Can science support creationism?

The more complexity which science has discovered and researched, the more I consider NS to be utterly impossible and the evidence of an existing infinitely super-intelligent creator actively managing the universe.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

I always understood NS as meaning natural selection in this town.

Hi Mike. I appreciate you patience. Now and then I try to go back and pick up on stuff which has drifted outa sight and outa mind. The point of my post #8 is that the complexity of science is what drives my logic that there's simply way too much complexity for NS to have been keeping on keeping on for hundreds of millions and billions of years to produce soooooo much complexity and design in a universe which in which 2ltd is suppose to be operating. The billions of orderly things going on in the human mind alone, not to mention what it would take to bring the brain to be, existing in it's complexity, in billions of people alone would, imo, logically be just too much to explain, other than a super intelligent creator and designer in the universe to bring it about and function as it does. It's nice to observe and test, hoping the tests will shed light on the way things were millions of years past without eye witnesses, but imo, it's very important to observe and think. That's where logic and faith work together in some areas to question tests. Logic does not so often defend an act of faith so much as an ideology of the existence of the supernatural dimension in the universe. If indeed that dimension exists, the supernatural then becomes science and a dimension to be reckoned in the interpretation of what is observed. Logic observes such existing things as the human brain, the human cell and so much more to question as to how it can all come about with nothing intelligent to do it. We observe in everyday life that that's just not the way things are. If one wishes to make something constructive, one doesn't simply throw the stuff in a drum, shake it up for a long period of time and expect anything but chaotic debris to exist in the drum.

A good example is the human brain, which I understand has some 100 billion neurons, each of which interacts with about 1000 other neurons and which are serviced by a trillion or so neuroglias of which there are four different kinds with four different functions, all of this needed to run the body's nervous system. This complexity is just one example among billions in the universe. I hypothesize that this is just way too much to emerge into existence without the wisdom and creative knowledge of a super-intelligent supreme creator being. Pardon, my friend, but I apply some logic and common sense to the mix in arriving at conclusions about origins. You people can do the math, but the math aintagona cutit, imo, without applying some logic and common sense, terms which I know modern science has an eversion to. Yah, I know, entropy and all. Short question, and hopefully brief short to the point answer, so as not to run off topic. What is 2ltd and is it a bonafide operative thermodynamic law of the universe?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

By the same token I would counter that your personal intuitions seem to have been given greater weight than the evidence of the supernatural as observed in fulfilled Biblical prophecy and in the vast amount of complexity observed in the universe. The trouble may then lie in that you people allow this counter-intuitiveness to rule the day, run the show, and call the shots in your ideology. Shouldn't the counter-intuitive be the exception? Yes indeed. It has succeeded in brainwashing the heads fullamush in the assemblylines of higher education. Science is microspecting the artists big wonderful masterpiece when it should stand back a bit and view the thing from a wider perspective in order to appreciate what the masterful artist has created, imo. I see what you are saying, but isn't science to do with things existing in the universe, all of it? If the supernatural could be shown to exist, how can science not factor it into what is observed in the interpretation of other things in the universe?? 1. "an infinite regress." How so?
2. "self-contradiction" Ditto.
3. "begging the real question." How? Full circle back to my point. Your "other means" appear to be weaker than intelligent design for the complexity such as that observed in the human brain.

My original reference to it was to support my topic point. It was you who advanced it by challenging it's application to my point. I know what it is. I used it to support my point. You challenged it. You are tiptoing around my response rather than answering my short question with a short answer. If you would simply answer my question, a correct answer on your part would likely show that indeed my first reference to it would advance my point of argument. I guess I can understand why you don't want to do that. Yah, Ned, I've been in this town long enough to understand that you people run the show here and unless we debate on your terms, we're automatically disqualified. Rather than cutting and pasting my point as to why the math isn't enough and addressing it specifically, you simply ignore it and insinuate that I'll HAVE TO DROP IT. That is quite irrevelant to the debate, isn't it? I used the human brain as an example of complexity. That certain animals have similar brains would be interpreted by explaining that a common creator/designer would use similar designs to effect similar functions. .......And I don't think you've substantially refuted my points enough to establish your own.

Ned and Paul: I have asked this question and neither of you seem to want to forthrightly answer it as I have requested. You're both obfuscatingly skating around it. Please answer as I have requested. Then we will talk about how relevant it is to this topic. That's why I asked it in the first place, so as to augment my topic argument.I repeat my simple question: Paul's link does not define 2ld. Please briefly and to the point answer my question in your own words.I will be outa town the rest of the day. Talk to you later.

My strategy is to show it's relevance by your answer. What's wrong with that? But I am using science by definition. Science by definition is "systemized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or priciples of what is being studied."
I am saying that what is observed and studied in such things as the human brain, for example, appears to be too complex for NS alone without an intelligent being. 2ltd factors in my hypothesis, in that by and large it goes contrary to what is being studied and observed in the brain. So the definition of 2ltd and whether it is operative in the universe is relevant to my statement. That is not my point. I simply used the human brain as an example of complexity. It should be understood as a given that there are less complex things than the human brain. Duh! It appears to me that you are obfuscating my question rather than to forthrightly answering it. First things first. If you refuse to answer my question, why should I be expected to answer yours? Where did I say that? I believe I asked you that. Anyhow, I guess I can conclude that you do believe it is operative in the universe, though I haven't yet wrangled out your answer as to what it is. Ok, assuming I am correct in assuming you do believe it is operative, if it is operative, scientifically speaking would it be more likely or less likely for an intelligent being to have the ability to produce complex things than for NS to produce complex things, assuming that both had the same elements to begin with with which to work?This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-04-2004 09:28 PM

Assuming you consider that scientific law to be operative in the universe, would that tendency, (I say tendency), be more likely to flow towards order or to disorder in the universe? allows us to utilize. Yes, you're making my point here in this phrase. That's what I'm trying to say......by intelligent design. Without us, beings of intelligence, alas, no steam engines. No, of course not. All I meant by that statement was that whatever/whoever produced it, put within it the ability to effect the procreation, so to speak, of billions of the same. I'm sure we would both agree that that in itself would take some complex doing. I'm simply arguing that if the complexity of the human brain were produced by NS that goes counter to the general tendency of 2ltd/2LoT, i.e. decreases entropy, thereby lending some scientific credence to my hypothesis. Nothing more.

I didn't argue that it was a 'bar.' I simply said that I believed such things as the complexity which is observed in the human brain appears to be far too much to be expected from NS and that a more likely hypothesis would be that it was designed and created by a super-intelligent supernatural being existing in the universe. I am simply citing the scientific law/tendency of 2ltd towards increase in entropy as a tendency that would further advance my hypothesis than NS by definition. I didn't say there was never decrease in entropy now, did I? On the other hand, how much order and decrease of entropy, moving contrary to the tendency of the scientific law, can one observe on one itty bitty planet and still say 2ltd is still operative??This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-04-2004 10:35 PM

I'm glad you asked, Pink. Natural Selection, imo, cannot go beyond the management and survival of living things. Genetically, as I understand it, it is unable to produce new information. It can only eliminate or select existing information for the good of the organism. For example, bright grouse or certain bright fish are easily detected by predators. In areas where they are among numerous predators, the brightest ones would tend to be eliminated and the darker of them would tend to survive and reproduce darker offspring.I guess some would label this as micro-evolution, but I'm not sure that's a correct usage of the word, evolution.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-05-2004 08:03 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

True or false? According to 2ltd, there IS a general tendency for entropy to increase.True or False? According to 2ltd, the general tendency of entropy is NOT to decrease.True or false? My hypothesis DID NOT state or imply that nothing can go counter to the tendency of entropy to increase. So what, specifically, that I have posted can you catagorically denounce as a false statement? Please copy and paste, proving it to be false. .......And imo, 2ltd diminishes, I say, diminishes the likelihood that NS, beginning with inorganic elements, could via a looooong process, produce US intelligent beings, capable of producing steam engines. That was the intended implication of my statement which you have misconstrued. .....And, my friend, alas, I'd have thought you and your other brilliant friends here in town would have enough good ole common sense left, after school let out, to realize how unworkable and unrealistic some of the stuff you all learned in school really is.-

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

You guys have fallen into Buz's trap where he gets to assail Natural Selection as if it were the only force involved in evolution. The problem with your car/gas analogy is that the car and gas work together consistenly to make the owner's car car purr merrily down the road where he wishes to go. On rare occasions something breaks and needs fixed. On the other hand the tendency of NS is to work against random mutation, producing a weaker or often even dead product when something different is produced by the process.Evolutionist Herbert Nilson put it this way:

Ok, I'll clarify by completing the statement. Btw, I assumed you understood my statement to apply to our open system to which I was addressing, but I'll agree that I should have so stated.True or false? In a closed system such as our's, according to 2ltd, entropy tends to increase.True or false? My hypothesis DID NOT state or imply that nothing can go counter to the tendency of entropy to increase in our universe.Edited to change "open" to "closed" in my first question.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-06-2004 05:26 PM

You're right. I forgot that our universe is indeed a closed system. I'll edit my question accordingly.