Here’s an excerpt from Steve Meyer’s chapter, “What is the evidence for intelligent design?” in The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos (2021)
The speculative cosmologies (such as inflationary cosmology and string theory) they propose for generating alternative universes invariably invoke mechanisms that themselves require fine-tuning, thus begging the question as to the origin of that prior fine-tuning. Indeed, all the various materialistic explanations for the origin of the fine-tuning — i.e., the explanations that attempt to explain the fine-tuning without invoking intelligent design — invariably invoke prior unexplained fine-tuning.
Improbability and Functional Specification
Moreover, the fine-tuning of the universe exhibits precisely those features — extreme improbability and functional specification — that invariably trigger an awareness of, and justify an inference to, intelligent design.6 Because the multiverse theory cannot explain fine-tuning without invoking prior fine-tuning, and because the fine-tuning of a physical system to accomplish a recognizable or propitious end is exactly the kind of thing we know intelligent agents do, it follows that intelligent design stands as the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. And that makes intelligent design detectable in both the physical parameters of the universe and the information-bearing properties of life.
Stephen C. Meyer, “Anthropic Fine-Tuning as Evidence of Design” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 28, 2022)
Here are the rest of the excerpts from Meyer’s chapter.
You may also wish to read: Templeton tries to wish away fine-tuning of the universe.
A multiverse leads to absurdity.
I continually post that anything infinite in terms of time leads to absurdity. Whether it is an universe of infinite time or a multi-verse.
Why? Because no one defending such a system can explain why everything physically possible could not happen under such a scenario. Or more importantly hasn’t already happened.
They fail to examine the implications of such a belief. We only know a world with time so naturally assume all worlds are time oriented. But such a belief will always lead to absurd conclusions.
Challenge: describe something that is physically possible that hasn’t already happened?
There are many I think convincing (to non-dogmatic closed minded materialists) arguments showing that multiverse explanations of fine tuning are absurd. Meyer’s argument is one of the best.
Until they explain to us the multiverse scam they should start with simpler problems to solve like explaining the symbol-matter problem(origin of information that can’t come from matter ).
The multiverse hypothesis, as I understand it, is a speculative mathematical model and nobody is claiming it to be anything more.
This is unlike the creationist claim which is held by its proponents to be certainly true but without the benefit of even a mathematical model.
Seversky’s Magic Answers.
1. It’s only a model. (Fair)
2. It’s a mathematical model. (Good)
3. Its a speculative mathematical model (Smasher)
However, not magic if used on its own; to achieve Abracadabra status must be followed by,
4. Tu Quoque OR Irrelevant Shiny Thing (Personal Choice)
Seversky claims: “The multiverse hypothesis, as I understand it, is a speculative mathematical model and nobody is claiming it to be anything more.”
Well actually, directly contrary to what Seversky claims, and as the late Steven Weinberg himself pointed out, the multiverse is not even a ‘speculative mathematical model’. Specifically, Weinberg stated that, “we don’t even have a theory in which that (multiverse) speculation is mathematically realized.”
After Seversky falsely claimed that the multiverse is a ‘speculative mathematical model’, Seversky then goes on to falsely claim that, “This is unlike the creationist claim which is held by its proponents to be certainly true but without the benefit of even a mathematical model.”
What in blue blazes is Seversky going on about? The fact that (immaterial) mathematics is even applicable to the physical universe, (besides being proof, in and of itself, that we must possess an immaterial mind/soul to even be able to comprehend this immaterial ‘Platonic’ realm of mathematics in the first place), is to be considered, by all rights, a miracle.
In fact, both Eugene Wigner, (who won a Nobel prize for his mathematical work in quantum mechanics), and Albert Einstein, (who needs no introduction), are both on record as to regarding it as a miracle that mathematics should even be applicable to the universe.
Wigner, after rightly questioning the ability of Darwinian evolution to explain our reasoning power “to the perfection which it seems to possess”, stated that, “It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.”
Likewise, Einstein himself stated that “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way” And Einstein even went so far as to chastise ‘professional atheists’ in the process of calling the (mathematical) comprehensibility of the universe a ‘miracle’.
And the last time I checked, miracles are defined as being from God.
Moreover, it is not as if the belief that the Mind of God must be behind any mathematics that describe the universe is a stranger to physics.
In fact, modern physics was born precisely out of the Christian belief, (via Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology), that any mathematics that might describe this universe are “God’s thoughts”.
As Kepler himself succinctly stated in the year 1619 shortly after he discovered the mathematical laws of planetary motion,
Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Johannes Kepler Kepler, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,,,
,,, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned), and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company),
,,, then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
Verse:
It appears that Top Scientists proceed today in reckless disregard of the dangers of arrogance and bias, and the practical lessons of data overreach, false assumptions, and deficient reasoning.
Fifteen years and nine children ago, my future hubby and I were in an elective “seminar” at our creationist school called the Foundations of Thermodynamics. It was remarkably advanced for a poor hick high school.
It was taught by our Physics teacher.(she also was sponsor of the gun club and the Book of Psalms club) We learned how physics is built up logically from on “laws”, a law being merely a statement of a generalization of empircal data. As an example, the laws of thermodynamics.
We learned that when one begins with a garbage law , one gets garbabge. An example being Dr Enrico Fermi’s infamous statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “It is impossible to construct a machine that produces work by exchanging heat with a sigle reservior, aka a perpetual motion machine”. Dr. Fermi’s false law (his law iwas also tautological) leads to the rigorous proof of false theroems such as “Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot.”‘, well known since the 1870’s to be false..
In geometry the laws are mere assumptions. (The assumptions are given the more upscale term “postulates”) The geometry we took in 10th grade was based on reasonable, seemingly obvious postualtes. They lead oto a proof of theormems such as: “The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees” that are well known to be false by those who inhabit the planet earth.
Now we have “Specualtive Physics” which is not Physcis at all, as the “laws” are merely assumptions, and ones that can never be verified by empirical evidence. But they do serve two important purposes. 1) They provide generous helpings of NSF gravy. 2) They provide high-end intellectualized baloney to cover up the failure of Atheist Science, at least for some our dimmer breathern.
It appears that Top Scientists proceed today in reckless disregard of the dangers of arrogance and bias, and the practical lessons of data overreach, false assumptions, and deficient reasoning.
Fifteen years and nine children ago, my future hubby and I were in an elective “seminar” at our creationist school called the Foundations of Thermodynamics. It was remarkably advanced for a poor hick high school.
It was taught by our Physics teacher.(she also was sponsor of the gun club and the Book of Psalms club) We learned how physics is built up logically from on “laws”, a law being merely a statement of a generalization of empircal data. As an example, the laws of thermodynamics.
We learned that when one begins with a garbage law , one gets garbabge. An example being Dr Enrico Fermi’s infamous statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “It is impossible to construct a machine that produces work by exchanging heat with a sigle reservior, aka a perpetual motion machine”. Dr. Fermi’s false law (his law iwas also tautological) leads to the rigorous proof of false theroems such as “Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot.”‘, well known since the 1870’s to be false..
In geometry the laws are mere assumptions. (The assumptions are given the more upscale term “postulates”) The geometry we took in 10th grade was based on reasonable, seemingly obvious postualtes. They lead oto a proof of theormems such as: “The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees” that are well known to be false by those who inhabit the planet earth.
Now we have “Specualtive Physics” which is not Physcis at all, as the “laws” are merely assumptions, and ones that can never be verified by empirical evidence. But they do serve two important purposes. 1) They provide generous helpings of NSF gravy. 2) They provide high-end intellectualized baloney to cover up the failure of Atheist Science, at least for some our dimmer breathern.
Tammie: The geometry we took in 10th grade was based on reasonable, seemingly obvious postualtes. They lead oto a proof of theormems such as: “The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees” that are well known to be false by those who inhabit the planet earth.
While it is true the sum of the angles of a triangle on a curved surface (like the earth) is Not 180-degrees I have a feeling that is not what you are talking about.
So, can you please clarify: under what conditions and situations do you think the sum of the measures of the angles of a triangle do not equal 180-degrees.
TAMMIE LEE HAYNES/7
It sounds like your physics teacher, far from trying to provide a fair and balanced treatment of the subject, was pursuing the standard creationist agenda of trying to discredit it.
For example, “Dr. Fermi’s false law” seems to be referring to the Kelvin-Planck statement:
As for “Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot” that is true insofar as we never observe it. If you put two bottles of water, one hot and one cold in an insulated container, the hot one will cool and the cold will get warmer until they reach an equilibrium temperature. You will never observe the hot one getting even hotter and the cold one getting even colder on their own.
If, by the 1870’s reference, your teacher meant “Maxwell’s Demon” that was a purely speculative hypothesis that doesn’t change what we would observe in the little experiment above although it has led on to some very interesting work much more recently.
Seversky, a Darwinian Atheist, tries to correct Tammie, a Christian Theist, on her understanding of the second law. 🙂
I’m sure that Sir William Thomson, i.e. Lord Kelvin, a Christian Theist, would have been amused that an Atheist would try to correct a Christian on the second law.
Seversky, as a Darwinian Atheist, is simply in no position whatsoever to correct anyone on the second law.
Simply put, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly, if not directly, contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had, and/or ‘naturally selected’ for, over long periods of time.
Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will eventually decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed ‘maximum entropy’, and/or entropic ‘heat death’, of the universe is finally reached.
This is not a minor problem for Darwinists such as Seversky. As Eddington himself explained, “if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
Moreover, the recent experimental realizations of the Maxwell demon thought experiment have only made, what was already a bad situation for Darwinists, exponentially worse.
As the following article states: “Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system, Now in information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
Simply put, and as far as the Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian evolution debate is concerned, finding, (via Maxwell’s demon), that entropy is not “a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system” is NOT a minor problem for the Darwinian atheist to overcome since Darwinists resolutely hold that intelligent ‘observers’ had nothing whatsoever to do with overcoming the gargantuan ‘thermodynamic chasm’ that is present between non-life and life.
Verse:
Unguided evolution does NOT contradict the second law of thermodynamics nor the law disprove evolution.
https://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0195-3
https://medium.com/the-evolutionist/why-evolution-doesnt-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-3ae3daff7558
http://curious.astro.cornell.e.....termediate
Dr Sewell has been told this over and over and over again but he still chooses to get it wrong, for some reason. He certainly understands the underlying mathematics so there must be some other reason.
From Wikipedia:
JVL
I tried one of your links and got this …
I invite you to review this video which gives a solid response to the above speculation:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/film-premieres-today-cell-membranes-as-a-challenge-in-the-origin-of-life/
JVL, I seriously don’t think you should be trying to defend the validity of Darwinian evolution against the second law of thermodynamics.
The two are simply, more or less, diametrically opposed to one another.
One, the second law, holds that things will inexorably progress towards disorder. The other, Darwinian evolution, holds that things will progressively progress to greater and greater levels of order.
The former has a mountain of evidence supporting it. The latter has a mountain of evidence against it.
For instance
Obviously JVL, this mountain of empirical evidence showing that mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious is NOT good news for your claim that Darwinian evolution is, basically, impervious to the second law’s relentless tendency to drive things towards disorder.
Bornagain77: JVL, I seriously don’t think you should be trying to defend the validity of Darwinian evolution against the second law of thermodynamics.
I let the authors of the webpages I linked to point out that unguided evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are not at odds with each other. This is a view held by the vast majority of physicists, chemists, etc. You may disagree but you’ll have to do a lot of math to make your case.
One, the second law, holds that things will inexorably progress towards disorder. The other, Darwinian evolution, holds that things will progressively progress to greater and greater levels of order.
The disorder increases over the whole system in question; there are pockets or instances of greater order. One of the pages I linked to used a analogy of shuffling and dealing playing cards. Shuffling is a disordering process but that doesn’t mean you won’t sometimes get dealt a straight flush which is highly ordered.
Obviously JVL, this mountain of empirical evidence showing that mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious is NOT good news for your claim that Darwinian evolution is, basically, impervious to the second law’s relentless tendency to drive things towards disorder.
I agree, most mutations are deleterious which is why I think many, many human pregnancies spontaneously abort; there is something so wrong that the foetus isn’t viable and ‘dies’ quite early on. There may be even more such events than we know; not many women will report a late period followed by a particularly heavy menstruation. Could be another spontaneous abortion.
By the time a life form has reached the reproduction age when it can pass on its genetic library it has already leapt over many hurdles whereas other individuals have fallen by the wayside. For some life forms most of their live births get killed or die way before they get a chance to reproduce. Life is an extremely wasteful process. Much of it is chaotic and poorly formed and quickly turns into food or fertiliser.
Anyway, evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics as long as you consider the entire system; i.e. the earth is not a closed system, the sun pummels it with energy every single day.
By the way, before you decide who is right and who is wrong perhaps you should make sure you understand the actual mathematical law you are referring to, one statement of which is the following:
T x dS = ?Q
In that statement, what does the d stand for? What does the ? stand for? [The ? should be a small Greek letter delta but this particular installation of WordPress isn’t configured to represent such things. That could be corrected of course; I won’t hold my breath.]
JVL states:
No I don’t, as far as empirical science is concerned, I just have to point to the empirical evidence,. (and in this case, I just have to point to the fact that it is now known that the overwhelming majority of mutations are deleterious to show that Darwinian evolution does not get a free pass in regards to the second law)
Moreover JVL, you appealing to a consensus of scientists, as you have now done, instead of appealing to any supporting empirical evidence, is ‘the first refuge of scoundrels’
JVL then goes on to agree with me that most mutations are now known to be deleterious, In fact he said, “I agree, most mutations are deleterious which is why I think many, many human pregnancies spontaneously abort”
So JVL apparently agrees that the empirical evidence itself supports my position not his. Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned it is, or it should be, ‘case closed’.
But JVL is apparently impervious to the fact that empirical evidence has the last word in empirical science, So JVL then goes on to claim, “Anyway, evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics as long as you consider the entire system; i.e. the earth is not a closed system, the sun pummels it with energy every single day.”
So, JVL’s reasoning, (in so far as it can even be termed ‘reasoning’), seems to be, “no matter that the overwhelming rate of mutations is now known to be deleterious, the earth is an open system and it is constantly receiving energy from the sun and thus the second law does not apply to the earth, and/or to life on earth.”
Well, first off, the second law was discovered right here on earth. So apparently the earth, just because it is an ‘open system’, is not as ‘unconcerned’ with the second law as JVL’s simple minded ‘reasoning’ would seem to imply at first glance.
Secondly, just pouring raw energy into a ‘open system’ actually accelerates the rate in which a system deteriorates.
The following video, at the 46 minute mark, clearly illustrates that just pouring raw energy into a ‘open system’ actually accelerates the rate in which a system deteriorates
Moreover, the energy that is allowed to enter the atmosphere of the Earth is constrained, i.e. finely-tuned, to 1 trillionth of a trillionth of the entire electromagnetic spectrum:
As the preceding video highlighted, visible light is incredibly fine-tuned for life to exist on earth. Though visible light is only a tiny fraction of the total electromagnetic spectrum coming from the sun, it happens to be the “most permitted” portion of the sun’s spectrum allowed to filter through the our atmosphere. All the other bands of electromagnetic radiation, directly surrounding visible light, happen to be harmful to organic molecules, and are almost completely absorbed by the earth’s magnetic shield and the earth’s atmosphere.
The size of light’s wavelengths and the constraints on the size allowable for the protein molecules of organic life, strongly indicate that they were tailor-made for each other:
Moreover, even though the energy that is allowed to enter the atmosphere of the Earth is constrained, i.e. finely-tuned, to 1 trillionth of a trillionth of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, that still does not fully negate the disordering effects of pouring raw energy into an open system, (as was referenced in the preceding Thomas Kindell video).
In order to offset this disordering effect that pouring raw energy into an open system has, the raw energy from the sun must be further ‘refined’ to be of biological utility. This is accomplished by photosynthesis which converts sunlight into ATP.
To say that photosynthesis defies Darwinian explanations is to make a dramatic understatement:
Of related note: ATP synthase is ‘unexpectedly’ found to be, thermodynamically, 100% efficient
Of note: ‘100% efficiency’ far outclasses any man-made machine.
Thus in conclusion, in spite of the fact that JVL blatantly ignored the overwhelming rate of deleterious mutations, and appealed to the fact that the earth is an ‘open system’ to try to claim that Darwinian evolution does not, (more or less), directly contradict the second law, the fact of the matter is that the earth being an ‘open system’ does not alleviate Darwin’s insurmountable problem with the second law in the least. Not one iota. JVL can appeal to as many mathematical equations as he wants and it is still not going to change the fact that it is the empirical evidence itself that is, overwhelmingly, showing him to be dead wrong.
Bornagain77: No I don’t, as far as empirical science is concerned, I just have to point to the empirical evidence,. (and in this case, I just have to point to the fact that it is now known that the overwhelming majority of mutations are deleterious to show that Darwinian evolution does not get a free pass in regards to the second law)
You seem strangely confused. I agreed that most mutations are deleterious. You seem more focused on disagreeing with me than with having an actual conversation. Curious.
Moreover JVL, you appealing to a consensus of scientists, as you have now done, instead of appealing to any supporting empirical evidence, is ‘the first refuge of scoundrels’
I’m very happy with the empirical evidence. You choose to pick certain interpretations of the empirical evidence. BUT, if you consider ALL the evidence and all the opinions and weigh them based on frequency then where do you get?
So JVL apparently agrees that the empirical evidence itself supports my position not his. Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned it is, or it should be, ‘case closed’.
To the contrary, the fact that most mutations are deleterious points to an undesigned, uncontrolled, unfocused process. Put another way: IF the whole thing was designed then why is there so much waste? I think the better answer is that it’s not designed or planned.
Well, first off, the second law was discovered right here on earth. So apparently the earth, just because it is an ‘open system’, is not as ‘unconcerned’ with the second law as JVL’s simple minded ‘reasoning’ would seem to imply at first glance.
hahahahahahah. Sorry. You really don’t understand the mathematics and laws as they are postulated. What you said makes no sense at all. The earth is ‘not as unconcerned with the second law’? hahahahahahahahahhahahah
Secondly, just pouring raw energy into a ‘open system’ actually accelerates the rate in which a system deteriorates.
Another example of how you don’t really understand the mathematics or the physics that you are trying to discuss. You should give it up because you are just embarrassing yourself.
Moreover, the energy that is allowed to enter the atmosphere of the Earth is constrained, i.e. finely-tuned, to 1 trillionth of a trillionth of the entire electromagnetic spectrum:
You keep trying to repeat things you think are pertinent but you keep missing the actual point. You really should stop embarrassing yourself.
As the preceding video highlighted, visible light is incredibly fine-tuned for life to exist on earth. Though visible light is only a tiny fraction of the total electromagnetic spectrum coming from the sun, it happens to be the “most permitted” portion of the sun’s spectrum allowed to filter through the our atmosphere. All the other bands of electromagnetic radiation, directly surrounding visible light, happen to be harmful to organic molecules, and are almost completely absorbed by the earth’s magnetic shield and the earth’s atmosphere.
Sounds like life finely-tuned itself to the conditions given. So?
Thus in conclusion, in spite of the fact that JVL blatantly ignored the overwhelming rate of deleterious mutations, and appealed to the fact that the earth is an ‘open system’ to try to claim that Darwinian evolution does not, (more or less), directly contradict the second law, the fact of the matter is that the earth being an ‘open system’ does not alleviate Darwin’s insurmountable problem with the second law in the least.
Yes it does! You don’t understand the actual statement of the second law of thermodynamics. You’ve got the whole thing wrong because you are trying too hard to push a particular conclusion instead of looking at the actual evidence.
Plus, clearly, you do not understand the underlying mathematics. Which means you, personally, cannot properly evaluate some of the arguments. Which means that you, personally, are just choosing who to believe based on whether or not they support your pre held view.
And that’s not science is it?
Sorry, I just want to savour, again, what Bornagain77 said above:
JVL, I am quite satisfied to let the scientific evidence that I have cited, particularly the overwhelming rate of deleterious mutations, (which you yourself agreed with), speak for itself.
Darwinian evolution is simply a non-starter as far as biology and the second law are concerned. Period.
You can claim to be wise all you want, and that I just don’t understand the second law, or evolution, or whatever. Yet, the empirical evidence itself could care less about your false bravado
JVL, no matter how smart he claims to be, simply has no empirical evidence that he can appeal to to support his claim that life is not in the relentless grip of what John Sanford has termed ‘genetic entropy’.
JVL is Steamrolling, a tried-and-true Troll maneuver.
Andrew
“To the contrary, the fact that most mutations are deleterious points to an undesigned, uncontrolled, unfocused process.”
JVL,
It points the other way. You can’t go from organized and functional to disorganized and degraded without starting from organized and functional.
Andrew
God didn’t design everything around to last forever. He put in a dying process for that. Wise design, I say.
Andrew
Bornagain77: JVL, I am quite satisfied to let the scientific evidence that I have cited, particularly the overwhelming rate of deleterious mutations, (which you yourself agreed with), speak for itself.
Good, ’cause that means you’ve got the wrong end of the stick.
Darwinian evolution is simply a non-starter as far as biology and the second law are concerned. Period.
Not as far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned as agreed upon by almost every physicist and chemist you can find. But, of course, you’re not actually interested in all the data, just that which agrees with your biased view NOT based on a real understanding of the mathematics involved. Yeah, I noticed you couldn’t answer my question. So did a lot of other people I bet.
You can claim to be wise all you want, and that I just don’t understand the second law, or evolution, or whatever. Yet, the empirical evidence itself could care less about your false bravado
If you did understand the mathematics then why didn’t you answer my very basic question about it? It’s because you don’t understand even the clear mathematical statement of the second law of thermodynamics. You just troll around for opinions that match yours, clips and paste them Into you database of references and you think you’re doing science. But you’re not. A real person of faith would just admit it. A real person of faith would be proud of the fact that faith is the basis of their view. But you think you have to wrap your faith in a false understanding of science and that that should make you even more pious. It just makes you look misguided and foolish.
JVL, no matter how smart he claims to be, simply has no empirical evidence that he can appeal to to support his claim that life is not in the relentless grip of what John Sanford has termed ‘genetic entropy’.
What kind of faith requires a complete distortion and misunderstanding of the science? What is a man of faith who lies thinking they are doing good? The poison of the the lying and deceit rots their faith from the inside, turning them into mirrors of the evil they want to fight. The way to the kingdom isn’t through deceit and untruth. If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.
Asuaber: JVL is Steamrolling, a tried-and-true Troll maneuver.
Gee, can you answer my question about the second law of thermodynamics? See above.
It points the other way. You can’t go from organized and functional to disorganized and degraded without starting from organized and functional.
I think the whole process was unplanned, unorganised and spontaneous from the start. Yes, most mutations are deleterious, that explains the high number of still births and spontaneous abortions in humans. That explains why some species creates vast numbers of offspring only to have most of them get taken by predation. That explains why many of us get nasty and horrible diseases, some of which are fatal. Life is a wasteful and indifferent process.
God didn’t design everything around to last forever. He put in a dying process for that. Wise design, I say.
Fine. You should be happy then when you die of cancer or COVID or diabetes or the flu or Ebola or Whooping cough or Malaria or Tetanus or an earthquake or a flood or a lightning strike or ever. It’s all part of God’s plan. A plan that hasn’t been explained to me, a plan that no one knows, a plan that I can only hope is for the best. Praise God for pain and suffering and death. It’s all part of the plan.
Why did God punish Adam and Eve for partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge? Why did God then punish all of us, apparently for their sin? We’re not supposed to ask and question and try to find out certain things? But Christianity is supposed to be the faith of science. As long as you don’t question certain things I guess.
🙂 The Human Genome Project has written down all the hieroglyphics from genome. . Ok,what does it mean ? Many people believe that to print a dictionary of cryptograms is as if they already decryped the code. Nothing more false. How we will know when the scientists will decrypt genome? No new experiment will be required.
First find the rock under which some chemicals+physical laws run homeostasis for the first time before proceeding with multiplication for the very first time obviously. Then I would say :”This is a miracle!” 😆
JVL: I am also quite satisfied to let your evidence-free, fallacious ‘appeal to authority’, fallacious ‘ad hominem’, as well as incoherent rambling, speak for itself. 🙂
Let’s make this real simple for you JVL. You claim that the second law is no big hurdle for evolution.
Okie Dokie, how about you demonstrating just one single functional protein overcoming the second law and originating purely by chance?
Also of note:
“You should be happy then when you die of cancer or COVID or diabetes or the flu or Ebola or Whooping cough or Malaria or Tetanus or an earthquake or a flood or a lightning strike or ever.”
JVL,
I *should* be happy when I die, in whatever fashion it happens. But with true Trollism, in considering my personal demise, you have gone way off topic.
Andrew
“I think the whole process was unplanned, unorganised and spontaneous from the start.”
JVL,
So how did things get organized, and why?
Andrew
JVL
Idle curiosity is something we should avoid. We also shouldn’t ask questions about how to commit evil (the knowledge of good and evil was what Satan gave them).
God wants us to thrive and to grow in knowledge of what is good. Considering that all things belong to Him and He is the source of all knowledge, He’s not hiding anything that is good for us.