Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Darth Crater]

For the last time, Homestar, I see no reason why the existence of life, the evolution of life, or whatever it is you're actually objecting to (since it seems to change every post) violates the Second Law in any way. Could you make it clear what evidence, exactly, suggests this? If you introduced it during the previous mess, could you please restate it?

[Yanoda]

I would also like to add (which I forgot last post), that quoting scientists without providing the source/research that made the scientist come to the conclusion is not evidence. I couldn't find any paper or journal that indicate the studies he conducted for him to come to the conclusion of that statement.
He may be renowned, but making that claim without the data/research to provide is not valid.

So, is there a research paper/journal that he wrote that got him to the conclusions? The wiki does not help much (I already read through it prior to you providing the link). Is there a concise source of the work? Thanks

Cheers

Yanoda

[Col. Hstar]

Really?! So your asking me to repeat the question. To be honest I think you both know exactly what I am asking. But since you don't have an answer your hiding behind semantics and the claim that you need sources on my sources But no worries, I'll play your game. The following will be my entire argument, some will be cut and pasted from my previous posts but it will be all connected, and not suffering from the fact that I have two people that I'm responding to. At the bottom of this post, I have 2 questions in bright red. If our discussions are to continue, I would like both of your answers to those questions.

Argument Objective

My reason, my only reason is to point out one thing. That the statement “there is no God" is based on faith. The same as a religious belief that God does exists is a question of faith. So too is the assumption that there is no God. Atheists like to wave the banner of science over their camp, the fact is that neither atheism nor theism rest purely on science. Both involve faith—atheism in purposeless blind chance, and theism in an intelligent First Cause.

Argument for Creation

Let’s go back to your graphic picture, and please, don’t think about your watch maker theory, look at my analogy from a fresh point of view. It takes very precise computer programs and binary code, to produce any image, especially one in detail or containing written information. Any intelligent person would not associate the image to pure chance. Go a step further, if there is coherent meaningful information, then that must indicate an intelligent source. We encounter information encoded in many forms—such as Braille or letters of the alphabet, as well as diagrams, musical notes, spoken words, hand signs, radio signals, and computer programs involving the binary code, using zeros and ones. The information-conveying medium can be virtually anything, from light to radio waves to paper and ink. Whatever the case, people always associate meaningful information with an intelligent mind (Unless as evolutionists say such information is contained in a living cell. That information, just happened or wrote itself somehow)
So how then can DNA be explained? Your DNA is like a recipe, or program, that directs the formation, growth, maintenance, and reproduction of the trillions of cells that make up your body. Nucleotides like letters of the alphabet, can be combined in many ways to form “sentences”— instructions that direct replication and other processes within the cell. Some sequences of letters in our DNA are unique to each of us. our genome can be compared to a vast library of recipes for every part of your body. this “library” is about three billion “letters,” or nucleotides (bases), long. If reason tells us that a computer image or document must have an intelligent mind as its source, should not also the infinitely more complex and meaningful information found in DNA? Information is information no er where it is found or what the medium may be. And it stands to reason that the more complex a package of information, the greater the intelligence needed to write it.

Argument about Evolution

Molecules. With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, as I know it some evolutionists believe the following. Please let me know if I am incorrect.
1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.
2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.
3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.

Here is the problem though, I have with this. How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.
The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws (the 2nd Law) dictate that complex things—machines, houses, and even living cells—in time break down. Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order. For example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into
a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building. The belief in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.

Look at the elements that are vital for us to be alive, carbon, oxygen, and iron.

The universe is as most of you would agree, expanding. That expansion is finely tuned at the right speed, to allow life to be sustained. Like stretching a rubber band, if you pull to fast it snaps, if you pull to slow it contracts back into itself. A noted physicist and astronomer Sir Bernard Lovell said

If the Universe had expanded one million millionth parts faster, then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence.

Radio program called the Reith Lectures. Broadcast that he gave was entitled: “The Individual and the Universe”

The same is with the electromagnetic force. If that was slightly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom, which would then be unable to combine to form molecules. If it were stronger the electrons would be trapped on the nucleus preventing the chemical reactions between atoms, again resulting in no life. Once again this would require a finely tuned electromagnetic force.
Then there are the nuclear forces that bond the nucleus of the atoms together, if the strength of this force was 2% weaker, then only hydrogen would exist, if it was stronger, the heavier ones could exist but no hydrogen would be found.


It is these examples of the forces in the universe that I use to give evidence pointing to an order in the universe. As far as the idea that it is slowly falling into disorder, I posted comments from well know physicists. Professor of Mathematics Roger Penrose discovered when he studied the state of disorderliness (or, entropy) of the observable universe that it is not falling into disorder.

http://www.eoht.info/page/Roger+Penrose

I also pointed out that the evolution theory has not answered why, the elements of the universe hasn’t fallen into disorder. (or in other words, followed the 2nd law) Astrophysicist Alan Lightman admitted that

scientists find it mysterious that the universe was created in such a highly ordered condition... any successful theory of cosmology should ultimately explain this entropy problem

Ancient Light 1991 pg 63 by Alan Lightman

In fact, our existence is contrary to this recognized law. So why is it that we are alive here on earth?

Evolution’s Contradiction

To be clear, I am not saying that the universe does violate the 2nd Law. I'm saying your idea of no creator or God implies that it violates the 2nd Law. By removing a creator from the equation, you leave an empty variable in your theory. Without that variable why isn’t the universe submitting to the 2nd law? I'm saying that to maintain order requires precise directed energy. Believing in God, I feel that he provides the energy to maintain the order in the galaxy. I am asking, that if someone refuses to believe in God, how do you think that the order is maintained? You believe everything came about by chance. If you believe that nothing is maintaining the universe but mindless molecules, then you must believe the universe is defying the 2nd Law. You can’t say it occur naturally, because you then contradict the very core of what the 2nd law states.

Conclusion

In closing this post I ask that 2 questions be answered.
1. Can you explain the origins of life, and can you explain how energy can be directed with a creative purpose at random
2. When the natural course for elements is equilibration, how is it that the universe (which coincidentally is attuned nicely to support our existence) has not fallen into disarray?

I’m going to answer right now for you, that there is no answer. Scientific evidence has not been found to give a solid answer to these questions. Therefore, since the begging and sustaining of life in the evolutionary process are still unknown, the only way to believe in the rest of the theory of evolution is to have faith that these questions do have some answer, that doesn’t involve God or a Creator

[Darth Crater]

Alright, I spoke to a friend of mine, who's studied much more physics than I have. He's confirmed my understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and its implications.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that over time, a closed system will proceed toward a more stable state - one with less energy available for work. Note that this only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system, not least because the Sun is constantly adding energy. You can get a better idea of the Second Law by imagining the future of the Earth and Sun. Eventually, the sun will run out of hydrogen, fuse helium (turning into a red giant), run out of that, collapse into a white dwarf, and gradually stop giving off energy altogether. At that point, the Earth (supposing it survived the red giant phase somehow) will stop receiving energy and its entropy will increase until no more work can be done.

I also pointed out that the evolution theory has not answered why, the elements of the universe hasn’t fallen into disorder.

Evolution theory has not answered this because it does not need to. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not relevant to the development of life on Earth at all.


Some lesser points:

How did life form? The simplest hypothesis fitting the evidence is this: simple, physical, chemical processes, each step of which can be reproduced. I attribute no godlike powers to anything, especially not to molecules or forces.

Information does not require a conscious designer. The information in the original form of life was created by these chemical processes. The information in subsequent forms of life was created by their parent or parents.

I will repeat my arguments about the anthropic principle below. If you can refute them, and demonstrate that I should regard the fact that the universe can support us as anything but unremarkable or obvious, I will update my beliefs.

Start with one basic fact. "I exist." From that, it follows that any conditions necessary for my existence must be true. This is true 100% of the time (actually 100%, not one of those infinitesimals I was talking about earlier), regardless of what the rest of your model says or predicts. The causality goes as [IF NOT "conditions", THEN NOT "we exist"]; we derive the contrapositive of [IF "we exist", THEN "conditions"]. None of this is affected by opinion.

Since we know it must be true, it is therefore uninteresting. If the universe contained only hydrogen, either no life would arise, or hydrogen-based life would be observing that "only hydrogen" was true. The information is only interesting to you if you believe humans are inherently special; that the entire universe was meant for us. Aside from this being colossally arrogant, we have found nothing suggesting that we are particularly unique among the residents of Earth (merely the first to cross the bend on the exponential tech development curve), or that Earth is particularly unique among the planets, or even that our galaxy is particularly unique.

In closing this post I ask that 2 questions be answered.
1. Can you explain the origins of life, and can you explain how energy can be directed with a creative purpose at random
2. When the natural course for elements is equilibration, how is it that the universe (which coincidentally is attuned nicely to support our existence) has not fallen into disarray?

1. As I said, based on the evidence, I believe that life formed via chemical processes. It is not impossible that it was guided, but without evidence of such I prefer the simpler hypothesis.
2.The universe is slowly falling into entropy. Eventually all matter will have formed (by fusion or radiation) into iron or nickel, all free energy will be exhausted, and nothing will ever happen again. This has no bearing on any processes happening on Earth (especially on timescales less than the billions of years).

[Col. Hstar]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that over time, a closed system will proceed toward a more stable state - one with less energy available for work. Note that this only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system, not least because the Sun is constantly adding energy. You can get a better idea of the Second Law by imagining the future of the Earth and Sun. Eventually, the sun will run out of hydrogen, fuse helium (turning into a red giant), run out of that, collapse into a white dwarf, and gradually stop giving off energy altogether. At that point, the Earth (supposing it survived the red giant phase somehow) will stop receiving energy and its entropy will increase until no more work can be done.

My argument was not based on the earth itself, On a large scale I am talking about the universe as one giant closed system. As the physicists I mentioned pointed out, there is much much less disorder in the universe then there should be. According to the 2nd Law over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system so as to result in the natural entropic dissolution of the system itself. The theory of evolution has no answer to this.

1. As I said, based on the evidence, I believe that life formed via chemical processes. It is not impossible that it was guided, but without evidence of such I prefer the simpler hypothesis.
2.The universe is slowly falling into entropy. Eventually all er will have formed (by fusion or radiation) into iron or nickel, all free energy will be exhausted, and nothing will ever happen again. This has no bearing on any processes happening on Earth (especially on timescales less than the billions of years).

1. Then you would have to agree, that by preferring the simpler hypothesis, your arguments become more based on a belief, or faith that the hypothesis is true. A lack of evidence is not evidence.

2. Again this would have to be you opinion as well. Roger Penrose (cited in post before this) observed that the universe is in fact not in falling into disorder, but in a highly organized state. You position is that in Billions of years it can go into disarray, but you have no way of proving this. You taking another leap of faith that the evidence is there, we just can't see it or comprehend it.

Having faith in one's argument is not wrong. Faith is required. No one was living there at the time. The fallacy of Atheism though, is that they believe that their views are based solely on scientific fact. But as you can see, it's not. It's an idea or hypothesis based on an insufficient amount of data. The same can be said about creation, but without complete evidence of evolution, I prefer the the simpler explanation, of a creator, and God

[Darth Crater]

Here's what I was trying to get across: physics and biology are separate and largely unrelated fields. The Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot meaningfully be applied to biology. The theory of evolution does not, cannot, and should not address entropy, because entropy is not relevant to biology.

Suppose that Penrose and the others find that the universe differs sufficiently from our predictions that nothing but a deity's intervention explains it. Suppose that we somehow prove a deity intervened there. (For all we know, this might happen in the next 30 years. This is still a relatively new and growing field.) This does nothing to disprove evolution. All of the evidence indicating that evolution occurred still remains.

I suppose I should explain what I meant by "prefer" there. I was using the principle of Occam's Razor, commonly stated as "find the simplest explanation that fits the data". The problem there is that "simplest explanation" is terribly vague, and what the brain leaps to as "simplest" often is not. A better wording would be "explanation with the least amount of unnecessary entities or complications". For example, when I drop a rock, I could suppose that gravity accelerates it toward the Earth. Alternately, I could suppose that the Earth asks the rock to return to it, and the rock moves itself closer. The former explanation is simpler, because it uses the known factor of gravity, rather than rock spirits we have no evidence for. Similarly, I believe that life most likely developed using known chemical processes and changed via natural selection. There is no need to introduce any other factors, and I would only be introducing "faith" into things if I did so.

You state that lack of evidence is not evidence. This is false. Absence of evidence for something is evidence for that thing's absence. The strength of that evidence is determined by the amount of relevant data collected. Humanity has collected massive amounts of data on evolution, and found nothing that indicated supernatural manipulation or tampering.

My position, that the universe is headed for maximum entropy, is not based on faith. It is based on laws and formulas that describe the way the universe has, without exception, been found to work.

As a final note, you seem remarkably broad about "evolution", as if you've set it up as a sort of opposite pillar to the Christian god. Let me make this absolutely clear: No competent person worships evolution or takes it on faith. They believe the theory because it best explains what we know. Evolution is a specific thing (in fact, two specific things which you refuse to differentiate between anymore), not some overarching opposing figure. It is not mutually exclusive with most religious beliefs.

[[m'kay]]

guys you're missing the big picture and [poo] like

what if god was right here right now

what if he's arguing against himself just because it's fun

what if god is george lucas woooooooooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Ariel]

Sorry this is way late, but I've been busy for the last few days. Thanks for the critique, now allow me to critique your logic.

-I remember the numbers being debated somewhere in the first 10 or 20 pages of this thread. Estimates varied, but I remember a point being raised (by someone who actually knew biology) that it's not simply mashing random chemicals together - there are processes involved that reduce the odds.

I might just go dig for that, but don't expect a reply on that front anytime soon lol. This leads into a discussion on laws/lawmakers, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

My belief on this is that we don't have enough information to know the numbers within any less than several orders of magnitude, but that it is physically possible and the odds are low enough that at least one planet is likely to have this occur somewhere in the lifetime of the universe. (And anyway, if it hadn't occurred in this universe, we wouldn't be around to observe...)

So, in other words, since we ARE here, and since I cannot see any evidence of God, then evolution had to happen? I can understand your reasoning behind that, but I still disagree.

It's certainly possible that some other being could have consciously created life, but we don't have any evidence pointing to this being's existence or involvement. Find some, or eliminate all possible natural causes, and I'll consider it.

So exactly what "evidence" would it take to convince you? If you would expect hard, physical evidence, then I'm sorry to tell you that this will most likely never happen, and it's quite frankly an irrational request. We are speaking of a super-natural being here: a being which by its very definition is beyond the realm of nature and observable, test-able science. It is counter-intuitive and, honestly, slightly ludicrous to cry for physical evidence of a being that is by definition and nature non-physical.

On natural selection:
I can only assume you were misled by extremists while researching abiogenesis, because pretty much everything you have on this is false.

Ouch...that hurt.

-Yes, the vast majority of mutations are unhelpful or even harmful. No, not all of them are. Natural selection is slow. Positive mutations will gradually appear and take hold.
-Your Smith and Sullivan quote is deceptive. In the short term, mutations may have only a small effect on an organism's chances of survival and reproduction. Over the long term, positive mutations will (by virtue of making their possessors even slightly more likely to reproduce) tend to spread.
-Those "backward steps" are just the unhelpful mutations mentioned earlier. If they are less effective than the species baseline, they will not be selected for and will make no change overall. They don't set the species as a whole back in any way.
-Complex systems can arise in small steps, each of which is neutral, or beneficial in a different way. I think this was mentioned earlier, but I won't blame you if you don't bother digging for it.

I will refute all of your above points by offering a challenge: show me where anything you just said has been observed to take place in nature. I did not say in the laboratory; I said in nature, because that is what we are talking about, is it not? The real world of natural beings? Is this not where evolution would have taken place? To prove something in the laboratory and then apply this principle to the natural world is illogical and ultimately useless unless the principle can be observed in nature.

In the entire recorded history of mankind, you cannot show me one single example in nature of an organism that mutates, is better off for it, then reproduces that same mutation, to be passed on to all future generations. With the BILLIONS of life forms on earth and the tens of thousands of years of recorded human history, surely the odds of this being observed at least once are very good (if you really want to talk about odds). Scientists can theorize to their hearts' content, but if it cannot be proven to actually happen in nature, the point is mute and void.

Here's an interesting quote that I think is pertinent here:

" That the net effect of mutations is harmful, father than beneficial, to the supposed progress of evolution, is made transparently clear by the zeal with which evolutionists for decades have been trying to get mutation-producing radiation removed from the environment!…if evolutionists [truly] believed that evolution is due to mutations, they would favor all measures which could increase the rate of mutations and thus facilitate further evolution. Instead, they have consistently for decades opposed nuclear testing for the very purpose of preventing mutations!"

Do I hear "double standard"?

-In general, natural selection works, and has been proven to work. In the real world, as well as computer simulations. If natural selection didn't work, the entire field of evolutionary algorithms wouldn't exist. Really, natural selection is more of a law of probability than a scientific theory at this point.

This might blow some of your minds, but I actually agree with the above statement that natural selection is real and works in nature. However, observable natural selection is the direct antithesis of the "natural selection" that supposedly drives evolution and brought us to our present state in the world.

The world around us displays an inconceivable amount of variety and diversity, a fact which there is no arguing; there is an incredible amount of information in nature. Observed natural selection, however, ends with less variety and less information than it began with, an "inconvenient truth" for most evolutionists, and a fact that is most often overlooked.

For example, let's consider a simple eco-system with three species of bears: a long-haired bear, an extremely short-haired bear, and a bear with median-length fur. Over centuries, the climate in the eco-system changes to a much hotter average temperature, and the long-haired bears die as a result. Survival of the fittest, right? We are then left with two species of bears. Suppose, then, that another few centuries--perhaps millennia--pass, and a small "ice age" sets in to the area, and the short-haired bears freeze to death. Survival of the fittest once again. We are now left with one solitary species of bear, whereas we began with three. Sounds like progress, doesn’t it?

Is the above example perhaps slightly over-simplified? Yes, but it proves the point nonetheless. Observed natural selection NEVER results in more variety; just the opposite, in fact. If the world truly had evolved by natural selection, and if natural selection has always operated the same way, then the logical conclusion would be that there would only be a couple thousand or so species after the millennia of constant, unrelenting sifting and weeding out of weaker, less-suited species [This, of course, not counting in the "new" species that could possibly be "evolving" during said time]. Natural selection is a downhill slope that could not have resulted in what we observe in our world today. You cannot prove otherwise.

2. I suppose you came to the right person to stress-test that argument - a Computer Science major.

Haha that's exactly why I used that example; I knew someone would take the bait.

-Order does not require design. It does require rules, and those rules are usually designed.

Derp…you just proved my point for me.

When setting up an evolutionary algorithm, you specify the rules.

So an "intelligent designer" [you] is specifying the rules, correct? It's not random chance. Thank you for once again proving my point.

In real life, the rules are the universe's fundamental laws, or follow from those. We have no way to tell if those rules were purposefully designed, though.

And yet you just said that

rules are usually designed.

Please, my misguided, confused sir, make up your mind. Are they, or are they not, designed?

I submit to you that the answer is indefatigably yes, rules or laws--whatever you may call them--are designed; they have to be designed. To say otherwise would be irrational and contrary to common knowledge. Laws never arise ex nihilo; they never just appear. Can you think of one that ever has, in the entirety of human existence? I think not. To then say that, because you see no evidence for a law-giver of the natural laws, that there is none, is hypocrisy and yet another evolutionist double-standard. Someone makes the laws, and someone enforces them. Simple, logical deduction taken from observation in the real world, not theorizing.

-I was never taught that rule or anything like it. It's true that most of the code we work with is designed by humans. Not all of it, though - evolutionary algorithms can produce working code

So code can spontaneously arise from a pre-existing code, correct? And I assume that this former code DID have a designer? So once again, you prove my point. Code does not arise spontaneously from nothing.

with no human input save for the initial rules.

See? Rules have to be designed for even simple code--much less infinitely more complex living organisms--to exist.

I must say, I've been quite disappointed at the lack of actual, valid proofs you've offered so far. I thought for a second that I had met my equal.

-No, we can't replicate the information density of DNA yet. We don't have molecular assemblers. Our cells do. Within a century, we should have machines that can do it.
-Working in base 4 is not fundamentally different from working in base 2, or any other base. It might end up more size-efficient for storing information, but at the cost of more complex decoding. There's a reason we only work in base 2 (well, aside from the fact that the majority of numbers being processed are either 0 or 1 anyway).
-Perfectly engineered? Most of our DNA is a complete mess. Some of it is only used as a buffer; some of it is bits of ancient viruses; some, we don't know if it does anything at all. To continue the computer metaphors, it's 750 megabytes of Assembly generated by one of those evolutionary algorithms I mentioned, some of which is around 30 years old, some of which is new, some of which depends on undocumented external libraries, none of which is commented, and at least one bit of which used to be the ILOVEYOU virus. It shouldn't work at all, and if a human had created it they would be fired on the spot. But it does work, somehow, so we get by and gradually try to understand it.

Now here you have some good points.

It shouldn't work at all…But it does work, somehow

Hmmm…almost like there's someone behind the scenes holding things together…someone who knows a whole lot more than we give Him credit for…

-Self-healing and self-replicating code is simple. Write some code, save it to a file, set up checksums (say, via Hamming code). The code will copy the file it was executed from, use the checksums to verify and fix it, generate checksums for the new file, and execute it. Any virus or malware on the internet has at least the self-replicating bit down.

So codes can be self healing…if they are designed to be that way? Codes are designed to repair other codes? I'm getting tired of thanking you for proving my point.

3. You're using the word "faith" in its usual context of "belief without evidence", correct?

Actually, no. I am using the word "faith" I the sense that I have objectively looked at the evidence for both sides, and have decided that creation by an intelligent designer is the "key that fits the lock": it is what lines up with what I observe around me and what makes logical sense.

However, the scientific community (and the scientific method) are designed around evidence. They minimize the need for "faith" as much as possible. Scientists are peer-reviewed - their competence is certified, their papers are checked, and their experiments are published to be replicated. If we don't like their work, we can test it ourselves. I don't have to take natural selection on faith - I can go to BoxCar 2D and watch it happen.

I'm probably missing something, but explain to me how your link is true natural selection. It is an over-simplified example that in reality compares apples and oranges. Besides, we've already proven that computer code in itself invalidates the theory of evolution by natural selection and random chance.

I have less confidence in my beliefs about natural abiogenesis, but I have not encountered a better explanation (no, proposing a supernatural force that deliberately formed and protected life, but who we cannot otherwise detect or communicate with, is not "better" - it is more complex than natural abiogenesis, and no more useful).

1. More complex how?

2. You can detect and communicate with the Creator, but not by any scientific means: and please don't make me re-iterate my point about how trying to prove the super-natural with science is foolish.

I communicate with my Creator every day, and He communicates back. He tells me that He loves me and cares for me, He has a plan for me, and He will help me through the good times and the bad times in life. The best part is: He proves what He says everyday: this is why I say that I have seen and experienced too much for anything to dissuade me from knowing that my God is real and that He is the creator. You don't have to take my word for it, either; the Bible says "O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him" (Psalm 34:8). God communicates to us through the Bible, and we communicate back by prayer. It has worked for billions of people throughout time; I guarantee it will work for you if you try. If you really want God to prove Himself real in your life, He will.

On the cosmos: again, order does not require design.

And yet throughout this whole argument you have proven the exact opposite by your own words.

It simply requires rules, like gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces.

And we have shown that rules necessitate a rule-giver.

Everything else is emergent. I haven't got any evidence for anything that happened before the Big Bang, so I can't choose between hypotheses. Once it formed, everything we see formed via those rules.

This is one of my biggest problems with the theory of evolution: scientists can--with extreme accuracy, sometimes--take us back all the way to the point of the big bang in their theorizing, but that is as far as they can go. No one can scientifically explain where the big bang came from or why it happened. All they can say is that it appeared and it happened. Yes, I know that there are a few theories on that as well, but that is all they are: theories.

[The world] is natural, wild, and glorious; it need not be designed. If you want to say the universe was created by a deity, go ahead

And I will. I challenge you: take an objective look at the arguments and evidence for both sides. You will find that Intelligent Design agrees with the observed world and with common sense and logic. It seems that you, not I, have been...what were your words?

misled by extremists

I really hope I didn't offend and/or hurt anyone, including you, in my reply. I simply want to make you think and take an objective look at the evidences/arguments presented and the logical fallacies in the evolutionist theory/worldview.

[Col. Hstar]

Suppose that Penrose and the others find that the universe differs sufficiently from our predictions that nothing but a deity's intervention explains it. Suppose that we somehow prove a deity intervened there. (For all we know, this might happen in the next 30 years. This is still a relatively new and growing field.) This does nothing to disprove evolution. All of the evidence indicating that evolution occurred still remains.

I give up trying to get you to read posts. The second paragraph stated in my post that I was not debating to disprove evolution. You have a mind block about what I'm arguing please get that resolved.

You state that lack of evidence is not evidence. This is false. Absence of evidence for something is evidence for that thing's absence. The strength of that evidence is determined by the amount of relevant data collected. Humanity has collected massive amounts of data on evolution, and found nothing that indicated supernatural manipulation or tampering.

Here is what I refereed to by your lack of evidence claim

1. As I said, based on the evidence, I believe that life formed via chemical processes. It is not impossible that it was guided, but without evidence of such I prefer the simpler hypothesis.

As a final note, you seem remarkably broad about "evolution", as if you've set it up as a sort of opposite pillar to the Christian god. Let me make this absolutely clear: No competent person worships evolution or takes it on faith. They believe the theory because it best explains what we know. Evolution is a specific thing (in fact, two specific things which you refuse to differentiate between anymore), not some overarching opposing figure. It is not mutually exclusive with most religious beliefs.

It does not best explain what you know. The theory itself of the evolutionary process cannot allow for a beginning of life. At it's core evolution says nature is taking its course, therefore any process occurring in an evolutionary world must occur naturally. But molecules and atoms CANNOT naturally create order, and maintain that order. Evolution cannot provide a beginning point for life and the universe. Without an explanation of a beginning everything after has not basis, no foundation.This would be like building a house with no foundation. Sure you can stand-up wood and bricks, and put it all together, but without a proper foundation, the building is weak and flimsy. In the creative world, God is that foundation.

I never said people worship evolution, but they do take the fact that life "BEGAN BY CHANCE" on a leap of faith. Evolution is a specific thing, it is an incomplete theory. Any competent person can see that.

[haasd0gg]

I sense a response coming from

Cheers

Yanoda