Quote:
|
Originally Posted by adysav
No, because it is completely invalid in the first place. There is no basis for my assertion, I just plucked it out of the air.
|
Strangely enough, that's how many theories start, whether they are incorrect or quite on the dot.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by adysav
It's odd how you qualify a non-scientific argument with pseudo-scientific reasoning. I'm sure you know from experience that chaos does not only lead to more chaos, look around you. A complex, well-ordered organism can be grown from a seed or egg, and you can turn a few small lumps of rock into an Ipod.
|
I'm not sure that most Physicists would approve of Chaos Theory being classified as psuedo-science. In fact, chaos (entropy) DOES increase as time moves forward. A tree is much more chaotic in nature than an acorn, and iPod much more than it's elemental components, especially since the components are man made (unnatural) and the manufacturing process creates further chaos with byproducts being introduced. Things that are complex are very rarely "well-ordered". How is a tree, or a sunflower, or anything of that nature more ordered than the seed from which it was produced?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by adysav
Not really. Since both galaxies and planetary systems are both chiefly governed by the same force, gravity, it is obvious there will look very similar as they are practically the same thing just with differing numbers of bodies (there are also galaxies which do not follow the popular spiral or disc shape). Atoms, however, only look like planetary systems in school textbooks where you have a little blob of balls being orbited by other balls. It's not an accurate description of what an atom 'looks' like, if you can even use that term on an atomic scale.
|
Hmmm... you use gravity, part of particle physics as an explanation, though you denote chaos theory as psuedo-science. Next, gravity is a device used in common science, but since we have no exact grasp on it's forces, we have no clue if gravity works the same or even exists at all elsewhere in the galaxy. We assume it does based on our observations, but observations alone are not factual science.
In the end, I agree... the lack of explanation does NOT prove the existance of God. However, at least refute it with reasonable evidence.