<MichaelNJ@gmail.com> wrote:
Entropy says that all naturally occuring forces acting upon any
environment reduce the level of order in that environment.
Then you misunderstand the meaning of the word entropy. You are making
the same simplistic mistakes that countless creationists before you
have. Don't you know that?
I think you mistate what occurs. Entropy does not necessarily mean
destruction just the overall reduction of order.
No, entropy is about energy--thermodynamics--nothing more. When
creationists try to apply this term to evolution, it is utterly
meaningless.
I'm not saying that things do not change. Merely that things do not
evolve from less complex systems to more complex systems.
How on earth would you come this this conclusion? The evidence to the
contrary couldn't be more clear.
It comes down to the question of origins. The natural processes we
see today can be understood and explained as the natural progression
of events. However, that progression had to start somewhere.
Yes it did. And we still understand little about the origins of the
universe. But that doesn't mean "goddidit" is a reasonable or logical
explanation.
And how did those chemical comes to be? Each level of the picture you
paint becomes more and more complex and requires more and more pre-
cursor events. Each of which has an astonomically large level of
improbability (or so it seems to me).
Argument from personal incredulity. Sigh...
Your theory indicates that we started with few (or none) and grew to
many. Mine says we started with many and are going to few. Based
upon the current trends my view seems more likely.
Based on our current knowledge of star formation, your view is exactly
wrong.
These are the only two choices (although they come in many
variations).
As I said. False dichotomy.
Why is it false?
Do you really not understand why saying "there are only two choices" is
a false dichotomy?
Like so many creationists before you, as soon as your back is against
the wall, you retreat to cosmology, and point to the beginning of the
universe as an argument to support your creationist nonsense. Do you
know how many people before you have gone down that path? Do you know
how meaningless, how ridiculous, this line of argument is?
.
