Dear Mr. Stenger,
I randomly encountered your book on Amazon as I was searching for an electronics item. I have rather strong feelings about the subject matter. We all know that your mass can randomly be rapidly and utterly annihilated as you walk or drive around on this earth that is tilted 25° on its axis. We all know that random bursts of energy come out of nothing to produce life on distant planets. Oh, yeah, guess what, the earth is tilted at 23.5 degrees. And those scenarios violate the laws of thermodynamics. I'd like to know how exactly you think the earth came about. And how do you explain the fact that we on earth are tilted at exactly the right angle, placed that the exact right distance from the sun, have eyes that function well, have the mental capacity to invent computers and many other complex items, and are even able to think of such things as these theories? My explanation?
In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth...And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1: 1, 27-28, American Standard Version)
Explain how this complex universe came about without a god or an intelligent designer and without violating scientific laws or mathematics (which means the traditional Darwinism and Big Bang are out of the question since they violate such laws, specifically, the second law of thermodynamics and the mathematics of probability), and I might consider your theory.
Until then, please also read my letter to Mr. J.M. Ridlon below and good luck on your theories.
(Mr. Stenger has written a book that claims that science disproves God.)
Mr. Ridlon:
You say "There was never any positive evidence for an 'intelligent designer'" Well, how do you respond to this:
The earth is tilted at precisely the correct angle and placed at precisely the correct distance from the sun to have life. How can chance do that?
One billion monkeys on constantly working typewriters would have to work hundreds or even thousands of years before it is even probable for one to type Genesis 1:1, a simple little verse that goes "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." And even then, they likely wouldn't do it. Darwin was bad at mathematics. That's why he produced a theory that is ridiculous mathematically.
The Bible was written over about 600 years and by several different authors and yet is not contradictory of itself. It also contains valid scientific and historical facts that were discovered by men only many years later. If you insist that the Bible is all myths that were written down after those facts were discovered, well, all I can say is knock yourself out trying to rewrite history, which claims that the Bible has existed for all those years.
Speaking of history and science, neither Darwinism nor creation are provable--if you use the scientific method. In order to be tested by the scientific method, the condition must be repeatable. History has a whole different system for proof. For example, if someone asked you to testify that Jane Doe committed her crime on date, witness is the way you'll go about proving it. Since evolution is not repeatable (as a one way process) it would have to be proved by witness, and it hasn't.
On the subject of one way processes, it's no wonder you're ignoring the fact that the second law of thermodynamics stands as a huge obstacle in Darwinism, since you evidentially are a biologist, rather than a physicist. Oh yes, entropy stands smack dab in your way. Entropy increases and the amount of usable energy declines. The universe is running down rather than getting more orderly as you evolutionists believe.
Good luck on seeing the truth!
PS: References to evolution in this document refer to Darwinism, which is the belief that one species evolved into another.
P.P.S: A little bird told me that Darwin came up with his THEORY after reading a book on Victorian era economics.
(Mr. Ridlon, a biologist, is trying to defend evolution in the discussion of one of the reviews of Darwin's Black Box by Micheal Behe.)
To all who have been defending ID in the aforementioned discussion:
Thank you for doing so and God bless!
*End of non-craft content*
As you might have guessed if you read the above letters, I am an avid ID (intelligent design) supporter and a Christian. I am neither much of a scientist nor a mathematician, but I know enough about both subjects to intelligently pick my view. Of course, those of you who are interested in reading about crafts are probably not interested in my views on the world's origin. And if you are, go ahead and read the letters. I did start my variation on RPM with the Tofutsies over my trip, although I did not watch LOTR. I have gotten past the heel, though not too far. This pattern is similar enough to RPM short row heel variation to give you an idea what my sock looks like from the RPM photo. Actually however, it is more highly based on a sock pattern from Kids Knit or something like that, that I have enlarged for smaller needles and yarn and added a short row heel to.
2 comments:
Does your keeper know you are loose?
Mr. Ridlon:
You say "There was never any positive evidence for an 'intelligent designer'" Well, how do you respond to this:
The earth is tilted at precisely the correct angle and placed at precisely the correct distance from the sun to have life. How can chance do that?
I reply: So no other angles or positions relative to the sun would allow for any life at all? That is absurd to the highest degree. What do you base this on? Remember you say later: “I am neither much of a scientist nor a mathematician”.
You said: “One billion monkeys on constantly working typewriters would have to work hundreds or even thousands of years before it is even probable for one to type Genesis 1:1, a simple little verse that goes "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." And even then, they likely wouldn't do it. Darwin was bad at mathematics. That's why he produced a theory that is ridiculous mathematically.”
In writing this you have fallen for the biggest creationist trick in the book; and demonstrated GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) math. Don’t feel embarrassed, you are in good company. The eminent astronomer Fred Hoyle misunderstood the accumulative aspect of natural selection and treated evolution like a perfect hand in bridge. Richard Dawkins simulated the ‘monkey-typewriter’ bit with a version of natural selection and found that a “ME THINKS I AM A WEASAL” could be formed in (if memory serves me) 60 tried not the 26^18 suggested by the product of each random trial.
You said: “The Bible was written over about 600 years and by several different authors and yet is not contradictory of itself. It also contains valid scientific and historical facts that were discovered by men only many years later. If you insist that the Bible is all myths that were written down after those facts were discovered, well, all I can say is knock yourself out trying to rewrite history, which claims that the Bible has existed for all those years.”
I reply: The Bible most certainly contradicts itself in many places, it is laughable that you would make this statement. The historicity of the Bible is rejected by theologians. Who cares if cities are located as described in the Bible? The core claims, including the inspiration for writing it cannot be corroborated with evidence.
You said: “Speaking of history and science, neither Darwinism nor creation are provable--if you use the scientific method. In order to be tested by the scientific method, the condition must be repeatable. History has a whole different system for proof. For example, if someone asked you to testify that Jane Doe committed her crime on date, witness is the way you'll go about proving it. Since evolution is not repeatable (as a one way process) it would have to be proved by witness, and it hasn't.”
I reply: We don’t “prove” things in science, we always allow new evidence to falsify a claim. Creation is not a valid model because nature refutes the Biblical account. When you say, “In order to be tested by the scientific method, the condition must be repeatable” you suggest that we cannot determine past events, which is the entire basis of geology, astronomy and cosmology as well as evolutionary biology.
You said: “On the subject of one way processes, it's no wonder you're ignoring the fact that the second law of thermodynamics stands as a huge obstacle in Darwinism, since you evidentially are a biologist, rather than a physicist. Oh yes, entropy stands smack dab in your way. Entropy increases and the amount of usable energy declines. The universe is running down rather than getting more orderly as you evolutionists believe.”
I reply: “We decrease our entropy by consuming food which ultimately derived from the conversion of photonic energy to chemical energy by plants. We in turn take macromolecules and oxygen and convert this into CO2 and water, the products have higher entropy than the reactants, so the net entropy of the surroundings increases, and doesn’t violate the second law. If life violated the second law, we wouldn’t be here. But then again, you admit that you don’t know much science or math.
You said: “Good luck on seeing the truth!”
I reply: Back at you.
Post a Comment