Jar, LoL. You obviously disregarded my scientifically motivated statement that disorder is not observed to become orderly in the observeable world.
He showed pictures of how disorder becomes order, for example the last picture looks like it is a satellite view of dunes in the dessert (may be wrong, but I have seen similar pictures). These seemingly ordered arrangements of these dunes are the result of random movements of sand caused by the wind and other natural forces.
However in science their has been a shift away from the use of the terms 'order' and 'disorder' in relation with entropy (especially on the professional level) because these terms are really human-centered and ambiguous. They also do not accurately and realistically describe what is really going on. A more accurate term to use when trying to describe entropy is energy dispersal within a closed system.
Those beautiful images give glory to the eternal ID designer, Jehovah whose existence is substantially corroborated in the fulfilled propecies, archeological evidence and cultural observations, all of which you and so many sheeple, brainwashed into secularism, refuse to acknowledge.
So you say, but you have not provided any evidence to support your claims of design by Jehovah much less any other supernatural being.
Here is an interesting series of videos (The Secret Life of Chaos) which describes aspects of the chaos theory in which nature creates 'order' from 'chaos' by aspects of its own fundamental nature. I challenge you Buzz to watch these videos. I am not asking you to leave or exclude your religious beliefs only to watch these with an open and unbiased mind and tell me what you think.
I am not saying that God does or does not exist but rather that in science, any supernatural explanation is, by the very definition of science, both unable to be explained and unable to substantiated by empirical science. Science is used to explore the natural universe not the supernatural universe, whatever the supernatural world may or may not be. There other tools we can used to discuss and explore the supernatural, if it exists, i.e. philosophy and religion, but science is not one of them.
You can still argue that a supernatural designer is ultimately required to produce this fundamental nature (or what is often inaccurately called 'laws') of the universe but this is just adding unneeded layers of complexity into the natural universe. This is where Occam's razor or the Law of Parsimony comes into play by saying that when comparing otherwise equally valid hypotheses often the one with the fewest assumptions required for a natural phenomena is usually the correct one.
Again, this is not a disclaimer that God does not exist, only that it is not required by science to invoke a supernatural entity in order to explain the 'order' that is observed in the world. Hope this makes sense.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
Intelligence and long time beneficial order are not the norm in exceptions.
What do you consider 'the norm'?
The problem here is you are throwing around human contrived and vague non-scientific terms to describe reality.
That is why Cavediver and others are asking you to define your terms. Not because they don't know what term's like 'order', 'intelligence' and 'eternity' mean in the colloquial, every-day use of these terms, but because at a scientific, very accurate and precise level of describing reality these terms are so vague that they make absolutely no sense in these contexts.
If you have ever opened up a real sceintific journal published by scientific researchers in a certain field (and no I am not talking about the magazines American Scientis or Popular Science which are written for the layman and general public), you will understand what I am talking about. You will rarely see these terms used to describe scientific hypotheses and theories because of the reason I give above. They use very exact terms and language that leave little room for ambiguity.
For example, one persons interpretation of an intelligent agent and another person's may be completely different. In addition, evidence, experiment reproducability & verification and peer-review are required in the scientific community for any claim to be considered valid.
Hope this makes
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
™ Version 4.2