Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Toddsterpatriot]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity.

What is more complex, an acorn or a mighty oak tree?
A fertilized human egg or you?

 

[Steven_R]

I see some sites suggest the wary is an open system,I see some say it is closed system,and yes even some that claim an isolated system. The universe I see differing opinions on as well but in my opinion I believe the universe is an isolated system and earth is a closed system. We the earth does not Exchange enough matter to be considered an open system.

I suggest not using the internet as your source of physics information, or at least limit your searches to reputable sites like MIT OpenCourseWare (ocw.mit.edu) or if you can do the math scienceworld.wolfram.com or any college level Intro to Physics texts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I see some sites suggest the wary is an open system,I see some say it is closed system,and yes even some that claim an isolated system. The universe I see differing opinions on as well but in my opinion I believe the universe is an isolated system and earth is a closed system. We the earth does not Exchange enough matter to be considered an open system.

I suggest not using the internet as your source of physics information, or at least limit your searches to reputable sites like MIT OpenCourseWare (ocw.mit.edu) or if you can do the math scienceworld.wolfram.com or any college level Intro to Physics texts.

Physics is definitely something I should avoid it is something that is obvious I do not have a background in. I should stick to where I can be close on biololgy and origins. That deals with more on my background.. That really is in my opinion where you can if we are a product of chance or purposeful design.

 

[itfitzme]

As reluctant as I may be to make statements of the following tense; YWC should stop making statements with regard to the second law of thermodynamics. The world will be differentially better for it.

There are a few people, on this forum, who really should stop making statements that purport to impart scientific information. They really should stop. I highly doubt they will.

[EDIT: Which YMC has actually decided to do, having written such a post while I was writing this one.]

 

[itfitzme]

I see some sites suggest the wary is an open system,I see some say it is closed system,and yes even some that claim an isolated system. The universe I see differing opinions on as well but in my opinion I believe the universe is an isolated system and earth is a closed system. We the earth does not Exchange enough matter to be considered an open system.

I suggest not using the internet as your source of physics information, or at least limit your searches to reputable sites like MIT OpenCourseWare (ocw.mit.edu) or if you can do the math scienceworld.wolfram.com or any college level Intro to Physics texts.

Physics is definitely something I should avoid it is something that is obvious I do not have a background in. I should stick to where I can be close on biololgy and origins. That deals with more on my background.. That really is in my opinion where you can if we are a product of chance or purposeful design.

You are absolutely correct that, for all practicle purposes, the Earth is a closed system. There is some mention of a minor loss of atmosphere to evaporation into space and there are the regularly scheduled meteors. Still, and until someone puts a significant number to it, the difference those make is nill. Obviously any loss of atmosphere must be negligable or we'd all be in trouble. Interestingly, there is actually a measurable amount of meteoric material on roofs of houses. It is still just dirt, for all practicle purposes. (meteor=>meteoric, from meteors or like meteors)

It is this mangling of the second law that appears to be some bad internet meme. The second law does not say that things tend to become more random.

It says that, for a large isolated system of ultimate particles (gas, liquid), if they can be organized in more than one order, they will end up randomly swapping around between all of those arrangements. It also says that, for a closed system, one that allows heat to enter, the rate of change for entropy with respect to the rate of change of heat is inversly proportional to temperature.

Isolated: ΔS>=0
Not Isolated: dS=dQ/T which also give T dS=dQ

Q is heat, which is the flow of thermal energy across the boundary. Thermal energy is the average kinetic energy of the ultimate particles.

Entropy is literally based on counting the number of ways the particles can be organized. That could be multiple non-random organizations.

If a diamond is isolated from external heat and mass, it will always remain in its crystaline form as a diamond. It won't spontaneously change. ΔS=0.

The non-isolated case of the second law, dS=dQ/T, when combined with the first law that energy is conserved, is what describes thermodynamic cycles like engines and weather.

(The reason I keep using the math is as they say, "A picture is worth a thousand words". A physics formula expresses a half dozen general prose sentences. The context of the formula, like "isolated system of ultimate particles", keeps it from expressing thousands of incorrect prose statements. Together, they create a very restricted picture worth thousands of words. Even then, we have to be cautious because scale is everything. An effect may be theoretically true, even actually true, but it is insignificant in its effect.)

All that said, the first and second laws combine to provide descriptions of dynamic systems that define some restrictions to what happens when work is extracted from thermal energy. One might interpret that because some energy is always lost to heat, then randomness is the result. This, though, is the magic of living things. They take the energy from the Sun and turn into continued life. That they do is insufficient to demonstrate that organization, even cyclical self replicating organiztion of matter isn't possible. Indeed, it is in the case of crystals which are self organizing. That is a far cry from a virus or bacteria, but in the case of DNA, that is the whole thing about them. DNA is the ultimate self replicating molecule.

If there is any hope that this meme might be relevantly applied, it would be to the Universe as a whole. Currently, to the best of our knowledge and information, the Universe is an isolated system. As a whole, the entropy of the Universe can only increase or remain constant. That is, of all the states of organization that the Universe can exist in, over a long enough time, and on the average, it will exist in all the states that it can be organized. But that is so increadibly generalized and abstract as to have no practicle relevance.

(If anything is more relevant it would be that my spelling entropy tends towards maximum, only offset by continued energy expended to reduce it. Left to its own devices, my spelling and typos would exhibit all possible organizations of letters that would still phonetically represent the words!)

 

[daws101]

One last response for the day it was not meant to answer your birth canal question only partially. It was mainly directed at your rhetoric concerning evil women.

another dodge...
the whole idea of original sin is not only counter productive it's silly.
if adam & eve hadn't done what they did there would be no human race..unless I'm wrong and god didn't like what he made...you know how kids can be a pain in the ass..

No daws do you know the condition of the birth canal of eve 6,000 years ago ?

since there is no proof that eve was anything more than a story book character, no one has any evidence she even had a birth canal..
as to the false date of 6,000 years...it's bullshit.

 

[daws101]

How so when scientists consider earth a closed system ? the reason is because no serious amount of matter enters and leaves earth. The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in. This is the only reason they say it is both open and closed but that is nonsense. The sun is pure energy and that is why the energy of the sun penetrates the earth's atmosphere.

The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in.

Makes your Second Law error so obvious.

Nope as I have explained it is simple reasoning. The sun is so powerful the atmosphere can't prevent the energy of the sun penetrating the atmosphere.

that in itself refutes your closed system nonsense..

 

[daws101]

Nope as I have explained it is simple reasoning. The sun is so powerful the atmosphere can't prevent the energy of the sun penetrating the atmosphere.

You are distracting yourself, again, from the point. The 2nd Law of Thermo does not have any bearing on the matter. Life intakes matter and energy, is an open system by definition.

Nothing about the second law forbids life developing.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics - CMI Mobile

Creationist Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist .....biased not objective therefore not credible.

 

[daws101]

Nope as I have explained it is simple reasoning. The sun is so powerful the atmosphere can't prevent the energy of the sun penetrating the atmosphere.

You are distracting yourself, again, from the point. The 2nd Law of Thermo does not have any bearing on the matter. Life intakes matter and energy, is an open system by definition.

Nothing about the second law forbids life developing.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics - CMI Mobile

is it just me or is this pseudo scientific bullshit : What we believe
STATEMENT OF FAITH
(See also “Good News”)
(A) PRIORITIES
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(B) BASICS
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin.
(C) THEOLOGY
The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
All things necessary for our salvation are set down in Scripture.
Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.
(D) GENERAL
The following are held by members of the Boards (Directors) of Creation Ministries International to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture. Nor has the day-age idea (so-called ‘progressive creation’), or the Framework Hypothesis or theistic evolution.
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
(Also available in Afrikaans, Albanian, Indonesian, Portuguese, Russian and Slovenian)

 

[daws101]

you are distracting yourself, again, from the point. The 2nd law of thermo does not have any bearing on the matter. Life intakes matter and energy, is an open system by definition.

Nothing about the second law forbids life developing.

the second law of thermodynamics - cmi mbile

"creation ministries international"?

Could you have offered a less credible source? That's a rhetorical question, btw.

bump

 

[itfitzme]

You are distracting yourself, again, from the point. The 2nd Law of Thermo does not have any bearing on the matter. Life intakes matter and energy, is an open system by definition.

Nothing about the second law forbids life developing.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics - CMI Mobile

It is a meaningless philosophical diatribe. Philosophy is proven irrelevant by more philosophy and, as philosophy has no solid mathematical or scientific foundation, it is necessarily meaningless.

There is simply no way to philosiphicalize to an answer of how life began. There is limited opportunity to theorize onto it. Thermodynamic laws don't provide any basis for proving it either way. At best, they put some restraint on how it came about. Observation of something is required.

I am forever overwhelmed by how a few subatomic particles and a few forces of nature so quickly expands into the complexity of the periodic table of elements. That plethora of seemingly simple set of elements explodes into an extrordinary number of chemicals which further combine into a seemingly infinite variety of organic and inorganic forms.

And for all we know, the circumstances of the early Earth was both complex and significantly different in ways that we cannot begin to imagine. We may have, over the past hundreds of years of investgation, by one of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of scientists, run across, picked up, examined, and tossed away the very evidence simply because they had no clue what they were looking at. And that is assuming it even has survived the geological processes that churn the very ground beneath our feet. We know where oil came from, and yet to look at it, it bears no resemblence to the very creatures from which it came.

We can hypothesize, to the end of days, but without some theoretical or empirical basis, it remains simply that, a hypothesis. A book, written by men, is not the basis for a hypothesis. The repeatable observations and recipes, from a book, written by a cook or blacksmith, have far more relevance.

For me, it is enough to learn what others have already figured out instead of chasing after an answer that is confined to some moment long lost in history.

The day the Sun no longer shines, the Earth's core solidifies, the wind stops, and life still continues on will be the day that some mysterious force is shown as violating the laws of thermodynamics. Until then, it is all just physics, chemistry and biology.

 

[itfitzme]

I read "The Second Law Of Thermodynamics: An Answer To Critics", by Jonathan Sarfti, at least as far as I didn't feel I was wasting my time.

Fundamentally, the entire argument of the article is this; *If we ignore living things and then examine all non-living nature, the non-living things aren't living, ergo, life can't arise without intervention. It starts with an incorrect statement that applies subjective perception to an objective principle, then proceeds*forward, adding one more subjective opinion after another.

These statements are either false,*unproven, non-sequiter, or otherwise not necessarily true.

•"Entropy is a measure of dissorder".

Entropy is a measure of all the ways a system can be organized, whether the are meaningful or not.

•"Usable energy is running out."

Energy is just energy. *"Usable" is an interpretation we assign to something. *It isn't a physical quality intrinsic to energy or matter. *It is the same as "utility" and "value".

•"Information tends to get scrambled."

Again, "information" is not an objective quality of the physical world.

•"Order tends towards disorder."

Same problem as before. *If I take ten pingpong balls and arrange them in rows and columns, we say they have "order". *It is, though, just one of a million different ramdom arrangmemts. *It is, physically, no more unique than any other arrangement.

•"A random jumble won't organize itself."

This is simply a non-sequiter that was arrived at as if the previous meaningless points had relevance. "Random jumble"s did organize themselves.

•"The Universe is an isolated system, so it is running down."

The Universe will never "run down". *Energy is conserved, as is momentum. There is no evidence to support this and fundamental principles that say the opposite.

•"Open systems still have a tendency towards dissorder."

Regardless of any "tendancy", open systems are, by definition, open to outside energy and matter. Depending on the system, they not only don't actually move to dissorder, they actually grow.

•"Raw energy cannot generate the specific complex information in living things."

It did.

At this point, as I'm only a half dozen paragraphs into the article, I am fed up. *It is a study in the psychology of how to mislead people by manipulating perception rather than an examination of nature.

The real shame is that*Jonathan Sarfti has obviously wasted a perfectly good life, having spent it in studying the techniques of sophistry.

And I wasted too much time on it.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics - CMI Mobile

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are distracting yourself, again, from the point. The 2nd Law of Thermo does not have any bearing on the matter. Life intakes matter and energy, is an open system by definition.

Nothing about the second law forbids life developing.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics - CMI Mobile

It is a meaningless philosophical diatribe. Philosophy is proven irrelevant by more philosophy and, as philosophy has no solid mathematical or scientific foundation, it is necessarily meaningless.

There is simply no way to philosiphicalize to an answer of how life began. There is limited opportunity to theorize onto it. Thermodynamic laws don't provide any basis for proving it either way. At best, they put some restraint on how it came about. Observation of something is required.

I am forever overwhelmed by how a few subatomic particles and a few forces of nature so quickly expands into the complexity of the periodic table of elements. That plethora of seemingly simple set of elements explodes into an extrordinary number of chemicals which further combine into a seemingly infinite variety of organic and inorganic forms.

And for all we know, the circumstances of the early Earth was both complex and significantly different in ways that we cannot begin to imagine. We may have, over the past hundreds of years of investgation, by one of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of scientists, run across, picked up, examined, and tossed away the very evidence simply because they had no clue what they were looking at. And that is assuming it even has survived the geological processes that churn the very ground beneath our feet. We know where oil came from, and yet to look at it, it bears no resemblence to the very creatures from which it came.

We can hypothesize, to the end of days, but without some theoretical or empirical basis, it remains simply that, a hypothesis. A book, written by men, is not the basis for a hypothesis. The repeatable observations and recipes, from a book, written by a cook or blacksmith, have far more relevance.

For me, it is enough to learn what others have already figured out instead of chasing after an answer that is confined to some moment long lost in history.

The day the Sun no longer shines, the Earth's core solidifies, the wind stops, and life still continues on will be the day that some mysterious force is shown as violating the laws of thermodynamics. Until then, it is all just physics, chemistry and biology.

Finally back in front of my computer. I was in Vegas and just could not respond on my phone it was a major pain in the you know what.

Itfitzme thank you for the information on physics it really is not a subject That I am as well versed in as I should be. That said philosophy in science it exists andnecessary for building theories and coming up with assumptions. I believe many come in and suggest only empirical evidence should be accepted that is not the case because only empirical evidence can be interpreted wrong. Philosophy plays a large part in science all you need to do is look at theories that are filled with conjecture. Many people are affected by the bias when interpreting evidence and their assumptions.

If we just relied on empirical evidence we wouldn't get very far in science. Still you need to have sound logic to properly interpret if you lack sound logic you will get too many bad assumptions and faulty interpretations.

I will post this and show how important logic and philosophy really are in performing good science.





The Design Argument

Does the intricate design of the universe serve as evidence for the existence of God?

Imagine walking in the desert and coming across two small stones in close proximity to each other. Most probably, you would think nothing of it. Two stones randomly sitting beside each other is no big deal.

You continue your walk in the desert and stumble upon three rows of stones piled up in a brick-layer fashion. Chances are you would quickly surmise that someone was here and arranged these stones in this manner. It didn’t just happen.

You continue your walk and happen to find a watch lying in the middle of the desert. Would you suspect that a windstorm somehow threw these pieces together and randomly created a watch?

Somebody made that watch. It didn’t just happen. Design implies designer.
DID THE UNIVERSE HAVE A DESIGNER?

The intricacy of design in our world is staggering—infinitely more complex than a simple brick wall or a watch. Dr. Michael Denton, in his book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” describes the intricate organization of nerve cells in the brain [pp. 330 - 331].

There are 10 billion nerve cells in the brain. Each of the 10 billion cells sprouts between 10,000 to 100,000 fibers to contact other nerve cells in the brain, creating approximately 1,000 million million connections, or, 10 to the 15th power.

It is hard to imagine the multitude that 1015 represents. Take half of the United States, which is 1 million square miles, and imagine it being covered by forest, with 10,000 trees per square mile. On each of the 10,000 trees, which are on each of the one million square miles, there are 100,000 leaves. That’s how many connections are crammed inside your brain. And they’re not just haphazardly thrown together. They form an incredibly intricate network system that has no parallel in the industrial world.

Imagine walking by that in the desert! The natural response when perceiving design of such mind-boggling complexity is to conclude that there must be a designer behind everything who created it. None of this just happened.
RANDOM WRITING SAMPLE

Rabbeinu Bachya, in his major philosophical work “The Duties of the Heart” [10th century] presents this argument in the following manner:

Do you not realize that if ink were poured out accidentally on a blank sheet of paper, it would be impossible that proper writing should result, legible lines that are written with a pen? Imagine a person bringing a sheet of handwriting that could only have been composed with a pen. He claims that ink spilled on the paper and these written characters had accidentally emerged. We would charge him to his face with falsehood, for we could feel certain that this result could not have happened without an intelligent person’s purpose.

Since this seems impossible in the case of letters whose formation is conventional, how can one assert that something far subtler in its design and which manifests in its fashioning a depth and complexity infinitely beyond our comprehension could have happened without the purpose, power, and wisdom of a wise and mighty designer? (“The Duties of the Heart,” The Gate of Oneness, Chapter 6)

The two most common objections to this argument go as follows:

The argument is too simple. There seems to be a big jump from concluding that someone must have made rock formations in the desert to concluding that there is a Creator who must have made the universe.

What about evolution? Over a very long period of time everything could have come about as a random occurrence! With millions of years to play around with, isn’t it possible for some kind of order to emerge just by chance?

Let’s address these two objections.
ADDRESSING ARGUMENT NUMBER ONE

The principle “design implies designer” applies across the board, whether the designer is a Bedouin nomad piling rocks in the desert or the Infinite Source of all existence. Intellectually it is the same logical process. In fact, there is more reason to assume a designer in the latter case since the level of design is much higher.

Simplicity is not an inherent fault in an argument. Perhaps the reason why some people take issue with this application of logic is due to the accompanying consequences.

Since the Bedouin doesn’t make any moral demands on our life, there is no resistance to drawing the logical conclusion that someone designed that rock formation. But when the conclusion points to God, cognitive dissonance kicks in, creating an instinctive opposition to what one perceives to be threatening. [See the previous article in this series: “Seeing the Elephant”

When the interference of cognitive dissonance is removed, what is the objective standard of design that we need to see in order to conclude something was created? What we need is a control experiment that determines this threshold of design in a case that has no threatening consequences. “The Obvious Proof”, a book by Gershon Robinson and Mordechai Steinman, delivers a compelling presentation of the design argument, and describes such a control experiment involving millions of people concluding the necessity of a designer.

The laboratory consisted of theaters across the globe that showed the film “2001: A Space Odyssey.” In the film, American scientists living in a colony on the moon discover during a dig the first evidence that intelligent life exists on other planets. What did they find? A simple monolith—a smooth, rectangular slab of rock. The Americans keep this significant discovery secret, afraid of the widespread culture shock and social ramifications this would have without proper preparation.

Thousands of film critics and millions of moviegoers went along with the film’s basic assertion, agreeing that intelligent creatures other than man must have created this smooth, rectangular monolith. It didn’t just randomly appear. Free from all emotional and intellectual bias, in the comfort of darkened theaters with popcorn in hand, people unanimously agreed that a simple, smooth slab with a few right angles was conclusive proof of intelligence.

When the conclusion does not point to God, everyone realizes that the simplest object can serve as the threshold of design, the point at which one concludes an object could not have come into existence by random accident. The universe, infinitely more complex than a monolith, had to have been created.
WHAT ABOUT RANDOM EVOLUTION?

Given enough tries over a long period of time, isn’t it possible for complex structures to emerge randomly? After all, with sufficient trials even improbable events eventually become likely.

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University, uses a national lottery to illustrate this point [“Origins”, Bantam, p.121]. The odds of winning the lottery may be 10 million to one. Winning would be incredibly lucky. But if we were to buy a lottery ticket every day for the next thirty thousand years, a win would become probable, (albeit very expensive).

But what are the odds of life coming about by sheer chance? Let’s take a look at two examples to get a sense of the odds involved in random evolution.

Physicist Stephen Hawking, writes in his book “A Brief History of Time”:

It is a bit like the well-known horde of monkeys hammering away on typewriters—most of what they write will be garbage, but very occasionally by pure chance they will type out one of Shakespeare’s sonnets. Similarly, in the case of the universe, could it be that we are living in a region that just happens by chance to be smooth and uniform?

Well could it be?

In response to Hawking, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a physicist, calculated the odds of monkeys randomly typing an average Shakespearean Sonnet in his book “Genesis and the Big Bang.” He chose the one that opens, “Shall I compare you to a summer’s day?”

There are 488 letters in the sonnet ... The chance of randomly typing the 488 letters to produce this one sonnet is one in 26 to the 488th power, or one in 10 to the 690th power. The number 10690 is a one followed by 690 zero’s! The immense scale of this number is hinted at when one considers that since the Big Bang, 15 billion years ago, there have been only 10 to the 18th power number of seconds, which have ticked away.

To write by random one of Shakespeare’s sonnets would take all the monkeys, plus every other animal on earth, typing away on typewriters made from all the iron in the universe, over a period of time that exceeds all time since the Big Bang, and still the probability of a sonnet appearing would be vanishingly small. At one random try per second, with even a simple sentence having only 16 letters, it would take 2 million billion years (the universe has existed for about 15 billion years) to exhaust all possible combinations.

Robert Shapiro cites Nobel laureate Sir Fred Hoyle’s calculation of the odds of a bacterium spontaneously generating [p.127]. At first Hoyle and his colleague, N. C. Wickramasinghe, endorsed spontaneous generation, but reversed their position once they calculated the odds.

A typical bacterium, which is the simplest of cells, is made up of 2,000 enzymes. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe took the probability of randomly assembling one enzyme and multiplied that number by itself 2,000 times to calculate the odds of a single bacterium randomly coming together. Those odds are 1 in 1040,000. Hoyle said the likelihood of this happening is comparable to the chance that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

These are the odds of just a single, simple cell, without which evolution cannot even get started. Never mind the odds of more advanced compounds like an organ or all the enzymes in a human being.

Shapiro writes:

The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.

For all intents and purposes, an event with the probability of 1 in 1040,000 qualifies in real-world terms as impossible.
SOME THINGS ARE IMPOSSIBLE

Imagine you are the presiding judge over a murder trial. Ballistic tests match perfectly with a gun found in the possession of the accused. The odds of another gun firing the bullet that killed the victim are let’s say one in a billion.

The defendant claims that it is a sheer fluke that his gun happens to match the ballistics tests and that there must be another gun out there that is the real murder weapon. “After all,” he says, “it is a possibility.”

The defendant’s fingerprints are found all over the victim’s body. He claims there must be another person out there who happens to have astonishingly similar fingerprints. Again, it is possible.

There are also eyewitnesses who testify to seeing a man gunning down the victim who looks just like the defendant. The defendant claims there must be another person out there in this big world who looks just like him, and that man is the real murderer. After all—it’s not impossible.

You are the judge, and you need to make a decision. What do you decide?

In the pragmatic world of decision-making, odds this high are called impossible. One needs to weigh the evidence and come to the most reasonable conclusion.

Does the universe have a Creator? Look at the design, look at the odds and look honestly within. Where does the more rational conclusion lie?


Intelligent Design Argument

 

[Youwerecreated]

Many theories require philosophy science but if your assumptions are wrong your theory suffer from bad interpretations and I feel that much of science makes this common mistake. You can't argue against sound logic and win.

 

[Hollie]

Oh good gawd.

That was every failed, juvenile creationist argument (to include the silly "blind watchmaker") cut and paste. Although this time, the blind guy was in the desert.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh good gawd.

That was every failed, juvenile creationist argument (to include the silly "blind watchmaker") cut and paste. Although this time, the blind guy was in the desert.

You are not using your logical thinking to see the importance of logic.

 

[Hollie]

Oh good gawd.

That was every failed, juvenile creationist argument (to include the silly "blind watchmaker") cut and paste. Although this time, the blind guy was in the desert.

You are not using your logical thinking to see the importance of logic.

I find no logic in emotional appeals to supernaturalism.

Really, dude. Cutting and pasting a library of failed creationist arguments is a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh good gawd.

That was every failed, juvenile creationist argument (to include the silly "blind watchmaker") cut and paste. Although this time, the blind guy was in the desert.

You are not using your logical thinking to see the importance of logic.

I find no logic in emotional appeals to supernaturalism.

Really, dude. Cutting and pasting a library of failed creationist arguments is a waste of bandwidth.

How ?

The aims of scientific philosophy.

The aims of scientific philosophy can be exposed as the following three.

First, its basic aim is to defend the scientific insight of the philosophy and that it should use the hypothetical-deductive method as any other science.

A second aim is to theoretically develop the philosophy applying this hypothetical-deductive method to show that it can make some advances, not like what happens in the eternal repetition of approaches of unscientific philosophy, the speculative one.

Finally, as any other science, a scientific philosophy aim is to apply in the practice its theoretical developments to show that the scientific vision of the philosophy can not only build theories but also use them usefully in the world.

Scientific Philosophy

 

[Youwerecreated]

Science has built theories that have only one presupposition in Mind.

Key terms.

1. Random
2. Chaos
3. Chaotic system
4. Chance
5. Unguided
6. Complexity
7. Logic

They even have produced theories for some of these terms why ? it seems obvious they have to explain away these terms and evidences that are observed in nature to be able to say design is not a viable explanation.

They can't have a designer because many of the theories taught in schools would have to be redefined or go away or worse yet allow the teachings of design and creation in school.

They have to show what they teach in schools are possible but does it really stand up to logic ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Science has built theories that have only one presupposition in Mind.

Key terms.

1. Random
2. Chaos
3. Chaos system
4. Chance
5. Unguided
6. Complexity
7. Logic

They even have produced theories for some of these terms why ? it seems obvious they have to explain away these terms and evidences that are observed in nature to be able to say design is not a viable explanation.

They can't have a designer because many of the theories taught in schools would have to be redefined or go away or worse yet allow the teachings of design and creation in school.

They have to show what they teach in schools are possible but does it really stand up to logic ?

Ironic given that none of your "creationism" has managed to "stand up to logic".