Evolutionists dismiss (all too quickly, I think) that intelligence was necessary for the first life by suggesting that more time would allow natural laws to do their thing. You've all heard it. It's the old, 'just give it another billion years or so, and we'll get life.'But is that even remotely plausible?
Remember the humongous Buddha the Taliban blew up in Afghanistan? It was hewn out of three of four stories of hard rock right out of the side of the mountain. Sort of the Mount Rushmore of Buddhism.
Well, if, as my friend, Larry correctly asserts (but selectively employs), science is built on observation and repetition, then let us suppose we repeat an experiment where we allow natural laws to work on rock for the next ten years. Will we ever get the mountainous Buddha back?
Not that I miss him.
Some of you might be thinking, 'maybe. Maybe if we let natural laws work for billions and billions of years. It might happen then.'
Nope. Chances are zero. Here's why...
Nature disorders. It does not organize things. This is a well known and accepted (across the spectrum form atheistic scientists to Bible believing Creationists) aspect of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. More time makes things worse for my friend, The Barefoot Bum (aka, Larry) not better.
Why?
A friend of mine explained this in a way even a 3rd grader could grasp.
Suppose you throw red, white and blue confetti out of an airplane at 1,000 feet. What are the chances you will end up with the American Flag on your front lawn?
V-e-r-y low.
Why?
Because natural law will mix up or randomize the confetti.
You say, "allow more time."
Ok, take the plane up to 10,000 feet to give natural laws more time to work on the confetti. Does this improve the probability that the American Flag will form on your front lawn?
No, more time actually makes the flag less likely because natural laws have longer to do what they do--disorder and randomize.
At this point macro evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists will say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't apply continuously to living systems. After all, living things do grow and get more ordered (thought I'd bring that up before you laid it out there, Larry. It saves me another post tearing it down). Yes, they do, however, they still lose energy in the process which is the main premise of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The energy doesn't proceed at 100 percent efficiency, so this law also applies to living things.
However, that is not even the point for this context. We're not talking about what something can do once it is alive. We are talking about getting that living thing in the first place.
How did life arise from non-living chemicals, without intelligent intervention, when those same non-living chemicals are susceptible to the 2nd law?
They have no answer.
3 comments:
Let me start this off by saying I am not trying to force my opinion on anyone, I am not making a frontal attack, I do not have a hidden agenda, and I am not taking sides, well maybe a little skewed towards Rob. I considered long and hard on whether or not I wanted to jump "into the fray" here and post a response especially since I am, for the most part, only a “recreational” blogger. We may disagree on most, if not all, points made based on religion, but I believe we have similar opinions in other matters, probably closer than you would think at first blush. If you want to post a reply please visit my blog http://famulusdeus.blogspot.com/ or http://pastorrobsrants.blogspot.com/
Please keep it clean, these are family friendly blogs. : )
Also, Thom wrote, "thom has left a new comment on your post "Let's just give it Time.":
The second law of thermodynamics does not apply in this context. At least try to keep up with the current scientific knowledge instead of embarrassing better educated Christians. See here
Try a little harder, Bob."
I chased down the hardworking debater, Thom's website of 'facts' and low and behold, what do you think I found?
It's the same one Barefoot used for all his references!
Do you all only have one place to go?
I'm talking about the http://www.talkorigins.org website. It's run by an atheist who approaches all data with the presupposition that there is no God and therefore no possibility of ID.
Hardly a level playing field, however, in getting back to the point, Tommy Boy (I like to have fun with people's names too, but, 'Bob?' Not very creative. Note that Brother Thom strategically removed the 'R' in Rob and replaced it with the second letter in the alphabet thus creating the illusion that my name is really, "Bob." LOL)
But I digress. Essentially, what Thom Thumb is trying to do is to get us to put the final factual seal on (in this case the invalidity of the 2nd law of thermodynamics the way I used it) his objection because Frank Steiger said so.
Remember that corny bumper sticker from years ago, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it?" Well it's corny, there's no denying that, but, well, we are talking about God with that statement. If anyone's statement ought to be taken as the final Word it should be God. Being perfect and all.
Thom has a new bumper sticker, "Frank said it. I'm naive enough to believe it. That settles it."
Well, actually, it doesn't.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics survives even Franky.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is no small thing that comes into play. It's huge! Listen to what Arthur Eddington said over 80 years ago:
The law that entropy increases--the 2nd law of T.--hold, I think, the supreme position in laws of nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations--then so much for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation--well, these experiments do bungle things sometimes, But if you theory is found to be against the 2nd law of T, [thermodynamics] I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
So, knowing it is an irrefutable law. Atheists more modern version of bashing the law is to simply say, "It doesn't apply here," as Thom says.
Work harder Thombolina. And next time bring an adult with you who still knows how to research rather than just link.'
Just kidding, you can come alone but I won't pay for babysitting.
Rob,
I think I can understand why Larry (barefoot) got so annoyed with you. Confetti falling from an airplane is not even a remotely similar analogy. Let me put it like this. If you threw that confetti out of an airplane at a thousand feet could nature make it float up into space. No. Nature is battered into order by the laws of nature.
I think you do not understand evolution theory at all.
Post a Comment