| kevin the wiiite said: Oh, and another argument I just remembered. Evolution, if true, clearly relies on improbable events occuring repeatedly over and over again, as it's never been documented in action in the few thousand years of recored history. The second law of thermodynamics and laws of statistical probability aren't exclusive to their fields. Scientists just like to suppress them. Everything in the world gravitates towards equilibrium and states of higher probability, a direct counterpoint to evolution, which relies on constant gravitation towards the improbable. Cars break, glaciers melt, deserts grow, crops die, but somehow fish sprout legs and walk. Please if anyone has a good response to this I'm trying to be rational here. I'm not the religious nut a lot of Atheists think I am. Why else would I rely on pascal's wager for my faith?
|
Others have already answered about other points, so I'll just tackle the one about thermodynamics.
Scientists don't "like to suppress" any laws, but you have to really understand their formulation. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy in a closed system tends to always raise. Connect a computer to a power grid and let it sort files, and you'll get more order in the final state than in the beginning. Let many pebbles fall through a sieve and you can separate the bigger from the smaller. Plant an apple seed and with the right nutrients and sunlight it wil grow into a tree.
In each case a subsystem (files, pebbles, plant) got more ordered and more complicated with time, because that ordering was payed for by other parts of the global system with the expenditure of energy. Nothing violates the second law in that: if you can supply energy (properly work) from the outside then you can locally diminish entropy. Even if evolution by either artificial or natural selection didn't happen, that's still what happens when every single living organism grows. Would you not believe in eggs becoming chickens because of thermodynamics? :)
PS: once again, Pascal's wager has only the form of a game theory deduction, but it's logically flawed.
