Question for the biblical religious

[pacfan]

There isn't a god, just a lot of people who believe in various gods. Recently we got so developed that we could work out how we got here and it's nothing to do with any big ghost in the sky. If our planet was orbiting a little closer or a little further away from the sun we'd be a barren planet and life on earth would never have existed. We're evolved organic matter. We're born and eventually we die. End of story.

That's because we humans are made to percieve and think in a limited way. If there was a God, naturally He should be someone who is infinitely more complicated than us and therefore not within the grasp of our limited mind. Our physical mind is basically made to perceive only what is necessary for our survivor. It is the mind that says, 'there ain't no god 'cause can't see him;' it is the mind that says,'plant grows out of the ground because the dna in the seeds helps certain chemical reactions to occur...' etc., etc., and dismisses everything we can't explain as just being 'natural.' But you see, this tiny mind of ours - and yours is no exception, kirk - fails to ask what drives those plants to shoot out of the ground, or what drives all creatures to recreate or procreate itself. There must be some force that drives them, that life force. Our limited mind tends to dismiss everything we can't explain with a convenient catch-all phrase, 'cause it's natural, but ask yourself what is natural. So you see, there is this unseen life force that propel every life in this world, never mind if it only works under certain condition. So what is this life force that so loves life? As I've pointed out in my blogs, it's must be one form of energy emanating from somewhere, and as I've pointed out there, everything in this world is basically an energy and the universe itself is one big pulsating blob of energy. And our thought that direct our ways is itself an energy and so is it not possible that there is some universal thought or mind, that universal control center, that loves to create life, that direct all the activities in this world? that naturally must be complicated beyond our imagination? Could this be God? or could He be God?

By the way kirk, I love your avatar.

We are Gods.
We are a part of ONE that chose to seperate and go forth so as to experience other energy forms from a diffenert point of view than just static "being".
The split and the new point of view origially being male /female, then reproducing which is where the sacred geometry expression of one plus one equals three comes from.
The triangle.The trinity. Father /mother/ son/ daughter >
Outwards growing yet expanding away from the ONE and out and out finally down and down into compressed light and love energy forming into dense matter within the 3rd dimension of one in billions of solar systems.
Parts of the real you couldnt make it here into this density.

If I say to you,there is a short cut home and you say to me "there is no home" and you refuse to turn around and keep going towards the seperation ,eventually ,soon actually, you will be swimming against the tide and life in which ever form you choose at that moment will be so hard.
Eventually because what you hold dear to you externally will (cease to be in that condition); you will have to look inwards within yourself instead of continuing your search outwards as the false religions still all state you must.
MAny people when they reach the end of a physical line of something and that part of their world dissapears see why it occured and they take its lead and they are free from it from that point on.

Its like all people in this density firstly search for love from others and are addicted to what they think is real love, love that they find out side of themsleves.

Real love is found within you and yours ,it never ceases because it is unconditional ;unless you emit hatred and make yourself spin in the reverse direction to the universal way then you are destroying you and yours and that can be addictive for a while.

External love that is found outside of you is found in many ways, it is smaller pieces of the truth and it is conditional love and cannot last outside of its own condition.

All of the answers are within all of us it just takes you to want to take the first step on the journey back away from the speration from your higher self. There are stages before the turn and one of them is disbeliving everything unless you can touch it. Another is hating One or even the thought of only One !

ONE plus one equals three cannot be comprehended by those who choose only to belive that one plus one can only ever add up to two;
All rules change interdimesionally there are no boundaries ,no definates, no conditions when you choose truth.

Your eyes will tell you that we spin around a sun and they will also tell you that it all revolves around a black hole.
Black holes are not what they seem from this low point of view and from this density or from the brain which is made from within this density. Our findings and measurments are only from one point of view and from a long way down from what we trully are.
,Choose you first .

Andre, nice thread. I'll make some comments here whenever I have some spare time. Just little busy for now.

[luvfightgame]

There isn't a god, just a lot of people who believe in various gods. Recently we got so developed that we could work out how we got here and it's nothing to do with any big ghost in the sky. If our planet was orbiting a little closer or a little further away from the sun we'd be a barren planet and life on earth would never have existed. We're evolved organic matter. We're born and eventually we die. End of story.

Kirkland,

I don't think you've researched the subject of "evolving" much if you think that's how were here. You don't have to believe in God, and you can think it's a fairytale. But you can't believe in evolution as science and seriously consider it's any less of a fairy tale. Evolution violates every law of science. It is unscientific and is in fact a belief system. There is no aspect that has ever been observed, tested, or measured, 0% science and 100% faith or belief. That's it. I don't hate on skeptics, but be true to being a skeptic. Evolution is a fairytale not science. Be an equal opportunity skeptic and you will find just as much to be skeptical of order creating explosions and nothing exploding into everything.....

I wouldn't argue that you have to believe in God. But I will argue that if you believe in evolution, it is only a BELIEF. Nothing scientific at all. None. Zip, zero, nada. I only get ruffled when someone portrays themselves to be reasonable then espouses an unreasonable theory. To an evolutionist, time is their God.

Believers say "with God all things are possible" and evolutionists say "with enough time all things are possible". Just be real about it. Don't have the idea that one is reasonable and the other is not, cause it's just not true.

[Kirkland Laing]

There isn't a god, just a lot of people who believe in various gods. Recently we got so developed that we could work out how we got here and it's nothing to do with any big ghost in the sky. If our planet was orbiting a little closer or a little further away from the sun we'd be a barren planet and life on earth would never have existed. We're evolved organic matter. We're born and eventually we die. End of story.

Kirkland,

I don't think you've researched the subject of "evolving" much if you think that's how were here. You don't have to believe in God, and you can think it's a fairytale. But you can't believe in evolution as science and seriously consider it's any less of a fairy tale. Evolution violates every law of science. It is unscientific and is in fact a belief system. There is no aspect that has ever been observed, tested, or measured, 0% science and 100% faith or belief. That's it. I don't hate on skeptics, but be true to being a skeptic. Evolution is a fairytale not science. Be an equal opportunity skeptic and you will find just as much to be skeptical of order creating explosions and nothing exploding into everything.....

I wouldn't argue that you have to believe in God. But I will argue that if you believe in evolution, it is only a BELIEF. Nothing scientific at all. None. Zip, zero, nada. I only get ruffled when someone portrays themselves to be reasonable then espouses an unreasonable theory. To an evolutionist, time is their God.

Believers say "with God all things are possible" and evolutionists say "with enough time all things are possible". Just be real about it. Don't have the idea that one is reasonable and the other is not, cause it's just not true.

Which laws of science does evolution violate?

Which specific parts of evolution are you sceptical about?

[luvfightgame]

All the scientific laws. It cannot and hasn't been observed, measured, or tested and proven. It is simply a theory which means...... belief.

All evolution except variations within a species. There is no evidence that a cat can turn into a dog or an apple tree will start producing oranges eventually. You can get different types of cats or different types of oranges but there is no transitional species and there never will be because it is fatal.

A half functioning anything wouldn't be able to reproduce. A half functioning eye is useless, a half functioning stomach, etc.... It is incomprehensible that the raw materials to support life and life itself all evolved in anything resembling the fairytale of evolution.

Evolution is in violation of all natural laws specifically entropy. There is zero evidence, only belief and story of what might have happened long before there were people.... Again the point is that it's a story based upon loosely tied together current observations. From the big bang theory, to natural selection, it's a philosophy, not a science.

[luvfightgame]

Here's the definition of philosophy...
a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>



Here's the definition of science....
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation [scientific method], and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study."4


It more closely resembles philosophy because there are no experiments, or observations that can be attributed to this. It's simply speculation. Discoveries are made in science, there have been 0 evolutionary discoveries. Only speculation. Even if the "discoveries" in archeology were legit that related to evolution. They were archeology, not scientific. Finding bones and then saying how they got there isn't science.

[Kirkland Laing]

All the scientific laws. It cannot and hasn't been observed, measured, or tested and proven. It is simply a theory which means...... belief.

All evolution except variations within a species. There is no evidence that a cat can turn into a dog or an apple tree will start producing oranges eventually. You can get different types of cats or different types of oranges but there is no transitional species and there never will be because it is fatal.

A half functioning anything wouldn't be able to reproduce. A half functioning eye is useless, a half functioning stomach, etc.... It is incomprehensible that the raw materials to support life and life itself all evolved in anything resembling the fairytale of evolution.

Evolution is in violation of all natural laws specifically entropy. There is zero evidence, only belief and story of what might have happened long before there were people.... Again the point is that it's a story based upon loosely tied together current observations. From the big bang theory, to natural selection, it's a philosophy, not a science.

There is endless observation, testing etc. to prove evolutionary theory. Vast quantities of evidence. But no absolute proof, as with most scientific thories. Gravity is a theory. So is electricity. We think our knowledge of electricity theory is how we generate gigawatts of power every day all over the world, for instance, but it may be that Jesus's tears come down from heaven and invisibly work their way into the electricity-generating process, so until we can rule out every single possible alternative possibility things like gravity, electricity and evolution will have to remain theories.

The theory of evolution doesn't claim that cats turn into dogs, or even that we're descended from apes. Evidence from the fossil record and from DNA however shows us that we and apes have a common ancestor. Ape DNA for instance is 98.something % the same as yours. To put that in perspective your wife or girlfriend's DNA is only 97.something % the same as yours.

It's very comprehensible that raw materials came together to start life. Biochemists have learned how nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of cells could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry and current biotechnology discoveries, including recent advances with stem cells etc.


Any issues you may percieve with entropy or thermodynamics aren't in conflict with evolution. I'd be interested to see you explain this point more fully.

[Kirkland Laing]

Here's the definition of philosophy...
a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>



Here's the definition of science....
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation [scientific method], and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study."4


It more closely resembles philosophy because there are no experiments, or observations that can be attributed to this. It's simply speculation. Discoveries are made in science, there have been 0 evolutionary discoveries. Only speculation. Even if the "discoveries" in archeology were legit that related to evolution. They were archeology, not scientific. Finding bones and then saying how they got there isn't science.

Considering you're questioning evolution from an evidence-based perspective, what evidence do we have that god exists? If you believe the Bible is literal truth and thus that the earth is only a few thousand years old, how do you explain the existence on earth of fossils that are millions of years old? The leaders of the various Christian franchises claim that they were put there by god to test the faith of believers. Have you any better explanation?

[luvfightgame]

Here's the definition of philosophy...
a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>



Here's the definition of science....
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation [scientific method], and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study."4


It more closely resembles philosophy because there are no experiments, or observations that can be attributed to this. It's simply speculation. Discoveries are made in science, there have been 0 evolutionary discoveries. Only speculation. Even if the "discoveries" in archeology were legit that related to evolution. They were archeology, not scientific. Finding bones and then saying how they got there isn't science.

Considering you're questioning evolution from an evidence-based perspective, what evidence do we have that god exists? If you believe the Bible is literal truth and thus that the earth is only a few thousand years old, how do you explain the existence on earth of fossils that are millions of years old? The leaders of the various Christian franchises claim that they were put there by god to test the faith of believers. Have you any better explanation?

First I am not trying to prove God exists. It can't be done. It is an act of faith to believe in God. I acknowledge that. However, from an evidence base we are on the same footing but evolutionists NEVER acknowledge that.

Second point... I have never seen conclusive evidence that there are millions of year old fossils. The carbon dating methods used to date fossils are at best able to calculate up to 10,000 years. The use of dating fossils by the geological column is circular reasoning. The geological column doesn't exist anywhere but textbooks.

As far as beliefs by different believers, they differ greatly. One main point about that is some people don't need any real solid answers to believe in God, so they will take some really unusual stances on these scientific matters. I don't and couldn't buy those type of answers. What you will find is a similair acceptance of evolutionary beliefs. If you use the same scale to measure evidence they are both nothing more than belief systems. It's the argument that one is more "scientific" than the other that I have a problem with. I hope to have a spirited debate regarding this without any offense taken. So I apologize in advance if I offend. Anyways that's my position on that.

[Andre]

Why do the police use physics now?

As in one documented case, they can be lead right to one door, The killers.

Or someones lost in the outback and they are pin pointed on a map.

how do some poeple get a miracle cure from just a belife system?

Why does the truth enliven some but sicken others?

How come there is a law of attraction. What you think for long enough happens but If you cant control your thoughts then what you fear the most can happen.

Why do atoms appear and dissapear from view?

How does real love conqure all fear?

I think the rule is ,all energy isnt just limited to one area. Like within physicality only.

Unless the Be-ing behind the energy insists that there is only one point ,then the energy he omits and the energies around him obeys him and its impossible for him to see further than his choice at that moment.

Your point of view /is your point of control.That is the only reason you are here.


Theres two sides to Evolution macro and micro.
OF course we evolve but not into other things just other forms.
IAM THAT I AM.

[luvfightgame]

All the scientific laws. It cannot and hasn't been observed, measured, or tested and proven. It is simply a theory which means...... belief.

All evolution except variations within a species. There is no evidence that a cat can turn into a dog or an apple tree will start producing oranges eventually. You can get different types of cats or different types of oranges but there is no transitional species and there never will be because it is fatal.

A half functioning anything wouldn't be able to reproduce. A half functioning eye is useless, a half functioning stomach, etc.... It is incomprehensible that the raw materials to support life and life itself all evolved in anything resembling the fairytale of evolution.

Evolution is in violation of all natural laws specifically entropy. There is zero evidence, only belief and story of what might have happened long before there were people.... Again the point is that it's a story based upon loosely tied together current observations. From the big bang theory, to natural selection, it's a philosophy, not a science.

There is endless observation, testing etc. to prove evolutionary theory. Vast quantities of evidence. But no absolute proof, as with most scientific thories. Gravity is a theory. So is electricity. We think our knowledge of electricity theory is how we generate gigawatts of power every day all over the world, for instance, but it may be that Jesus's tears come down from heaven and invisibly work their way into the electricity-generating process, so until we can rule out every single possible alternative possibility things like gravity, electricity and evolution will have to remain theories.

The theory of evolution doesn't claim that cats turn into dogs, or even that we're descended from apes. Evidence from the fossil record and from DNA however shows us that we and apes have a common ancestor. Ape DNA for instance is 98.something % the same as yours. To put that in perspective your wife or girlfriend's DNA is only 97.something % the same as yours.

It's very comprehensible that raw materials came together to start life. Biochemists have learned how nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of cells could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry and current biotechnology discoveries, including recent advances with stem cells etc.


Any issues you may percieve with entropy or thermodynamics aren't in conflict with evolution. I'd be interested to see you explain this point more fully.

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

[Andre]

All the scientific laws. It cannot and hasn't been observed, measured, or tested and proven. It is simply a theory which means...... belief.

All evolution except variations within a species. There is no evidence that a cat can turn into a dog or an apple tree will start producing oranges eventually. You can get different types of cats or different types of oranges but there is no transitional species and there never will be because it is fatal.

A half functioning anything wouldn't be able to reproduce. A half functioning eye is useless, a half functioning stomach, etc.... It is incomprehensible that the raw materials to support life and life itself all evolved in anything resembling the fairytale of evolution.

Evolution is in violation of all natural laws specifically entropy. There is zero evidence, only belief and story of what might have happened long before there were people.... Again the point is that it's a story based upon loosely tied together current observations. From the big bang theory, to natural selection, it's a philosophy, not a science.

There is endless observation, testing etc. to prove evolutionary theory. Vast quantities of evidence. But no absolute proof, as with most scientific thories. Gravity is a theory. So is electricity. We think our knowledge of electricity theory is how we generate gigawatts of power every day all over the world, for instance, but it may be that Jesus's tears come down from heaven and invisibly work their way into the electricity-generating process, so until we can rule out every single possible alternative possibility things like gravity, electricity and evolution will have to remain theories.

The theory of evolution doesn't claim that cats turn into dogs, or even that we're descended from apes. Evidence from the fossil record and from DNA however shows us that we and apes have a common ancestor. Ape DNA for instance is 98.something % the same as yours. To put that in perspective your wife or girlfriend's DNA is only 97.something % the same as yours.

It's very comprehensible that raw materials came together to start life. Biochemists have learned how nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of cells could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry and current biotechnology discoveries, including recent advances with stem cells etc.


Any issues you may percieve with entropy or thermodynamics aren't in conflict with evolution. I'd be interested to see you explain this point more fully.

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

Oh ME! ME ! pick ME !



#Thought derived from feelings.

[Kirkland Laing]

First I am not trying to prove God exists. It can't be done. It is an act of faith to believe in God. I acknowledge that. However, from an evidence base we are on the same footing but evolutionists NEVER acknowledge that.

Second point... I have never seen conclusive evidence that there are millions of year old fossils. The carbon dating methods used to date fossils are at best able to calculate up to 10,000 years. The use of dating fossils by the geological column is circular reasoning. The geological column doesn't exist anywhere but textbooks.

As far as beliefs by different believers, they differ greatly. One main point about that is some people don't need any real solid answers to believe in God, so they will take some really unusual stances on these scientific matters. I don't and couldn't buy those type of answers. What you will find is a similair acceptance of evolutionary beliefs. If you use the same scale to measure evidence they are both nothing more than belief systems. It's the argument that one is more "scientific" than the other that I have a problem with. I hope to have a spirited debate regarding this without any offense taken. So I apologize in advance if I offend. Anyways that's my position on that.

We're not on an equal basis on evidence. There is endless evidence for evolution and zero evidence for a god.

Carbon dating can be inaccurate. For example rocks which are shown by carbon dating to be four billion years old may be as little as three and a half billion years old, maybe even less. If you don't like carbon dating try potassium-argon dating. That's what's commonly used these days on samples over 100 000 years old.

I'm not sure how you can argue that evolution theory isn't scientific.

[pacfan]

Let me intrude - sorry about that. I think God can work through evolution too. What I don't agree to is the idea of 'suvivor of the fittest.' If survivor of the fittest were the driving force for evolution, why not just evolve a super crocodile or even a super cockroach that can survive under most harsh conditions and which can just mindlessly gobble up any competing species - including 'pre-humanoids' so as to prevent the future 'bustards' from lording it over them and before those pre-humans can even think about putting them in a zoo. But why did it have to be human beings, or why did the evolution path choose the path of intelligence. Think about it, fellas. Believe me, if you think about it very deeply, you'll realize that it didn't have to be that way. But somehow, nature (or is it God?) chose the evolutional path of ultimately leading to intelligent beings, to reign over (and destroy - just kiddin' folks, let's relax a bit) the earth. I think whatever it is or Whoever it is, He wanted to ultimately create an intelligent being with feelings, consciousness, emotion, spirit, soul and more importantly, if not the most, conscience (although I have to admit many people has not 'evolved' that part yet and you know who) so as to put some meaning in this world. Farfetched? Just remember, everything in this world has meaning to it, even the evolution process itself, so is it not possible that we humans were ultimately created or evolved for some meaning or purpose. Think about it.

Besides, isn't this world or life itself boring and meaningless if we humans were ultimately meant to be consigned to nothiness? Is that all there is to it? All this thing called evolution? all that unimaginably painstaking process of continuous transformation from simple amino acids to magnificently complex beings called humans - beings that may still be evolving into 'super-beings,' just to be relegated to nothingness and eventually be completely wiped out with the inevitable end of the world? Or am I just harboring some grand illusion and pursuing some phantom dreams? Think about it folks. Besides, weren't we given intelligent mind to ponder upon these things than just thoughlessly be resigned to doom. Definitely not me, I'm gonna go out to this world with a firm belief and the feeling that this world is beautiful and that there must be a reason for all the beauty and magnificence in this world...
...and be happy - that's all that matters to me.

[Kirkland Laing]

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

Thermodynamics doesn't work against evolution.
The laws actually state that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.


More importantly however the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials over a period of time.


We'll know better how matter was created when we establish radio telescopes on the moon in a few decades and can look back to the origins of the universe more clearly.

Your pizza gets cold because it's an inanimate objext that can't consume any energy and synthesise it into heat.

It's not incomprehensible that raw materials come together on their own to form complex structures. Mineral crystals, snowflakes etc. do just that. That a bunch of biomechanical processes can occur over hundreds of millions of years between substances and elements that exist in abundant quantities on the earth is already documented extensively.

[Andre]

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

Thermodynamics doesn't work against evolution.
The laws actually state that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.


More importantly however the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials over a period of time.


We'll know better how matter was created when we establish radio telescopes on the moon in a few decades and can look back to the origins of the universe more clearly.

Your pizza gets cold because it's an inanimate objext that can't consume any energy and synthesise it into heat.

It's not incomprehensible that raw materials come together on their own to form complex structures. Mineral crystals, snowflakes etc. do just that. That a bunch of biomechanical processes can occur over hundreds of millions of years between substances and elements that exist in abundant quantities on the earth is already documented extensively.

Ok so how does (LOVE ,JOY and HEALING) just to mention 3, come into it?