If you study entropy you may find that the most efficient way to globally increased entropy is through formation of order locally. This can allow lots of things to happen, like us, and we are good at increasing entropy .-)
I don´t have a problem with nature causing structures like snow flakes, but I would have a problem with a creator making each snowflake an individual beauty while not minding all the bad things happening in the world. On the other hand, this is religion, and even if it is a break in the Aperture Simulator stuff I´ll stop here.... DagT Den 26. okt. 2006 kl. 23.09 skrev Gonz: > Faith and knowledge are not orthogonal to each other, which is what > the > original statement implied. > > I may know how the snowflake was created in physical terms, but may > also > have faith in a Creator who enabled the physical laws to create > such beauty. > > You can never prove that an arrowhead was created by a human, > unless you > were there to witness it or there is a chain of trust to someone who > witnessed it (this also requires faith). Of course we believe that it > is the case, because its unlikely to have taken on that shape on its > own. However improbable, its still possible that the stone just > looked > like that. > > Life looks quite improbable according to the laws of entropy, but its > here. We could choose to believe that a Creator had something to do > with it, or we could also choose to believe that self replicating > molecular structures just appeared from the random chaos of the > primordial soup. Both require some form of faith. > > IMO there is no such thing as pure knowledge. After all what do we > really "know"? So we're all ignorant. > > rg > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> By ignorance I mean absence of knowledge, not stupidity. >> >> We know (rather than simply believe) that a human created the arrow >> head not only because it looks man-made, but because it looks man- >> made >> _and_ we have multiple compelling lines of independently verifiable >> and mutually verifying evidence to support the conclusion, not least >> of which is that we've seen it done by many people. >> >> It's a logical fallacy to conclude that just because something looks >> as though it was designed by an intelligence, that in fact it was. >> You >> need more & better evidence. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Bob >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>> Behalf Of Tom C >>> Sent: 26 October 2006 20:41 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: OT: Snowflake >>> >>> No - I see it has attributes that indicate it has a maker or >>> designer. A >>> roughly symmetrical chipped piece of flint lying on the >>> ground is believed >>> to be an arrowhead. We don't see the aboriginal that crafted >>> the arrowhead >>> yet we believe the event occurred. We don't see the designer of our >> >> >>> physical universe, far more complex, and since we can't see >>> one, we believe >>> one does not exist. >>> >>> That doesn't manifest ignorance? >>> >>> >>> Tom C. >>> >>>> That is astonishing. I'm an atheist but it's difficult to look at >>> that >>>> photo and not perceive a creator. >>>> >>> >>> Ah, the Argument from Personal Ignorance - "I don't know how that >> >> came >> >>> to be, therefore God made it". >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net DagT http://dag.foto.no Beware of internet links. You never know what is on the other side. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
