Cummins: There's a good start.
Is it ? Well, it's better than what you have shown so far but that's hardly a challenge.
CumminsL A fundamental difference between Creationists and Evolutionists is that
Creationist believe that the source of complexity is intelligence while the
Evolutionist believes that the source of complexity is nature.
And as far as science goes, Evolutionists have the upper hand. But there are also evolutionists who believe in nature AND God.
CUmmins: The problem for Evolutionists is that empirical science squarely demonstrates that
they're wrong.
On the contrary, of course you are free to show that this is the case
Cummins: If nature can create complexity, show me just one example.
Define complexity first. After all under the common definition of complexity, nature is creating it all the time.
Cumminsl Of course, the first thing they'll say is a snowflake.
Nope, that's equilibrium thermodynamics, nature is far better at creating complexity at far equilibrium.
CUmminsL The problem with that is that information for that complexity has always existed (nevermind
that there's never any hope of ice crystals becoming more complex than a snowflake).
Irrelevant, it has become more complex hasn't it? And yes, information for the snowflake has always existed in the laws of nature, so what's the problem ?
CumminsL So, when I challenge Evolutionists to show us that nature can
create complexity, I always include the qualifier "indefinite," as in
"Demonstrate an indefinite increase in complexity in nature."
And why do you add this qualifier ? Because otherwise your argument can be shown to be lacking relevance ?
CumminsL If you read the past messages on "Where's the Evolution?" you'll note the absolute
failure of Evolutionists to provide any examples -- because there are no examples.
You might also have noticed how Cummins was 1) unable to provide evidence that indefinite complexity is a requirement 2) when asked he resorts to ad hominems.
Cummins: Evolution is foreign to nature.
On the contrary.
> The difference, of course, is that ice formation does not involve
> inherited
> variation and natural selection.
CumminsL Right. The design of snowflakes does not come from random variation nor
selection.
Huraah, but it does show increased complexity. So if you could at least try to make a coherent argument why you 1) require indefinite complexity 2) what the relevance of your statements is ? Perhaps then we can attempt to educate you in the sciences ?