Posted on 04/11/2005 10:25:55 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
What a silly comment. Of course you can.
The second law of thermodynamics applies globally, that is entropy globally must increase. However, it can decrease locally. What do you think the Helmholtz Free Energy is?? Learn some physics before you make insipid posts.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
The arguements using statistics that say that the chances of the flagellum, the eye, the human gene code, whatever, falling together are "one chance in ten to the bajillion" are pure nonsense... because that's not how evolution works. Evolution doesn;t start with a puddle of amino acids and assemble a complete organism in one shot, but through multiple steps. And by going in a stepwise fashion, the time it takes to go from goo to you is vastly reduced.
Things Break, and other things become Dysfunctional, Sophomoric, Arrogant and/or Narcisstic... its all in my book...
"The Devolution of Mankind and other things"... Evolution is a Utopian vision of Dialectic Materialism.. with DNA as the material as Sophistry as the dialectic..
Exactly what is missing in the theory of evolution........hard evidence and LOGIC.
Those who do NOT believe (at least) in Intelligent Design, have a gaping hole in their brains where the logic is supposed to be.
There could exist nothing but that which an omnipotent, omniscient god considers good, because the absence of anything would also be a decision of said god. In other words, if he considered the absence of something to be evil, it would no longer be absent unless he were evil at least in part, because to permit its continued absence would be to engage in evil.
bump
Entropy is the natural logarithm of the number of accessible quantum states. It is a measure of disorder. Entropy increases over time. The salt crystal is ordered. Where did that order come from?
Again, you cannot create order from nothing.
But life didn't start from "nothing", and nobody claims it did.
Any scientist will come out and tell you that.
I am a scientist and I'm telling you you're flat-out wrong.
If we turn around your statement to include the teachers unions and the NEA (perversion-belching liberal agenda promulgators), are we discussing reality yet?
From the content of this article, he knows JACK about statistics either; or maybe he's just not being truthful.
I apologize if I disrupted the thread.
I thought I would inject a little casual conversation into the usually charitable and compassionate conversations that occur on crevo threads.
I will withdraw now.
>>Yeah, and I'm the Pope.<<
Liar. You haven't been chosen yet. Do you have your hat in the ring? 8^>
Back! Back to the philosophy department!
Yes, of course it is, because creating the option to engage in evil is evil.
Yes, to the extent that God gives us free will, He has limited Himself.
And there is no rational way to assess his limitations. More importantly, he would be a dualist god, in which case there is no rational way to assess his credibility. He would be a dualist god because before he chose to limit himself he would know the outcome of his actions would be evil.
But, going back to the point, what I said is that an omniscient, omnipotent god would not rationally and intentionally create evil. In other words, no evil can exist in the judgment of such a god. If evil does not exist, then we cannot transgress, and so god is irrelevant from a practical standpoint - whatever we do will be satisfactory. If evil exists that is beyond the god's control, then the universe itself is not under his control.
Such gods are not practically relevant to us because they are not rationally relevant to us - in other words, we cannot reach a rational determination of what the god might require, if anything, and of what the god has the power to enact, if anything.
I'm stealing that one.
That nice, but then so what? Do you jump from this statistic to say "aha, there must be a God who designed this and THAT'S why it works so" or do you say, "yes, we don't understand all of the answers yet and thus we must think and study harder to try to understand how such a thing could've occured." ID is an intellectual dead-end. It's basically saying "this is TOO HARD. I CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT. I know, I'll say God did it all and then I don't have to think anymore."
FWIW I'm a theist (Catholic), but ID is nothing new. Cultures have preached ID from the dawn of time. Can't figure out why the stars and planets move the way they do? Hey, it's ID! Those stars and planets are really Gods and they move hither and yon and they wish. Of course, if you want to ditch ID and figure it out (y'know do the HARD work) well maybe you'll discover the theory of gravity.
Oh, and free will is what now?
To claim God, there must also be "Not God"
I know the salt/water method.
Order cannot arise from disorder by 'random reactions'. (In pure probability it can, but the numbers are so infinitesimally small that physics regards the probability as zero.) So you go to the Dead Sea and say, "I see these orderly salt crystals. You're telling me that God's there making each crystal?" No. That's not what I'm saying. But the salt crystals do not arise randomly.
They arise because laws of nature that are part of the creation package force salt crystals to form. The laws of nature guide the development of the world. And there is a phenomenal amount of development that's encoded. God created those laws. It doesn't just happen by chance. It can't.
So what?
Keep up the good work, sir :-)
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.