Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome

It's easy to discredit. Especially when Prigonine himself addmited it was not an obstacle to the second law.
Staurm
In what way is it an obstacle to the second law? So far as I understand it is not in conflict with the 3 laws of thermodynamics whatsoever, rather thermodynamics failed to accomodate the phenomenon within the boundaries of the rules it laid forth. These laws failed to describe or explain the existence of life within the universe, they pertained to the idea that at sometime in the future the workings of the organism would eventually be explained through mechanics at a level of complexity not yet surpassed by the human mind, and things transpired they were right!, only the scietific community seems thus far largely dismissive of Prigogine's theory since (as yet) there seems to be no way to capitalise on it.
Scientists had hoped that â??chaos physicsâ?? would have somehow allowed the universe to be seen as â??creativeâ?? of its own complexity in spite of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the law of universal decay), but no such fulfillment ever occured. We recognise the type of information contained in living things and it is subject to the second law. The fact is that the type of order that is recognised by chaos theory is totally unrelated to the information contained in life.

It looks like chaos theory may become a useful tool in weather forecasting.

The laws of thermodynamics were never meant to show a materialistic mechanism for the existence of life. A person with a materialistic bias may refuse to consider an creator and organizer outside of the universe, which the second law points to because of the universes inability to form life on it's own. We observe the formation of life all around us. There are many examples to point to that show that it uses a special "path of least resistance" that cannot otherwise be made through natural laws, rather by itself information and life are subject to degredation and there is no more evidence needed to make a conclusion. It's a straw man arguement saying that choas theory is not in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics. Of course it's not because chaos theory has nothing to do with the formation of life. It has to do with (one of the things it has to do with) the discovery of unsuspected patterns of harmony in apparently chaotic systems. It actually follows a path of entropy and does the opposite that life does. For example, there is believed to be a superstructure of some predictability in the otherwise unpredictable behaviour of water flowing turbulently. Scientists use the word â??chaosâ?? to indicate simple things that behave in complicated and unexpected waysâ??things that surprise us and confound our ability to predict how they will behave in the future.

Evolutionists argue that life is nothing but chemicals, but then they claim that living things are exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics that describe the behaviour of chemicals. I believe this shows the inconsistency of this materialistic belief .
Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome
There is order, and then there is complexity. Randomness, order, and compexity are three seperate things.
Staurm:


No they aren't, you fail to realise the subjective and paradoxical nature of science. This is where the real beauty and spiritual side of scientific study lies, the realisation that we are in fact intrinsically incapable of fully understanding ourselves because basically we are the process of understanding. There is arguably no such thing as randomness, as Einstein once said prophetically, God does not play dice".

All I can say at the moment....
Hey look whatever you want to call them, they are three different concepts that can be scientifically differentiated.

Life is characterized by high specified complexity. The leading evolutionary origin-of-life researcher, Leslie Orgel, confirmed this:

Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.
When it comes to life's complexity, it has specifc semantic characteristics that wholly set it apart from the order we otherwise find in the natural universe. Proteins and DNA are non-random aperiodic (irregular) sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures or other fractal patterns recognized by chaos theory , which are caused by the properties of their constituents.

This is why I wanted you to study that book or the movie, I pointed out. Information theory is not simple. the basic point is that there is a quantative measure of information, and also a qualative measure of information. As to the qualative, there are 5 levels neccesary to understand it's nature : statistical, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

It will help very much to recognise the difference between information and randomness once the attributes of information are.

Here is a summarizing portion in this article which I insist you read at least to understand the nature of information.

The most important empirical principles relating to the concept of information have been defined in the form of theorems. Here is a brief summary of them:

1.No information can exist without a code.

2.No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.

3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.

4.No information can exist in purely statistical processes.

5.No information can exist without a transmitter.

6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

7.No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

8.No information can exist without a will.

Information, science and biology


I also recognise that what we see as randomness may be also in fact ordered by a creator. In fact, if God exists it would have to be. But there is a great difference between the order in nature and the order and complexity in living things.
natureisawesome Reviewed by natureisawesome on . A path to faith with science Some people don't think that faith and science are compatible. This is to demonstrate that is not the case and that science plays a part in helping to confirm God's existence and reveal his divine nature. This is to demonstrate one path to God. There is contained within both evidence for God's existence and attributes from the nature of the physical universe, and also evidence from direct communication from God and mankind. Finding out whether God exists or not is not just for philosophers Rating: 5