eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (07/01/85)
< 143rew2qfdsrahgzcxvb679oiuyklljmn,. 9-0p[]l;//.mo > Excuse me, just wiping off the keyboard. As mentioned earlier, I don't have my barfbags handy. Every time I see these desperate attempts to prove creationism using thermodynamics, the wretching urge is uncontrollable. I will not mention the author's name, but his initials are Dan B. (Not the only one, but the most recent) > [The thermo "evidence" does not merit repeating. > We have all read it over the last couple months. ] First he digresses into cosmology. The beginning of the universe (big bang) violates the first and second law; fine. Here we can select two mistakes; Dan usually adopts both. Fallacy #1: therefore, God must have created the universe. Fallacy #2: therefore, God must have created all life as well. Neither conclusion stems from rational thought. But it gets worse!! Though we post 1,000 articles, explaining that the Earth is an open system, we still keep hearing the same tired arguments about "life on Earth violates the second law". Hey Dan, the readers of this news group are tired as well. It is our sun (and some radioactive decay) that pays the price. There is nothing unusual here. Do you really think God specifically melts each ice crystal on Earth? After all, it *is* a local increase in entropy. Does entropy have anything to do with life? Probably, but the link is quite tenuous, especially since nobody can really define life. Every second, cells in my body are driving sodium ions against a concentration gradient, increasing local entropy. Shall I attribute this to constant divine intervention? Hardly. ATP molecules pay the entropy price. Each step from stellar fusion to conscious thought transfers energy, and reduces global entropy, although some steps increase local entropy. Apparently, too many have read creationist pamphlets on "scientific evidence", while too few have taken thermodynamics courses. Please keep this trash out of scientific news groups. I can understand an innocent mistake, but these arguments have been thoroughly refuted so often, that their continued promulgation represents mindless religious conviction, rather than scientific investigation. We are very interested in evidence for creationism, but please kick the thermo habit. It only weakens your case, and discredits you (as a scientist). But the article gets even worse!! I would appreciate it if you would keep the subjective emotionalizing down to a dull roar. > I can't believe that a scientist > who prides himself in being rational, intelligent, and > objective can look at a world that behaves according to certain > laws of nature and mathematics, at a race of individuals who > can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions and argue > that all of this can just as reasonably be explained by chance. Now there's solid evidence :-). Got any banners (or hands) to wave? > And, in light of this, you have the gall to ask for a reason > to believe in Creation. The nerve of us :-). I suppose we should accept every unsubstantiated claim you make? > Give me a real solid > concrete reason to believe that you and I are accidents and > serve no real purpose. This really bothers you, doesn't it? Why should we have a purpose, or reason for being here? Why do so many articles contain so much verbiage, and so little evidence. At any rate, I cannot debate "purpose" because it is not well defined. I can present evidence for biological evolution, and I (and others) have done so repeatedly. Please get off the emotional "purpose, reason, accident" track. 153245wYtgqweasdbvzcxv7899il;hjmm n0p[[;;l/.,n Excuse me again, what a mess. Any evidence for creationism? We are still waiting. -- Is it time to go home yet? Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (07/02/85)
< 143rew2qfdsrahgzcxvb679oiuyklljmn,. 9-0p[]l;//.mo > Excuse me, just wiping off the keyboard. As mentioned earlier, I don't have my barfbags handy. Every time I see these desperate attempts to prove creationism using thermodynamics, the wretching urge is uncontrollable. I will not mention the author's name, but his initials are Dan B. > [The thermo "evidence" does not merit repeating. > We have all read it over the last couple months. ] First he digresses into cosmology. The beginning of the universe (big bang) violates the first and second law; fine. Here we can select two mistakes; Dan usually adopts both. Fallacy #1: therefore, God must have created the universe. Fallacy #2: therefore, God must have created all life as well. Neither conclusion stems from rational thought. But it gets worse!! Though we post 1,000 articles, explaining that the Earth is an open system, we still keep hearing the same tired arguments about "life on Earth violates the second law". Hey Dan, the readers of this news group are tired as well. It is our sun (and some radioactive decay) that pays the entropy price. There is nothing unusual here. Do you really think God specifically melts and freezes each ice crystal? After all, it *does* violate local entropy. Does entropy have anything to do with life? Probably, but the link is quite tenuous, especially since nobody can really define life. Every second, cells in my body are driving sodium ions against a concentration gradient, decreasing local entropy. Shall I attribute this to constant divine intervention? Hardly. ATP molecules pay the entropy price. Each step from stellar fusion to conscious thought transfers energy, and increases global entropy, although some steps reduce local entropy. Apparently, too many have read creationist pamphlets on "scientific evidence", while too few have taken thermodynamics courses. Please keep this trash out of scientific news groups. I can understand an innocent mistake, but these arguments have been thoroughly refuted so often, that their continued promulgation represents mindless religious conviction, rather than scientific investigation. We are very interested in evidence for creationism, but please kick the thermo habit. It only weakens your case. But the article gets even worse!! I would appreciate it if you would keep the subjective emotionalizing down to a dull roar. > I can't believe that a scientist > who prides himself in being rational, intelligent, and > objective can look at a world that behaves according to certain > laws of nature and mathematics, at a race of individuals who > can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions and argue > that all of this can just as reasonably be explained by chance. Now there's solid evidence :-). Got any banners (or hands) to wave? > And, in light of this, you have the gall to ask for a reason > to believe in Creation. The nerve of us :-). I suppose we should accept every unsubstantiated claim you make? > Give me a real solid > concrete reason to believe that you and I are accidents and > serve no real purpose. This really bothers you, doesn't it? Why should we have a purpose, or reason for being here? Why do so many articles contain so much verbiage, and so little evidence. At any rate, I cannot debate "purpose" because it is not well defined. I can present evidence for biological evolution, and I (and others) have done so repeatedly. Please get off the emotional "purpose, reason, accident" track. 153245wYtgqweasdbvzcxv7899il;hjmm n0p[[;;l/.,n Excuse me again, what a mess. -- Is it time to go home yet? Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (07/02/85)
> I can understand an innocent mistake, but these arguments have been > thoroughly refuted so often, that their continued promulgation represents > mindless religious conviction, rather than scientific investigation. > We are very interested in evidence for creationism, > but please kick the thermo habit. > It only weakens your case, and discredits you (as a scientist). Why do you assume that he is a scientist? It is quite clear that many leading creationists are engineers rather than scientists. These engineers understand the mathematics of science which does not seem to conflict with their religion. Yet, they are unable to comprehend the underlying scientific theory which they perceive to contradict their religion. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
morse@leadsv.UUCP (Terry Morse) (07/19/85)
In article <485@ihu1m.UUCP>, jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: > It is quite clear that many leading creationists are engineers > rather than scientists. These engineers understand the mathematics > of science which does not seem to conflict with their religion. Yet, they > are unable to comprehend the underlying scientific theory which they perceive ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > to contradict their religion. > -- Do I detect a bit of scientific snoberry? As an engineer, I take offense at the idea that I might be unable to comprehend scientific theory. Theory is all an engineer gets in his curriculum: theory of elasticity, theory of compressible flow, boundary layer theory, etc. I charge that I know as much about my specialty as any "scientist". I just earn more money :-) -- Terry Morse (408)743-1487 { seismo!nsc!cae780 } | { sun!sunncal } leadsv!morse
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (07/23/85)
>> [Yosi Hoshen] >> It is quite clear that many leading creationists are engineers >> rather than scientists. These engineers understand the mathematics >> of science which does not seem to conflict with their religion. Yet, they >> are unable to comprehend the underlying scientific theory which they perceive > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> to contradict their religion. >> -- >[Terry Morse] >Do I detect a bit of scientific snoberry? As an engineer, I take offense >at the idea that I might be unable to comprehend scientific theory. Firstly: Yosi's comment doesn't include *all* engineers, just some. The point is that to become an engineer, you don't have to know anything of the methods of science, just some of the results of those methods. (You can, but you don't have to) Secondly: I've known quite a few undergraduate physics majors here at the UW, and a disturbing number of them seem to fit Yosi's description. They memorize equations and apply them mindlessly to solve numeric problems. Give them anything out of their experience (what they've seen in the book or in lecture), and they don't know what's going on. I've seen similar stuff on the net: in a discussion in net.flame and net.cooks about whether dark or light objects gave off more heat radiation, one person quoted the Stefan-Boltzmann law as giving the heat radiation of an object independent of its color. What he didn't realize is that that law only applies to perfectly black objects. These people seem mostly to flunk out of physics, and go on to something else. Like engineering. >Theory is all an engineer gets in his curriculum: theory of elasticity, >theory of compressible flow, boundary layer theory, etc. You get the fully-formed theories, without knowing how they were formed. >I charge that I know as much about my specialty as any "scientist". I just >earn more money :-) Exactly: you know all about your specialty, but not necessarily anything outside of it. Only a very small number of creationists are biologists. -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (07/24/85)
[Yosi Hoshen] > > It is quite clear that many leading creationists are engineers > > rather than scientists. These engineers understand the mathematics > > of science which does not seem to conflict with their religion. > > Yet, they > > are unable to comprehend the underlying scientific theory which > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > they perceive to contradict their religion. [Terry Morse] > Do I detect a bit of scientific snoberry? As an engineer, I take > offense at the idea that I might be unable to comprehend scientific > theory. Theory is all an engineer gets in his curriculum: theory > of elasticity, theory of compressible flow, boundary layer theory, > etc. I charge that I know as much about my specialty as any > "scientist". I just earn more money :-) Watch those logical leaps, Terry. That's what gets the creationists in trouble (scientifically). Some X are Y does not imply all X are Y. And engineering students don't get much theory--they get equations. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 24 Jul 85 [6 Thermidor An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (07/26/85)
In article <246@ihnet.UUCP> eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) writes: >< 143rew2qfdsrahgzcxvb679oiuyklljmn,. 9-0p[]l;//.mo > > Excuse me, just wiping off the keyboard. >As mentioned earlier, I don't have my barfbags handy. >Every time I see these desperate attempts to prove creationism using >thermodynamics, the wretching urge is uncontrollable. >Here we can select two mistakes; Dan usually adopts both. >Fallacy #1: therefore, God must have created the universe. >Fallacy #2: therefore, God must have created all life as well. Wrong! My conclusion was this: Since there is nothing in the present structure of natural law that can account for its own origin, the Universe could not have created itself. Therefore, it must have had a supernatural origin. >Neither conclusion stems from rational thought. Prove it! >Though we post 1,000 articles, explaining that the Earth is an open system, >we still keep hearing the same tired arguments about >"life on Earth violates the second law". >Hey Dan, the readers of this news group are tired as well. >It is our sun (and some radioactive decay) >that pays the entropy price. There is nothing unusual here. >Do you really think God specifically melts and freezes each ice crystal? >After all, it *does* violate local entropy. The earth is an isolated system in regard to life. Sunlight acting on nonliving matter without a life product (like chlorophyll) will not explain synthesis from non-living matter by sunlight. Did you ever find your barf bag? Dan
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/28/85)
> Wrong! My conclusion was this: Since there is nothing in the present > structure of natural law that can account for its own origin, the Universe > could not have created itself. Therefore, it must have had a supernatural > origin. Here we go again. The old proof by ignorance approach. O.K. Since there is nothing in the present structure of supernatural law that can account for its own origin, the supernatural could not have created itself. Therefore, it must have had a natural origin. Man, perhaps? > >Though we post 1,000 articles, explaining that the Earth is an open system, > >we still keep hearing the same tired arguments about > >"life on Earth violates the second law". > >Hey Dan, the readers of this news group are tired as well. > >It is our sun (and some radioactive decay) > >that pays the entropy price. There is nothing unusual here. > >Do you really think God specifically melts and freezes each ice crystal? > >After all, it *does* violate local entropy. > > The earth is an isolated system in regard to life. Sunlight acting on > nonliving matter without a life product (like chlorophyll) will not explain > synthesis from non-living matter by sunlight. > > Dan The earth is NOT a closed system, especially in regard to life. The food chain relies upon an energy input, the sun being the largest contributor. Therefore life on earth relies on something outside of the earth. The earth cannot be considered a closed system under these circumstances. Padraig Houlahan.
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (07/29/85)
............. >>Fallacy #1: therefore, God must have created the universe. >>Fallacy #2: therefore, God must have created all life as well. > > Wrong! My conclusion was this: Since there is nothing in the present > structure of natural law that can account for its own origin, the Universe > could not have created itself. Therefore, it must have had a supernatural > origin. [Dan] What makes you think that there is nothing in the present structure of natural law that can account for its own origin? So far, you have done nothing more than weakly attempt to disprove various versions of a popular theory which in fact DOES account for such origins, as if this alone is evidence that there is nothing to account for its own origin. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (08/20/85)
In article <93@uw-june> gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) writes: > Only a very small number of creationists are biologists. I would suspect that "Only a very small number of creationists are -fill in the blank with whatever career you have in mind-", as there is a wide diversity of possible careers. More to the point, what number of biologists are creationists? Most of them that I have known are. (Please note that this is based on personal observation, not statistical study. I admit that the biologists I know may not represent a statistically valid sample, so I will not draw any universal conclusions.) (Of course, that depends on how you define "creationist". If a creationist is one who believes the universe was created in accordance with Bishop Usher's calculations, they aren't creationists. But if a creationist is one who believes that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", they are.)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/27/85)
In article <201@cylixd.UUCP> charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) writes: > > More to the point, what >number of biologists are creationists? Most of them that I have known >are. (Please note that this is based on personal observation, not >statistical study. I admit that the biologists I know may not >represent a statistically valid sample, so I will not draw any universal >conclusions.) > Well, at one major university that I know of, with a large, well-respected biology program, there is only one member of the biological faculty that I would call a Creationist. >(Of course, that depends on how you define "creationist". If a >creationist is one who believes the universe was created in >accordance with Bishop Usher's calculations, they aren't creationists. >But if a creationist is one who believes that "In the beginning, God >created the heavens and the earth", they are.) A very interesting definition, by that definition *I* am a creationist! I do not think many Creationists would accept that definition as a sufficient one. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/03/85)
> (Of course, that depends on how you define "creationist". If a > creationist is one who believes the universe was created in > accordance with Bishop Usher's calculations, they aren't creationists. > But if a creationist is one who believes that "In the beginning, God > created the heavens and the earth", they are.) By that definition there's nothing to debate. The only problem now is whether to believe the rest of Genesis is a literal discription of how it happened. -- Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076