«« The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all energy systems run down like a clock and never rewind themselves. But life not only 'runs up,' converting low energy sea-water, sunlight and air into high-energy chemicals, it keeps multiplying itself into more and better clocks that keep 'running up' faster and faster.
Why, for example, should a group of simple, stable compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen struggle for billions of years to organize themselves into a professor of chemistry? What's the motive?
If we leave a chemistry professor out on a rock in the sun long enough the forces of nature will convert him into simple compounds of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, and small amounts of other minerals. It's a one-way reaction. No matter what kind of chemistry professor we use and no matter what process we use we can't turn these compounds back into a chemistry professor.
Chemistry professors are unstable mixtures of predominantly unstable compounds which, in the exclusive presence of the sun's heat, decay irreversibly into simpler organic and inorganic compounds. That's a scientific fact.
The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on earth causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn't the sun's energy. We just saw what the sun's energy did. It has to be something else. What is it? »»
|Robert M. Pirsig,|
"Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals," Bantam: London, 1991, pp.144-145.
Yes, perhaps you took the time to check it out? I read a wide variety of authors back then, Castenada, Tolkien, Skinner, Rand...history books, the Koran (until the utter boredom and terrible writing put me off), the Boo-Hoo Bible, reams of light reading as well. I did classwork and played sports and worked and partied. Sometimes I tried to figure it all out and sometimes I just said heck with it and got drunk or high. But I have to admit that the Pirsig book was interesting, more interesting than the hallucinogenic ramblings of a Richard Brautigan, more plausible than the magic world of Carlos Castenada.
Even a guy like Pirsig, having studied the world with passion for many years, realized that Evolution was upside down. He had difficulty putting his finger on it because he didn't actually have years invested into investigating the alternatives. But he rather succinctly stated the dilemma that Darwinists face today. Perhaps not in public and perhaps not always among each other, but alone and when thinking carefully about the evidence? A rational Darwinist who is not completely lacking in incredulity such as Dawkins or completely lacking in a moral compass such as Hawking will sit and stare out the window at the problem and see no answer coming down the lane.
You see, there is no natural explanation for a beginning of anything, let alone a sustaining force for everything. Not one basic need for the Universe and for life can be explained with a natural cause.
Creationists are honest enough to ascribe their miracles to a God capable of accomplishing them.
Darwinists wave their hands and vaguely mumble things about chance and lucky breaks and completely drop the ball on the entire set of questions while pretending they have answers. This is why a brilliant guy like Jonathan Sarfati became a Creationist and a Christian. It was evidence!!!
CMI Ph.D. scientist and author explains to an outside website what turned him to biblical creation
Published: 12 May 2009(GMT+10)
Real chemistry vs chemical evolution
Information: a key to understanding creation v evolution
‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from? Davies framed the question this way: ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows … ’. 5