As yourse continues to be.
Again, physically incorrect. The natural direction of energy flow around a black hole (and to a lesser degree, any object of mass) is from dispersion to concentration. I don't mind that you continue to embarrass yourself, but I again offer to explain your position to you, if you so desire. It will still be wrong, but that way you could at least be correctly stating the principle before misapplying it.
Going to a snowflake from water entails a loss of energy in the water. No external energy source is required. So, even though my example was a naturally occuring phenomenon of order from disorder rebutted your original claim, and even though you decided tomove the goal posts to energy flow because you couldn't support your original contention, you still got it wrong.
YOu don't understand the concept you are going for.
Software viruses do not break down.
We have plants that are thousands of years old, with no sign of slowing down.
If anyone thinks that life is solely the result of random mutations and accidents, then they know less about science than you have shown so far. At least, now I know what you mean by the mythical group of "Darwiniacs".
Rather than respond to every assertion here, I will deal just with the one bolded as I think it is adequate to show the error in the rest. I wonder, OneBrow, if you use any of the computer products that have been developed to create some kind of systemic "back up" in case somehow it "crashes". My wife hired somebody to come here and set up an automatic daily "save" to a remote computer which is itself multiply "backed up".
Problem is, our computer memories have a natural rate of defects occuring in accord with the principles of the Second Law of thermodynamics, and even computer viruses have a "mutation rate" which, over millions of years, might generate entirely new and bizarre "viruses" just like in real life. But, fortunately, 99% of these "new" viruses just wouldn't work.
In regard to the plants that are geologic ages "old", we also have their seeds in the geologic rock, which when washed into some surface with the right conditions, can still sometimes grow. But I'm sure there are some non-lethal changes in some of the seeds that have been kept in the solidified sediments over those ages. The seeds that sustain "lethal" changes we just don't see growing.
I have heard of the various explanations of why nature would conserve and replicate advantageous "evolutionary windfalls" and thus create a system that doesn't purely rely on random change, and could(and does) progress along the evolutionary path in an accelerated fashion, but few of the proponents of these have an answer about why "nature" wants to do this.
I on the other hand, do this when I weed my garden. . . . and when I select a fruit tree with a
particularly desireable fruit and gather its seeds for a future orchard.
Of course, the answering argument that denies that nature "wants" anything is obvious on first glance. But fails on a really seriously thought-through study. The fact of "Life" itself is a statement that there is more to the ultimate design of the universe than a dedicated atheist is willing to see. The fact that the atheist doesn't "want" to see it is just his own choice.
The Bible, on the other hand, stated the case quite well a few thousand years ago: The whole world is evidence there is a god. Every pretty little flower, every butterfly, every little critter under our feet, and the very existence of cognitive intelligence within our skulls. It is all proof of God rationally undeniable and only irrationally believed to be the purposeless result of non-intelligence.
