You Betcha

Snowflakes and crystals are hardly evidence of increasing complexity that adds information and creates instructions for a specific purpose.

Crystal formation is merely the repetitious sequence of a single structure over and over.

This is a far cry from the information needed for DNA, and the instructions therein, to specify the way organisms evolve into more complex organisms.

DNA is a written program with information that has a specific outcome. It is identical to language with a specific message. Any message that has meaning is attributed to an intelligent source.

However, in the single instance of DNA, many scientists do not want to associate this method of deduction that DNA is linked to an intelligent source. Normally, scientists embrace the notion of intelligent cause with other branches of science.

What do evolutionists say about this? Thanks.

Shadow Wraith

Nice post hezekiah. As far as YECs invoking the second law of thermodynamics, I would suggest to them some of Ilya Prigogine's work, namely "Order out of Chaos." The general gist of his work is that there is no requirement of any complex system to go from low entropy to high entropy. Weather, formation of heavy elements and complex compounds, and the evolution of life do not necessarily contradict entropy. Ludwig Boltzmann grossly overextrapolated the second law of TD by saying that ALL systems must go to complete entropy.

Some other things. If the universe is only 6000 years old, then how do YECs explain supernovae? For example, the remnants of SN1987A are 170,000 light years away. That means the star went supernova around the year 168,000 BC. How, using legitimate physics, can YECs fit this and other even further outbursts of radiant energy into their scenario? Simply put, they can't from what I've read from them.

Also, where exactly in the Judeo-Christian holy texts does it say that the Earth is only 6000 years old? They (theists) have yet to tell me where it gives even a ballpark estimate of the age of the Earth/universe.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Shadow Wraith ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Thanks!

<a href="http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/ussher.html" target="_blank">James Ussher (1581-1656), "Primate of All Ireland."</a>

Coragyps

You Betcha said:
Any message that has meaning is attributed to an intelligent source.

I disagree. The spectrum of a star is a message- it can tell you the chemical composition, the radial velocity, the strength of any magnetic fields, surface and coronal temperatures.... And I don't think a star's photosphere is any more intelligent than a crystal.

HRG

What about an aperiodic glass, or a non-stochiometric alloy ?

Why "written" ?

Where is the grammatical structure of this alleged language ?

That you do not realize that "program", "instruction", "purpose", "message" etc. are only metaphors. You could call the existence of the sun an "instruction" to comets to move in an ellipse, and a valley a "message" to water drops that they should percolate to the lowest point. A sequence of hills and dales would be a "program" for the course of a river to the sea.

Those metaphors are intended to help us understand complex mechanisms and processes, by using analogies to other processes among human beings. But you should never confuse analogy and reality.

HRG.

bluefugue

This is worthy of Dawkins!