Want Some Answers ???

Evolutionism
Index
Home



Hi Andrew,

>>Mark Thank you for your appeal to join your faith, I appreciate the kind spirit in which it was made. However I cannot acquiesce, as although your beliefs are heart felt by you, they appear to me, essentially irrational - We still disagree over basic concepts!<<

We all have faith in something. As I said, you have faith in a universe which consistently generates its own complexity (in violation of its own laws), faith in missing fossils, in biological mechanisms never observed, and faith-belief in incredible transformations which are unobservable and unrepeatable by definition. This "appears to me, essentially irrational". It takes more faith to believe in evolution than God. I don't even need 'faith' to believe there is a Creator. All I need are eyes that can see and a brain that works.

As I said, belief in God is not contrary to science. The 'complexity' and organization that abounds is proof there is a God. This is a 'rational' concept. There is design, order and laws in abundance and these do not happen by chance. No design without a Designer, or order without putting things in order. This is not 'faith' but fact. We understand these with the mind, which indicates there is a Greater Mind. The world has ALL THE SIGNS OF BEEN CREATED. And one doesn't even need 'faith' to understand that.

>>1. A thought experiment: If you (or I) had been brought up in Saudi Arabia or Iran is it plausible you would have become an muslim? You could have gone to university in Riyadh or Cairo and done a PhD in Theology (studying the Holy Qur'an ), and then started a website (probably in arabic) called 'want some answers'.<<

One does not become a Christian by birth into a Christian family. I would still be a fallen creature made by God and needing salvation. Millions know there is a Creator, & something is wrong on earth (evil). And know truth and error exist and there is an ultimate truth beyond man that remains true regardless. How fortunate some know the truth about the Creators existence and have answers for those like you who have no answer. Islam requires submission and obedience but people need 'answers'.

>>2. This brings us back to the questions I didn't get answered from Friday. i) Do you think you are more or less dogmatic than I am?<<

There is good & bad 'dogma'. I think you are more 'dogmatic', a bad dogmatism. None is blinder as those who refuse or don't want to see. You are clever when you want and dumb when you want. Whose 'dogma' is best? One that has answers, reason and explanation.

>>ii) Is there any theoretical possibility you could be wrong and not know it?<<

There is no 'possibility' God doesn't exist. There are only two explanations for man's existence. Man makes up a story, or God reveals His glory. There is no question God exists. This is not a belief system in the head; it's built on the observation of facts, and proven laws of nature. According to evolution nothing can really be 'right and wrong'. They can't even exist, so what is "wrong" according to you?

>>>iii) Are the putative existance of a super-intelligent creator or his universal creative acts breaches or exceptions to our much beloved 2nd law?

Your not making any sense here.

>>which reminds me...3. 'Complexity' DOES NOT EQUAL 'order'.<<

In your definition 'complexity' means 'disorder' ('mixed-sand' or jumbled 'numbers'). I believe books are 'complex' and orderly. They don't write themselves, their 'complex' information doesn't arise from jumbled letters. Information NEVER occurs by random chance, the 2nd law, or 'disorder'. And pages of jumbled words never 'order' themselves.

>>a) why is this important? well because the 2nd law refers to order/disorder not complexity.<<

You haven't read what I said. I've never said the 2nd Law results in 'order or complexity' but in 'disorder' or loss of 'complexity'. The 'complexity and order' in living things are contrary to the 2nd law.

>>b) Where did I get this strange notion from you may ask?<<

I answered that already.

>>I won't bore you with the results of typing 'definition of order' (no apostrophes) into google. Of the first 12 sites returned there was one reference to 'complex' - "language's rules is aligned with the Oedipus complex, according to Lacan". Anyway I also tried: "complexity is synonymous with order" 0 hits<<

Been silly Andrew? Nothing worth saying? When you first wrote, I thought you might have something. But soon discovered you ignore what you want. Sorry to sound so unkind, why waste time. So this is my last. Thanks for writing; I'm sure there's hope for you.

Regards,



But Andrew kept writing, if the mail becomes boring, (sorry). I sent this (all my comment) -

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the mail. It would be nice to continue communication, but seems a waste of time. The comments of scientists and the laws of physics are irrelevant to you. You get your science from internet websites, creditability is an issue. So against better judgment, I'll reply but doubt this will accomplish anything.

It should have been enough when I defined '
complexity' but you play dumb. Regardless what scientists say. So I can only repeat it. The complexity (ie in a cell) is "intricate" and orderly it's not "chaos or "disorder". No one describes a living cell as "the opposite to order" as you. The 'complexity' I specified is so 'complex' its called 'irreducible 'complexity'. That is, it can't be diminished without ceasing the function or purpose.

"The three billion DNA “letters” stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information (known as “specified complexity”) than the over half a million DNA “letters” of the “simplest” self-reproducing organism …. Living things have fantastically intricate features—at the anatomical, cellular and molecular level— that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution." (p56 161 'Refuting Evolution 2' Master Books 2002 J.D.Sarfati - PhD Physical Chemistry Victoria Univ. NZ).

Random "
numbers" might be called 'complex' but they are NOT orderly, or the 'complexity' scientists refer to. Random numbers (or letters) contain no useful 'information'. Numbers or letters with 'complexity' may carry useful information if orderly, but it would be useless unless in a language convention. So random words don't make sense. How many quotes do you need?

Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.’ [L. Orgel, The Origins of Life, John Wiley, NY, p. 189, 1973.]. What?? Andrew didn't he just say your '
mixed sand' "lacks complexity" !!

"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which – a functional protein or gene – is complex beyond…anything produced by the intelligence of man?" (p342 Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Lon. Burnett Books 1985. M. Denton).

"Randomness is synonymous with disorder" (p.223 Genesis Flood R/R pub. 1961 Morris/Whitcomb). Note '
order and complexity' interchangeable -"Both plant and animal kingdoms manifest enormous complexity and information in their genetic codes, but this order and information pre-existscomplex ordered structures of any kind cannot happen except by design and intelligence" (J Bergman, BS, MS in Psychology, PhD Evaluation, PhD biology). Another, "the complexity of nature clearly points to a Creator. Every biological and physical system, once understood shows incredible complexity" (J.G.Kramer BSc, MS, PhD in Biochemistry. Publ., over 128 papers). Another defines complexity, "The presence of complexity – interdependent parts that do not function unless others parts are also present – poses another major problem for evolution…how does complexity evolve? Can order arise from mixed up changes?" (Prof. A.A.Roth BA, MA, PhD biology). Another, "The complexity of the animate world is orders of magnitude greater than that of inanimate nature" (Prof. G.Javor BS chemistry PhD Biochemistry publ. over 40 papers) (p23,27,43,75,122 'Six Days'. New Holland. Ed J.Ashton PhD)

Get those books I mentioned and see how the words '
order and complexity' are used. Eg "The telenology of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Telenology can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity" (p.9 Origins Eden pub. 1995 P.S.Taylor (ed) A. Wilder-Smith - 3 PhD's. An extensive discussion on information and thermodynamics, order and complexity, ch.8 "The Mystery of Life’s Origin" CB Thaxton, WL Bradley, RL Olsen (NY: Philosophical Library Inc. 1984).

Our understanding of the 2nd Law has not been over thrown in "
the last 100 years of physics" as you said. "There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries…" (p78 E. Stuart B Gal-Or A. Brainard eds., Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics in a Critical Review of Thermodynamics, Baltimore. Mono Book Corp.). The second law states without exception 'all things are running down' and progress from complex to simple, information becomes lost or damaged and you have not prove otherwise. There is no law of evolution going the other way.

So I agree with ex-biochemist Prof. Boston Univ. School of Medicine, Dr. Asimov, "…..everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down wears out, all by itself- and that is what the second law is all about" (In the Game of Energy and You Can't Even Break Even, Smithsonian (June 1970) p6)

Normally I don't disclose the details of correspondents but if you have science qualifications let me know, it might help people take you serious.

Thanks for writing



Hi Andrew,


>>BINGO! I think were getting somewhere here at last Mark, you're getting my point - the words 'complex' and 'orderly' have different meanings! <<

I suspect 'bingo' is appropriate. I referred to 'different meanings' –

"So you were wrong right at the start..." (email 2)
"We differed with the use of the word complexity… (email 3)
"Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity (email 4)

Someone made a mistake in the first place -


>>I find the terminology confusing myself - but in one of your recent published dialogues you use the terms 'order' and 'complexity' as if they were synonymous…<<

Then you insisted 'complexity' really means "chaos or "disorder". You fail to realize it can mean "intricate" "complicatedness" or an "orderly arrangement" or "complex interrelationships". But now accept the meaning - "many different and connected parts". Well done.

So of course scientists use the words 'synonymously' and say 'complexity' means intricate and orderly. They don't say its "the opposite to order" or "chaos". The complexity mentioned or referred to on my webpage by an evolutionist relates to higher life forms (NOT 'sand' or 'mixed numbers'). Life forms have complex structure. All the parts are interconnected and highly ordered. But I don't believe you will admit this because you can't explain it.

The First Law cannot allow anything to come into existence from nothing (even the cosmic egg could not come into being from nothing). So if even a single atom cannot come into being from nothing, surely the matter and energy equivalent to that presently existing in the universe could not have come into being from nothing. That's why the theory of Evolution contradicts the science of thermodynamics. Gamov put it this way -

"We may assume in the distant past our universe was considerably less differentiated and complex than it is now….the state of matter at that time could be accurately described (as) primordial chaos…the problem (is the) attempt to reconstruct the evolutionary process….from simplicity to the present immense complexity of the universe around us" (p20 The Creation of the Universe. Viking Press NY G.Gamov).

Evolution is not just about 'biological evolution' but also about the formation of matter, planets, atoms, and all the laws of nature which exist. It is simply hopeless to argue all these, plus life itself with its even greater '
complexity' occurred by chance processes. As Duane Gish (PhD in Biochemistry from U.C Berkeley) puts it,

"Evolutionary theory requires an enormous increase in complexity, organization and information…a universe containing 100 billion stars, a complex solar system, including millions of incredibly complex living organisms here on planet earth…chaos generated the cosmos, disorder was transformed into order, the complex arose from the simple. Notice that everything is included – the whole of reality – stars, galaxies, the solar system, beginning of life, all plants, animals and man including our consciousness, our ability to remember, cope with the present, plan for the future…..If all of this has really happened, then there must exist a universal, natural tendency of matter to transform itself from disorder to order, from simple to complex. This tendency must be all pervasive, all unfailing, if hydrogen has transformed itself into people via a multitude of other elements which must possess this same property" (p156-157 Creation Scientists Answer their Critics. D.T Gish ICR 1993)

Hoyle - "If there were some deep principle that drove organic systems towards living systems, the operation of the principle should easily be demonstrable in a test tube in half a morning" (p208 Origins – A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. Bantam Books NY 1986 by R.Shapiro, who quotes F.Hoyle). So on the basis of evolutionary theory, the prediction is for matter to possess an 'all-pervasive' 'tendency' to increase in
order and complexity. Dr Gish, "No scientist has ever detected such a property of matter – it is not known in science. No natural law that describes such a tendency of matter exists. There is, however, a natural law which describes just the opposite – the Second Law of Thermodynamics" (p158 Ibid.,)

So I reject your idea of "
Shakespeare" from 'mixed numbers' by chance as unscientific and a clear violation of the 2nd Law. It's 'irrational', the universe could not have created itself naturally, it had to be created supernaturally. A creator is responsible for the introduction of organization, 'complexity' and information content of the universe. You have no explanation for the origin of information but the answer of 'random' and 'chaos' chances.

One can have a typewriter, ink, paper, printing press, words, and
numbers, but without information there is no book. Information is never generated spontaneously. But over time, lost and garbled.

Most evolutionists realize the extremely damaging effect of the 2nd Law on evolution and have tried all sorts to silence the problem. And tried to portray creationists as confused, ignorant, incompetent or dishonest. But it's unusually the opposite. I find all the arguments against the 2nd Law simplistic, irrelevant and unconvincing. And that is where you are – unconvincing. You skirt the real issues and avoid the evidence.

Regards,
Mark



Index
Home
His Reply