Evidence for God from Science

BGood is talking to himself, I swear

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I never said the formation of stars, planets, and galaxies are caused by natural events...

And I'm not into astrology....

Well the players are minerals which can bond only in specific ways. What happens when the possibilities are multiplied as in organic chemistry? When a cell respires grows and divides does entropy increase or decrease? What about order or complexity?

you're not going to get life from organic materials shooting out of a volcano...or through any other natural means, as life requries specified complexity.

"organic materials shooting out of a volcano"
Sometimes I wonder about you...

An single celled organism respires and divides all according to natural principals would you not agree? The processes are physical and biochemical. Do these processes violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

BGood is talking to himself, I swear

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

An single celled organism respires and divides all according to natural principals would you not agree? The processes are physical and biochemical. Do these processes violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

No, obviously. Then the 2nd law wouldn't be true. Because the cell uses up large quantities of energy, and by using it intelligently, is able to stave off entropy until death. 2nd law still holds

Review the second law of thermodynamis.

Is a beaker intelligent?

If I take the agents which are involved in a specific chemical reaction and put it into a beaker along with the enzymes found in cells, the reaction still occurs. Why, because it does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

The release of heat and waste materials is the result of the reaction, not staving off death.

BGood is talking to himself, I swear

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I was saying a cell has all of these reactions going on to stave off entropy-it uses energy to repair itself, build, etc...

Even though each process does not violate entropy the whole does violate?

BGood is talking to himself, I swear

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:no-if they did, we wouldn't have the 2nd law, now would we

So if biological processes which are more complicated than any new mutation, happens on a daily basis, then why is complexity against the second law of thermodynamics?

Living things have specified complexity. Different playing field (somewhat). Forgot about that fun word.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/ ... ified.html

So far we have fine-tuning, irreducible complexity, and specified complexity? Why can't these concepts be simple like F = ma.

I have nothing to say about the origins of life. I plead ignorance.

As for the Multiple Universes, probability can result in strange interpretations. Such as fine-tuning, or parallel dimentions, or Multiple Universes. What do you suppose the most prudent interpretation of probabilities is in this case?

So far we have fine-tuning, irreducible complexity, and specified complexity? Why can't these concepts be simple like F = ma.

All you need is love (no, really, a dictionary).

As for the Multiple Universes, probability can result in strange interpretations. Such as fine-tuning, or parallel dimentions, or Multiple Universes. What do you suppose the most prudent interpretation of probabilities is in this case?

Well, there's no reason to think there are more dimensions or universes. So, Ockam's razor...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

So far we have fine-tuning, irreducible complexity, and specified complexity? Why can't these concepts be simple like F = ma.

All you need is love (no, really, a dictionary).

As for the Multiple Universes, probability can result in strange interpretations. Such as fine-tuning, or parallel dimentions, or Multiple Universes. What do you suppose the most prudent interpretation of probabilities is in this case?

Well, there's no reason to think there are more dimensions or universes. So, Ockam's razor...

His blade became dull years ago.

Ok, how about the lack of anything that would point to parallel or multiple universes? Only personal bias points there.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Ok, how about the lack of anything that would point to parallel or multiple universes? Only personal bias points there.

I would have to agree, there is a lack of evidence. My point which you don't seem to get is that multiple universes is based on the same probabilities as fine-tuning.

I get you now...yeah, multiverse theory is an attempt to wave off the high improbability (or impossibility) of the constants required for life being correct.