Irreducible complexity- the challenges have been rebutted (if not refuted)

Gemster, I suggest you look at living things present today. The hole in your arguement is apparent. Look at the full range of spiders and their behavior, look at the full range of snakes and how they are equipped.And all of that is just the existing creatures. Fill in the blanks with species spread over 1,000's of millenia and what do you have?You arguement doesn't stand up at all. Just think about it yourself a little.

Maybe there is a god after all.

This is, of course, off topic. Before it goes futher can some one find the 2nd law thread or start another.(Gemster is also wrong. The sunshining on the earth, decreases entropy here.)

quote:

---

As I have already said but it fell on deaf ears was that simply adding raw energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down).

---

Gemster, your parenthetical redefinition of reduced entropy is not valid. The addition of heat from the sun to the earth will "automatically" produce a temperature difference and therefore make energy available to do work (the winds for example). This is an reduction in entropy. You do NOT get to redefine exsiting physical terms and pretend that you are still using theromodynamics.Since you are introducing some new concepts, (organized complexity for example) it now behoves you to define the terms, show us how this new thing is to be measure and what the formula's are for calculting a difference in "organized complexity". Since I have read some of the material on this I am expecting you to have some significant difficulties in getting a useful defintion in place and getting the math right.Ah, I see. You can't stand the heat. Do you know how many times this ploy has been used? A lot!Why is it when the evolutionists are insulted they don't go off in a huff? I don't remember one playing this game. Does anyone else?