Replies

perhaps you should read the rest of the quote from article which you quoted...

"...The second law is all about probability. The reason natural forces may turn a spaceship into a pile of rubble but not vice-versa is probability: of all the possible arrangements atoms could take, only a very small percentage could fly to the moon and back."

When you can spontaneously generate silicon chips from your pile of sand via chance and natural process "Natural forces, such as corrosion, erosion, fire and explosions" or heat and sunlight, you will certainly be rich.

While we observe process happening on earth that result in a local lowering of entropy, we never observe any of those process put things together in an orderly way as a result of random changes, whether they be the building blocks to life---amino acids do not combine in moving water to form proteins--- or metal parts do not combine in tornados to form bicycles.

from Tim M. Berra, "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism"

"For example, an unassembled bicycle that arrives at your house in a shipping carton is in a state of disorder. You supply the energy of your muscles (which you get from food that came ultimately from sunlight) to assemble the bike. You have got order from disorder by supplying energy. The Sun is the source of energy input to the earth's living systems and allows them to evolve."

This is funny in a couple of ways:

1) there is intelligence putting the bike together

2) It is so improbable that it is funny that someone could believe that sunlight+some ridiculous amount to time+chance and natural processes could arrive at life as we observe it today.

While it is true that the Sun's energy ultimately supplying the energy to put the bike together, it is ridiculous to say that the sun is supplying the intelligence to put the bike together, or that there was no intelligence involved. Maybe the evolutionist is a closet worshiper of the Sun. Or perhaps it is rational and probable that the world was intelligently designed by the Son.

The rest of the quote was irrelevant nonsense, as I've pointed out that the premise is wrong.

While we observe process happening on earth that result in a local lowering of entropy, we never observe any of those process put things together in an orderly way as a result of random changes, whether they be the building blocks to life---amino acids do not combine in moving water to form proteins--- or metal parts do not combine in tornados to form bicycles.

Yes we do observe such changes, ignoring the fallacious idea that the first proteins were made from amino acids combining all on their lonesome. I too used to think that entropy forbade processes leading to the origin of life, but I've come to realize that reality disagrees. In actuality in chemistry and biochemistry many organizing processes are entropy driven. These processes include some coupling reactions, cyclizations, and folding of macromolecules. And indeed they are the result of randomness. In a chemical reaction or conformational change the randomness comes from random molecular movement, from intramolecular changes by atoms turning, twisting, or stretching, or from intermolecular interactions from molecules bashing into each other as they move about randomly. These movements are often reversible--two molecules may collide and merge, spitting out a water molecule, and then a moment later be struck by another water molecule and split apart, with the water molecule merging with one of the resultant molecules. A peptide may sample multiple conformations before finding the lowest energy one, again driven by entropy as the folding excludes water molecules that raise local entropy. The result is a statistical sampling where a large percentage of the population is in a thermodynamic energy well, with the option of reversing if enough energy is attained and the right partners are present.