown, however, is in the direction of another generation of suns. These increase the periodic table thus increase order and complexity. Our disagreement is a difference of perspective. A sort of chicken and the egg discussion. Where you see, if I understand you correctly, a balance I see an increase of orderliness. Stars may explode and energy dissipate but order follows these events.

...your greatest folly in supporting ID is assuming the undiscovered is indeterminable and running to your "god" to fill in the blanks.

This seems to get at the heart of the dyspepsia about ID.

You choose to start with the premise that God is irrelevent to science. My position is that God as creator and sustainer of the universe can not possibly be irrelevent.

If you are correct the universe is a-theistic, without God. That is the essential premise of anti-ID crowd. You choose to limit God to a personal spiritual experience. I experience Him as essential to the structure of reality.

The scientific method is a helpful tool for understanding the universe. 'Like you, I choose to use that tool to discern more of the nature of reality. Thus far it has led me toward a confirmation that intelligence directs the course of the universe. If it leads you in the opposite direction we can have a conversation.

Do not delude yourself into believing that your dismissive attitude toward ID will rid you of the trouble of grappling with its claims. It will not.

[Doctor Stochastic]

... thus increase order and complexity.

Order and complexity are opposites; increase in one means decrease in the other.

[Roots]

You use the sun as an illustration of increasing entropy. The sun's breakdown, however, is in the direction of another generation of suns. These increase the periodic table thus increase order and complexity. Our disagreement is a difference of perspective. A sort of chicken and the egg discussion. Where you see, if I understand you correctly, a balance I see an increase of orderliness. Stars may explode and energy dissipate but order follows these events.

It is obvious you do not understand my explanation. My explanation is backed and proven by mathematical formulas, it is not a "perspective". I cannot further a discussion on physics and chemistry with you.


You choose to start with the premise that God is irrelevent to science. My position is that God as creator and sustainer of the universe can not possibly be irrelevent.

I, along with the rest of the scientific community, chose to start with no BIASES when first performing these experiments. You start with a premise, that’s your first mistake. You believe science should conform around your beliefs, which is just as unscientific as the evolutionists that set out to further prove their pseudodogma (see earlier post). Science is about posing hypotheses and proving or disproving them through UNBIASED tests. Your dogma, ID, et al is an open-ended hypothesis, not provable by any means of tests. I’m sorry if you think your beliefs are anything but relative but you have ZERO credible evidence for them.


If you are correct the universe is a-theistic, without God. That is the essential premise of anti-ID crowd. You choose to limit God to a personal spiritual experience. I experience Him as essential to the structure of reality.

Can you at least attempt to use complete and coherent sentences?? You experience “Him” as essential to the structure of reality because you have yet to understand reality! Hell, you don’t even understand the physical laws governing disorder. Do you even know the dynamics of evolution and ID? I’m starting to doubt whether you know the arguments for ID and how all of those are countered. Thinkers were simply presented with the ID alternative explanations and showed how it was still possible for reality to exist without a specific, intelligent design involved.


The scientific method is a helpful tool for understanding the universe. 'Like you, I choose to use that tool to discern more of the nature of reality. Thus far it has led me toward a confirmation that intelligence directs the course of the universe. If it leads you in the opposite direction we can have a conversation.

Do not delude yourself into believing that your dismissive attitude toward ID will rid you of the trouble of grappling with its claims. It will not.

Your statements are not backed by the scientific method nor are they backed by a solid understanding of physical chemistry, stop kidding yourself. My dismissive attitude toward ID is justified by the fact that every argument for ID has already been countered – more than enough to justify a dismissive attitude – there are no more claims left to undo. Are you even reading/understanding our previous posts?

[occamsrapier]

One more quickie.

"You use the sun as an illustration of increasing entropy. The sun's breakdown, however, is in the direction of another generation of suns. These increase the periodic table thus increase order and complexity. Our disagreement is a difference of perspective. A sort of chicken and the egg discussion. Where you see, if I understand you correctly, a balance I see an increase of orderliness. Stars may explode and energy dissipate but order follows these events."

No. Wrong.

Please don't use entropy, you have no idea what it really is. In science, as I said about, entropy is energy in space. So if space increases, as it is all the time, then entropy increases. Because the universe is expanding so fast ENTROPY IS ALWAYS INCREASE on the universal, level. What you said above pegs you as someone who really is ignorant about science. It is not a matter perspective or opinion, you don't know what your talking about... sentrences like this...

"These increase the periodic table thus increase order and complexity."

Are like wearing a sign that says "I don't know what these words mean" in letters big enough to read from ORBIT!

Scientific concepts like entropy are not fuzzy relativitic ideas that you can see any way you ant. They have a cold hard meaning that eludes you.

Stop. Please. Go read what entropy really is. Not the AiG summary, read it in a real science publication, from a REAL SCIENTIST.