Audiorigami - then you tell us who the watchmaker is. Is our universe a closed system? It seems that you're creating a logical pretzel trying to reconcile complexity and entropy. At some point the laws of our universe have to kick in.

Answering a question by asking a question is just avoiding it. The answer to who designed the designer is "We don't know." Would you expect that we could comprehend it?

You're right about that link - I have to go back to it right now.

I'm not sure whether entropy is part of your logical pretzel, but I have to repeat that entropy is *not* at all at odds with evolution. The energy it takes to create something - and that doesn't necessarily mean a being is putting out the energy - is dissipated as heat, and that increases the entropy of the universe.

If that's what you mean, it's not at all a logical pretzel.

There is no logical pretzel. There may be an inductive Saltine somewhere, but I haven't tasted it.

Seriously though, educate yourself on entropy via this link. It is heavy on the math, which is a good thing--we are discussing deeply examined theories of science, and looking at science without understanding the underlying mathematics is like reading the back page of a set of Cliff's notes and expecting to fathom War and Peace.

Secondly, I make no claims about a watchmaker existing at all with respect to the universe. That was a metaphor chosen only to show that in a localized space, and ignoring outside influences, it can often appear that complexity is increasing. I was trying to point out that, in the watchmaker analogy, you can't consider the watch without considering the disorder created by the watchmaker during his work. This is to say, the belief that evolution somehow runs afoul of the 2nd Law is sorely mistaken. The article linked above will explain in concrete terms what my metaphor sought to reveal through analogy.

I purposely chose the watchmaker analogy because I am aware that that is how creationists and IDers view the dawn of life. I thought it appropriate.

In my view, there is evidence to suggest that life can be formed from non-life, that complexity can arise from simplicity, and that humans evolved from earlier forms of life. There is, however, no evidence indicating the existence of a creator or designer that does not simply point out the gaps in current theory.

These missing links are empty spaces remaining to be filled--and empty space explains nothing.

What shall we use to fill the empty spaces, where waves of hunger roar?

Didn't Steely Dan do an album called Pretzel Logic? Maybe they hold the key to our universe.

STOP THE HELL OUT

??????????????????

Ok, I well officaly annoynouce in my misspelling ways, THAT THIS IS THE LONGEST THREAD EVER IN THE HISTORY OF DA7.COM. And it's an honor for me, your humble dung beatle loving his jeremyness ways, to have actually started this thread. This thread should be published so others in our world could learn from our collective knowlage.

To be perfectly honest, in the end, science won out. The somewhat unbelieveable argument of the christian view died out in the face a stark REALITY. Not to say there is no spirtual entity in our lives and in the universe, but it can't be at odds with visual, measurable realities that can be proven as fact. Fact is fact, right???

Actually, I think the fact that this is a long thread means the kooks won out by having framed the debate on their terms.

I find the subject really interesting, of course, so that's not 100% true. But as I keep saying: we're living in the land where ignorance is bliss.

Actually no. I agree with Nick that Ignorance is bliss. I just have a differenc view of what is ignorance in this thread.

Let me start out by saying you, Jeremy, are not accurately stating the depth of the belief when you limit it to Christian. It is not solely a Christian belief. In fact, considering the Judeo-Christian-Muslamic-Hinduvian-Buddist population (not to mention some Native American - North and South beliefs), you are quite the minority.

Personally, I would be happy if both sides of the great debate would admit shortcomings in their respective theories and begin to work together to find the facts. If not, then everyone will remain blissful.