I think those illustrations are valid because when you think about people arising from an explosion in space…that is as extreme as 747 jet appearing from a junkyard. Entropy is the beliefe that things in nature go from order to disorder, thus according to that principle of science Kerby Anserson’s illustration makes sense.
Yes, they are valid. For the idea that something arose to order from an explosion or some other act of chaos or randomness to be truly scientific, it must be verifiable, reproduceable in a laboratory etc. We have never seen something of higher order come from calamity. Never. Yet scientist expect us to buy it though it doesn’t pass the scientific method which is the very reason they dismiss creation.
I think that this illustration is a perfect comparison for nature. When we think about the complexity of living things, the simplest code, the base of life that keeps everything going and growing, DNA, yet we cannot explain how it came to be, how this massive molecule is so stable and precisely what is says and where it came from, it would be just like a storm putting together a 747. We are just beginning to understand the complexities of life, the base code that is passed on from generation to generation of all living things and yet we cannot create it from scratch or even completely read it.
I think that Kerby Anderson’s illustrations about 747 jets and Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary are valid. God is the God of order, putting all things into just the right time, place, and space. Life is not a random selection of events, things, and people…it is ordered by an intelligent Creator.
Kerby Anderson was just trying to make a point that order can’t come about randomly like with a tornado or explosion. Order comes from an intelligent being, God.
I don’t know because the illustrations is so confusing as Mr Anderson made but i think maybe Mr Anderson was made his point that things made by chance and purpose.
I do like his examples because it shows the absurdity of the claim that our being, our universe, our world came into existence out of chaos. Our world could not come about by an explosion that happened by chance.
I agree that a more simplistic example could have been used as anything and everything could not evolve into something it is not. I would rather see an example of nature creating something that it is not.
I don’t think so. I found those illustrations quite funny. I understand what he was trying to say, but I’m sure that are better illustrations that could have been used to make his point.
I think that Mr. Anderson proves his point in that things are not constructed or created by chance and for no purpose. And that things cannot evolve into something they are not.
I think the 747 jet and dictionary illustrations are valid in one way. I would maybe use different examples of things in nature that weren’t necessarily built with man’s intervention. To change his illustration, I would say we’ve never seen a hurricane go create a tree, or a snow storm produce a mountain.
While I do believe that these examples are valid I do not think that they help the argument of a creationist. The tone of the argument is so childish that it is easy to be offputting to a non-believer. I believe that there are many more scientific arguments that bear much more weight and a better tone than these two.