gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (05/13/85)
>>>[Dan Boskovich] >>> More positive evidence for creation is in the Second Law! The universe >>> is running down. It can't be running down forever. Somewhere it must >>> have been wound up; a starting point. >>[somebodyorother] >>I am not saying that it wasn't "wound up", just that your "theory" is not a >>very good explanation of it. Simply because we don't have a good >>explanation of how the "Primeval Egg" was arrived at before the Big Bang, >>doesn't mean that we have to revert to superstition to explain the origins of >>the universe. >[Dan Boskovich] > Please! You don't think the Big Bang ranks as superstition? No, because people would not cling to it after conclusive evidence was found against it. > We are > the product of an explosion? Your Big Bang theory isn't worth the > powder to blow it up. And its been blown full of holes. Could be (I don't follow cosmology too closely), but I'm not sure I believe you. You have a history of making uncertain, and even blatantly false statements. ("Creation is falsifiable," "Evolution is unfalsifiable," "P.E. involves reptiles giving birth to birds," etc.) > Hey! Come to think of it. I have seen some Fords that look like > they are the product of an explosion. Then they must not have been designed. (:-) >>> Evolutionists say the Second Law does not apply to the earth because >>> it is an open system. However the universe is a closed system. Given >>> this, how could it have started in the first place. Before Evolution >>> could have started on earth, it first had to produce earth, in a closed >>> system; The Universe! >>Closed systems can produce smaller parts (Earth) with higher order than the >>rest of the environment. This is not a problem. > There are systems which do manifest an increasing degree of comlexity. > These are open systems and draw on external sources of energy. Like for instance the earth. > However, > merely having an open system and energy available from the sun does > not automatically generate higher order in that system. All real systems > are open systems and are open in one way or another to the sun's energy. > But most systems normally proceed to lower degrees of order in accord > with the law of entropy. > > In light of this, there are certain conditions which must be satisfied > to cause any finite system to advance to a higher degree of order. > > No system shows an increasing order unless it also possesses a specific > program to direct its growth and a complex mechanism to convert the > suns energy into specific work. This is demonstrably false. Specific counterexamples include: Jeff Sonntag's self-aligning sugar cubes (see <864@mhuxt.UUCP>), the earth's polar ice caps (see Beth D. Christy's <470@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>), or, even more graphically, snowflakes. I suppose one can claim that snowflake formation is guided by a "program" hidden in the structure of the water molecule, but then I can claim that evolution is the result of a program hidden in the laws of physics (not as we know them now, but at they really are (assuming they really are at all)). Note that I've never seen a statement of the second law that made any mention of "programs" (outside creationist/evolutionist arguments), and I've had 2 years of college physics (including thermodynamics, by the way). > Examples of such directive programs > are DNA in living systems and plans and specifications for > construction of artificial systems. Mechanisms for storing and > converting energy would be photosynthesis in plants, metabolism in > animals, and machinery in artificial construction. A proof by example is pretty weak, especially in the presence of a disproof by counterexample. >>> What is the difference >>> between God creating Adam, and a reptile giving birth to a bird? >>Nothing, since neither happened. > Thats not what the Punctuationists say. You better had read up on > the new evolutionary trend. Hopeful monsters is where its at, man! *You* had better read up on P.E., from a good source. "The Wonderful Egg", which you listed in another article as your source on P.E., is a children's book. You know, the kind where all the ideas get simplified so the young and young at mind can understand them. Looks like it failed in your case. -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon ATT: (206) 527-0832 USnail: 5008 12th NE, Seattle, WA, 98105 Earth: 47 39' 55" N, 122 18' 46" W Reality?: An unimportant member of an unimportant species residing in an unimportant area of an unimportant planet circling an unimportant star partway out one arm of an unimportant galaxy in an Einsteinian, but otherwise unimportant universe.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/16/85)
In article <64@uw-june> gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) writes: >> We are >> the product of an explosion? Your Big Bang theory isn't worth the >> powder to blow it up. And its been blown full of holes. > >Could be (I don't follow cosmology too closely), but I'm not sure I >believe you. You have a history of making uncertain, and even blatantly >false statements. ("Creation is falsifiable," "Evolution is unfalsifiable," >"P.E. involves reptiles giving birth to birds," etc.) > I am not entirely up-to-date on this subject, but my impression is that this is another case of Creationists using evidence against an outdated version of a theory as evidence against the whole concept behind the thoery. Certainly, the *original* "raw" big-bang theory is now considered inadequate, just like Darwin's origianl "raw" evolutionary theory is now considered inadequate. BUT, there are a number of refined variants available that may be more viable (e.g. the "inflationary model"). -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (05/20/85)
> >[Dan Boskovich] > > Please! You don't think the Big Bang ranks as superstition? > > No, because people would not cling to it after conclusive evidence was > found against it. > > > We are > > the product of an explosion? Your Big Bang theory isn't worth the > > powder to blow it up. And its been blown full of holes. > > Could be (I don't follow cosmology too closely), but I'm not sure I > believe you. You have a history of making uncertain, and even blatantly > false statements. ("Creation is falsifiable," "Evolution is unfalsifiable," > "P.E. involves reptiles giving birth to birds," etc.) > I *do* follow cosmology quite closely (for obvious reasons). Current cosmology is the result of continuing interaction between experiment and theory. I'd be mildly interested in hearing Dan justify his statements. > > *You* had better read up on P.E., from a good source. "The Wonderful Egg", > which you listed in another article as your source on P.E., is a children's > book. You know, the kind where all the ideas get simplified so the young > and young at mind can understand them. Looks like it failed in your case. Are we talking about "The Enormous Egg" or some book I've never heard of? This is a serious question. I like to keep track of good children's books. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (05/22/85)
> > [Gordon, responding to Dan] > > *You* had better read up on P.E., from a good source. "The Wonderful Egg", > > which you listed in another article as your source on P.E., is a children's > > book. You know, the kind where all the ideas get simplified so the young > > and young at mind can understand them. Looks like it failed in your case. > [Ethan Vishniac] > Are we talking about "The Enormous Egg" or some book I've never heard of? > This is a serious question. I like to keep track of good children's books. I've never read it, so I can't vouch for its being any good, but Dan said it won some awards... The title really is "The Wonderful egg", by IPCAR (I don't know if that's a person or a company or what). The reason I know anything at all about it is that I got the impression from Dan's description that it was for young children, so I called the Seattle Public Library System, and confirmed my suspicions (this is called hypothesis testing, and it's very useful for learning things. Scientists use it all the time. Try it out sometime (I'm not talking to Ethan here)). -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon ATT: (206) 527-0832 USnail: 5008 12th NE, Seattle, WA, 98105 Earth: 47 39' 55" N, 122 18' 46" W Reality?: An unimportant member of an unimportant species residing in an unimportant area of an unimportant planet circling an unimportant star partway out one arm of an unimportant galaxy in an Einsteinian, but otherwise unimportant universe.