dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/08/85)
Dan Boskovich says: > > "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! > > [ A survey of various examples of excellent design is given... ] > > Anyone with open eyes will see design when he looks at the world. > It would a waste of time and space to give the numerous examples > of design in our world. > Evidence of "design" is subjective, not objective. When I look at the world, I am awed by the majesty and the beauty of it. This does not mean that it was *created*, just that it was well-made. Not a very good proof. Dan: Is that so! Next you will ask me to prove that someone designed and built my Ford, and that the wind didn't just blow it together. All supposed evidence for evolution is subjective. All data is interpreted with the biased assumption of evolution behind it. Then of course there is your circular reasoning. Like for example, using the fossils to date the strata and using the geologic column to date the fossils and using the assumption of uniformitarianism to support the geologic column. > 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. > 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: Please! You don't think the Big Bang ranks as superstition? 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. Hey! Come to think of it. I have seen some Fords that look like they are the product of an explosion. > 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. Dan: Truly, an oversimplification! This is an example of that brand of science known as the science of evolution! The first Law of T. states that nothing is being created or destroyed. Therefore, the universe did not create itself. There is nothing in the present structure of natural law that could possibly account for its own origin. Every system when left to its own devices always tend to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed to lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work. When all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded to random heat energy, with random motion of molecules and uniform low-level temperature, the universe will have died a heat death. The second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning. The first Law precludes its having begun itself. There are systems which do manifest an increasing degree of comlexity. These are open systems and draw on external sources of energy. 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. 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. This driving mechanism is absent in the case of supposed evolution. Saying that the sun's energy is adequate to sustain evolution without saying HOW is like saying that there is enough energy in a waterfall to fly an airplane. Even if true, it is irrelevant until a mechanism for converting such energy into a useful medium is accomplished. > Creation - Definite beginning, design, order, running down, hmmm, seems > to fit my origins theory! > Unfortunately, you have not given any SCIENTIFIC argument for Creationism, just gut intuition. Dan: Unfortunately, you will never give any scientific evidence for evolution because there is none. > What is the difference > between God creating Adam, and a reptile giving birth to a bird? > Nothing, since neither happened. Dan: Thats not what the Punctuationists say. You better had read up on the new evolutionary trend. Hopeful monsters is where its at, man! > Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University } Dan ============================================================================== @There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact! Mark Twain
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/08/85)
WOW! What a series of flames. But so far all I got was name-calling
and NO SCIENCE!!
But, like the good little creationist I am, I will go ahead and
comment on some of them.
DAN:
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.
FLAME:
Are you just looking for flames or what? Do you even know what the
second law says? Obviously not.
DAN:
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!
FLAME:
Evolution "started"? "on earth"? you mean evolution actually had a
beginning? you mean evolution does not occur elsewhere? PLEASE! Get
some real understanding of what you criticize before you begin criticizing
it! Evolution is not limited to the earth! What do you think we are?
Special? Evolution does not have a beginning! Evolution is just another
name for the natural flow of things. There is no reason to believe that
there is actually a beginning for the natural flow of things.
DAN:
Do you know how the English language works. I said, "Before E. could
have started on earth...it first had to produce earth"
Where did I say that it started "ON" earth. Who is quoting who out
of context?
Evolution had no beginning? Sounds like Hinduism! What kind of science
is this? Is this net.ORIGINS or net.naturalflow?
FLAME:
Closed systems can produce smaller parts (Earth) with higher order than the
rest of the environment. This is not a problem.
DAN:
I guess I should restate this from my last posting!
Truly, an oversimplification! This is an example of your brand of
science; the science of evolution!
The first Law of T. states that nothing is being created or destroyed.
Therefore, the universe did not create itself. There is nothing in the
present structure of natural law that could possibly account for its
own origin.
Every system when left to its own devices always tend to move from order
to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed to lower levels of
availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and
unavailability for further work. When all the energy of the cosmos
has been degraded to random heat energy, with random motion of molecules
and uniform low-level temperature, the universe will have died a heat
death.
The second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning. The first
Law precludes its having begun itself.
There are systems which do manifest an increasing degree of comlexity.
These are open systems and draw on external sources of energy. 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. 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.
This driving mechanism is absent in the case of supposed evolution.
Saying that the sun's energy is adequate to sustain evolution without
saying HOW is like saying that there is enough energy in a waterfall
to fly an airplane. Even if true, it is irrelevant until a mechanism
for converting such energy into a useful medium is accomplished.
FLAME:
Why do you say that ice is more ordered than liquid water?
Dan
Amazing how these so-called "scientists" fail to display any
understanding of the out-of-context quotes by which they presume
to discredit evolution.
Is it any wonder that most mainstream scientists and educated persons
dismiss such presentations as not worth their time?
DAN:
Just because I ask you a question doesn't mean that I don't know the
answer.
Actually, I got exactly the answer I was hoping for! Below!
FLAME!
Why do you say that ice is more ordered than liquid water?
Dan
Because it is less random; the molecules are not free to wander around
to the same extent that they can in a liquid.
DAN:
In other words, water, when acted upon by an external energy source,
(electricity), with a driving mechanism and a program for specific
work, (refrigeration), is transformed to a state of higher order.
But when left to its own devices reverts back to a lower order or
random state.
Remember this:
Every system when left to its own devices always tend to move from order
to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed to lower levels of
availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and
unavailability for further work. When all the energy of the cosmos
has been degraded to random heat energy, with random motion of molecules
and uniform low-level temperature, the universe will have died a heat
death.
Now we know exactly what any system requires to produce higher order.
And what Evolution lacks!
FLAME
"Design" is evidence of a "Designer"!
Geez, to bad he wasn't all that good at it! Whale and anteater embryos
develop teeth that are absorbed before birth. Woops! Maybe the
embryos development traces the steps God went through while developing
the animal (ontogeny recapitulates creation! :-) Uh-oh, dodo and
penguin wings don't work, darn, and the mole and cave salamander's eyes
don't see. Oh, and let's give some humans resistance to malaria,
woops, at the cost of sickle-cell-anemia. BOY, he sure likes beetles,
musta spent a WHOLE day on beetles (250,000 known species). And WOW
90% of the species he created is now extinct!
It would (be) a waste of time and space to give the numerous examples
of BAD design in our world.
DAN:
Just like an arrogant human being to think he knows and understands
everything about all of life and nature. If you would like to discuss
each of these in depth just say so. There is much more to it than
your oversimplification of things.
FLAME:
Well, I don't know offhand how it started. But, I can see the facts,
and the facts say: Evolution!
DAN:
What Facts? All I have heard so far is flames!
FLAME:
Darwinism is on its way out! If you don't think so, you are not up
on current Evolution theory. Punctuationism is whats happening and this
is just as much magic as you say Creation is. What is the difference
between God creating Adam, and a reptile giving birth to a bird?
Come on! No punctuated equilibriumist will tell you that a reptile ever
gave birth to a bird! Quit misrepresenting things which you obviously
know little about!
DAN:
See "The Wonderful Egg", IPCAR, 1958. Specific recommendation from the
American Association For The Advancement of Science and the American
Council on Education.
FLAME:
P.E. is a theory, not a fact like evolution. It is a theory that attempts
to explain some aspects of evolution that some scientists feel are not
adequately explained by natural selection. Disproving P.E. does not affect
the fact of evolution. The idea is, I think, not so much if there is evidence
for P.E., but if it explains the facts involved better than other theories
of natural selection etc. If it does, then perhaps experiments can be
designed to test the theory, (which will have the effect of generating
'evidence' either for or against). I don't know offhand, where P.E. stands
at the moment as far as all this is concerned. It still has nothing to do
with the fact of evolution, just some of the methods.
DAN:
So far, P.E. is a theory based on a lack of evidence for gradualism.
What FACT of Evolution?
FLAME:
"Design" is evidence of a "Designer"!
Fool! You people never give up, do you?! Would you care to explain
how one defines "design"? (I warn you, I will nail you to the wall
if you even try 'cause I know you will have to strain logic beyond
its limits to do this.)
DAN:
Design - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary - verb. To conceive and plan
out in the mind. To have as a purpose. To devise as for a specific
function or end. To conceive or execute a plan.
noun. A mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down.
A particular purpose held in view by an individual or group.
Deliberate purposive planning!
Design can be described as that which has irreducible properties of
organization.
For example, what does it take to make an airplane fly? Creative
design and organization. Take off the wings and see if they will
fly! Take out the engine and see if it will fly. In other words,
an airplane is a collection of non-flying parts! But what makes it
fly? Creative design and organization.
Second, among all the molecules that translate DNA into protein, there'e
not one molecule that is alive. Not a single molecule in your body is
alive. A living cell is a collection of non-living molecules. What does
it take to make a living cell alive? Design and CREATION!
Here is where design and order intersect. In "Scientific American",
one issue was made into a book; "Evolution" in 1978. Dickerson, after
describing the problems in producing the right kinds of molecules for
living systems, says that those droplets that by "sheer chance" contained
the right molecules survived longer. He continues, "This is not life,
but it is getting close to it. The missing ingredient is AN ORDERLY
MECHANISM!" In other words, life is a property of organization that was
produced by an orderly mechanism or a "deliberate purposive plan" or
a design!
OK. Go ahead! Nail me to the wall. Make my day!
FLAME:
Before you say there is no evidence of design, first read what
Darwin himself had to say concerning the "eye"!
Why don't you present us with the quote(s)? (Same warning as above.)
DAN:
"Darwin Life and Letters", Vol 2, page 67, "The eye to this day gives me
cold shudders".
"The Origin of Species", page 160, "To suppose that the eye, with all of
its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances,
for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of
spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural
selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
FLAME:
Creation - Definite beginning, design, order, running down, hmmm, seems
to fit my origins theory!
Sweet dreams.
DAN:
Thank you! I do!
FLAME:
Dan, are you try to give us a good laugh or what? I guess it would
take some beating to convince you that you don't even understand the
surface of the second law of thermodynamics and that there is much
more than just "a running down universe". The design argument is
bogus. How do you perceive design? What "designed" things are you
using to compare? What "non-designed" things are you using to compare?
If, as creationists claim, God designed everything, how do you perceive
design when you can't tell the difference between a "designed" article
and a "non-designed" article (because you can't)? I am interested as
to what you will propose to get out of this bind.
The difference between a tumbled pebble and an arrowhead, an automobile
and a junkyard, a statue and a mountain, a human being and a pile of
chemicals is that one is a result of time, chance, and inherent properties
of matter, and the other has irreducible properties of organization that
were produced by design and creation.
Dan (A created being)keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/10/85)
[...................] > All supposed evidence for evolution is subjective. All data is > interpreted with the biased assumption of evolution behind it. Not true. > Then of course there is your circular reasoning. Like for example, > using the fossils to date the strata and using the geologic column > to date the fossils and using the assumption of uniformitarianism to > support the geologic column. a. The geologic column was estimated to be extremely old somewhat BEFORE Darwin by geologists that were operating under the 'creationist' frame of reference of that time. And, I might add, BEFORE radio-carbon dating. When later dating was developed, it's use supported and refined this old-age data, and radio-carbon dating as a technique has been cross checked by several other means (astronomical for one). b. Uniformitarianism holds that only presently observable natural forces have operated in the past, as they do today, although their rates can vary. Evan at the most rapid rates know to exist, natural forces cannot account for geological features such as continental drift or sedimentation except on a time scale of many millions of years. >Dan: > Please! You don't think the Big Bang ranks as superstition? 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. Perhaps. Either way it has nothing to do with evolution. >Closed systems can produce smaller parts (Earth) with higher order than the >rest of the environment. This is not a problem. >Dan: > Truly, an oversimplification! This is an example of that brand of > science known as the science of evolution! > > The first Law of T. states that nothing is being created or destroyed. > Therefore, the universe did not create itself. There is nothing in the > present structure of natural law that could possibly account for its > own origin. Just as there is nothing in the present structure of 'creationist' ravings that could possibly account for a creators own origin. > The second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning. The first > Law precludes its having begun itself. Ok, so maybe it DID begin by 'magic'. Evolution is what it did after that. > There are systems which do manifest an increasing degree of comlexity. > These are open systems and draw on external sources of energy. 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. I see no reason to assume this, or that MOST systems means ALL systems. > 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. 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. Simple organic molecules have been seen to form from elementary constituents (ammonia, methane, etc.), and assemble themselves into self-replicating nucleic acids which mutate and are altered in frequency by natural selection, all in the laboratory under conditions resembling the prebiotic earth. Note that all 'specific work' has to mean is replication. > This driving mechanism is absent in the case of supposed evolution. > Saying that the sun's energy is adequate to sustain evolution without > saying HOW is like saying that there is enough energy in a waterfall > to fly an airplane. Even if true, it is irrelevant until a mechanism > for converting such energy into a useful medium is accomplished. There are lots of potential 'how's. Evolutionary theorists are postulating new ones every day. That still dosen't change the fact that however life got started, it evolved, is still evolving, and took millions of years to get to where we are now. > Unfortunately, you will never give any scientific evidence for > evolution because there is none. Not true. There is considerable scientific evidence for evolution. >> What is the difference >> between God creating Adam, and a reptile giving birth to a bird? > >Nothing, since neither happened. >Dan: > Thats not what the Punctuationists say. You better had read up on > the new evolutionary trend. Hopeful monsters is where its at, man! Go research your Punctuated Equilibrium a bit more. P.E. does not claim (or imply) that any animals immediate parent animal was that of another species. Note that when P.E. theorists say 'quickly' they still mean umpteen generations, not overnight. 'Quickly' is meant relatively to how long a stasis tends to last (might take 5-10,000 years to drift to a new species 'quickly', then remain stable for a couple million years). Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/10/85)
[..........] > In other words, water, when acted upon by an external energy source, > (electricity), with a driving mechanism and a program for specific > work, (refrigeration), is transformed to a state of higher order. > But when left to its own devices reverts back to a lower order or > random state. What we're talking about here is crystalization, not refrigeration. >FLAME > "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! > >Geez, to bad he wasn't all that good at it! Whale and anteater embryos >develop teeth that are absorbed before birth. Woops! Maybe the >embryos development traces the steps God went through while developing >the animal (ontogeny recapitulates creation! :-) Uh-oh, dodo and >penguin wings don't work, darn, and the mole and cave salamander's eyes >don't see. Oh, and let's give some humans resistance to malaria, >woops, at the cost of sickle-cell-anemia. BOY, he sure likes beetles, >musta spent a WHOLE day on beetles (250,000 known species). And WOW >90% of the species he created is now extinct! > >It would (be) a waste of time and space to give the numerous examples >of BAD design in our world. >DAN: >Just like an arrogant human being to think he knows and understands >everything about all of life and nature. If you would like to discuss >each of these in depth just say so. There is much more to it than >your oversimplification of things. Just like an arrogant human being to think he knows and understands everything about the existance of God, and that God is on his side. Just like an frightened ostrich to think that he dosen't have to think, he can just say 'because God said so, so there!', or 'God works in mysterious ways!'. >DAN: >What Facts? All I have heard so far is flames! Ok, now we resort to calling everything 'flames'. (why do I bother with this guy?) There have been PLENTY of facts in most of the evolutionist postings on this net. If you have to resort to calling them all 'flames' you're ducking the issues. (oh I forgot, 'God works in mysterious ways'). >FLAME: > Darwinism is on its way out! If you don't think so, you are not up > on current Evolution theory. Punctuationism is whats happening and this > is just as much magic as you say Creation is. What is the difference > between God creating Adam, and a reptile giving birth to a bird? > >Come on! No punctuated equilibriumist will tell you that a reptile ever >gave birth to a bird! Quit misrepresenting things which you obviously >know little about! > >DAN: >See "The Wonderful Egg", IPCAR, 1958. Specific recommendation from the >American Association For The Advancement of Science and the American >Council on Education. P.E. in 1958? (is he talking about Mayr?) How about something a little more up to date? Why don't we try one of these: N. Eldredge and S.J. Gould, in T.J.M. Schopf, ed., "Models in Paleontology" (San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Co., 1972); S. M. Stanley, "Macroevolution: Pattern and Process" (San Francisco: Freeman, 1979 ) S. M. Stanley, "The New Evolutionary Timetable" (New York: Basic Books, 1981) >DAN: > What FACT of Evolution? Well, I'll refer to a passage by Gould, as he says it very well. There's more, (plenty more) but this ought to give you the idea. However, an excellent book on the subject is "Science On Trial, The Case For Evolution" by Douglas J. Futuyma (New York: Pantheon Books 1983). Stephen Jay Gould, 'Hens Teeth and Horses Toes' pp. 254 - 259, excerpts: Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certaity". The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are *not* about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowleged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and seperate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution. ..... Our confidence that evolution occured centers upon three general arguments. First we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous population of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.) Creationists do not deny these observations; how could they? Creationists have tightened their act. They now argue that God only created "basic kinds," and allowed for limited evolutionary meandering within them. Thus toy poodles and Great Danes come from the dog kind and moths can change color, but nature cannot convert from the dog to a cat or a monkey to a man. The second and third arguments for evolution--the case for major changes- do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology. The second argument--that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution-- strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms--the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history--the evidence of descent--is the mark of evolution. Evolution lies exposed in the *imperfections* that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Austrailia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Austrailia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months. The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common--and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution [reference to later section on punctuated equilibrium] but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammilian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammilian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammilian ear are descendents of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet palentologists have discovered two transitional lineages of theraspids(the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint--one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones(soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones(as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape's of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features--increasing crainial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby? > Design can be described as that which has irreducible properties of > organization. > For example, what does it take to make an airplane fly? Creative > design and organization. Take off the wings and see if they will > fly! Take out the engine and see if it will fly. In other words, > an airplane is a collection of non-flying parts! But what makes it > fly? Creative design and organization. > Second, among all the molecules that translate DNA into protein, there'e > not one molecule that is alive. Not a single molecule in your body is > alive. A living cell is a collection of non-living molecules. What does > it take to make a living cell alive? Design and CREATION! > > Here is where design and order intersect. In "Scientific American", > one issue was made into a book; "Evolution" in 1978. Dickerson, after > describing the problems in producing the right kinds of molecules for > living systems, says that those droplets that by "sheer chance" contained > the right molecules survived longer. He continues, "This is not life, > but it is getting close to it. The missing ingredient is AN ORDERLY > MECHANISM!" In other words, life is a property of organization that was > produced by an orderly mechanism or a "deliberate purposive plan" or > a design! > > OK. Go ahead! Nail me to the wall. Make my day! I'll not argue with the statement "Design is evidence of a Designer", but I do not agree that life is evidence of design. Order can be observed to arise from the action of natural laws and physical processes, and is not evidence of design. Have you ever seen the 'Life' algorithm run on a computer? Sure, someone designed the program, (God maybe?) but once you input the initial pattern, you're done with the design. Do you claim that the symmetry and order of the 100th generation of the 'pi' starting pattern, taken out of context, is evidence of a designer? (or one that planned it to come out that way?) Conway didn't know what he was going to get, he just implemented a mechanism of evolution, and then discovered things about it. That's what we're doing, discovering things about evolution. (Others of us apparently believe in Santa Claus). Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/10/85)
Dan Boskovitch writes: > 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. 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. Sorry, Dan, but I just couldn't pass this one up. Please perform the following thought experiment: Dump a lot of sugar cubes into a box. Stir them up so that they are all jumbled up. Now shake the box gently for awhile. Notice that the sugar cubes all tend to line up into a cubic lattic structure which is highly 'ordered'. Where is the 'specific program to direct its growth', or the complex mechanism to convert the incoming energy into specific work? Answer: there isn't any. The system just naturally becomes more ordered when vibrated. See what kind of *incorrect* results you get when you try to apply the second law of thermodynamics while misinterpreting 'entropy' as 'disorder'? > > This driving mechanism is absent in the case of supposed evolution. Just as it was absent in the case of annealing the sugar cubes. > > What is the difference between > > between God creating Adam, and a reptile giving birth to a bird? > > Nothing, since neither happened. > Dan: > Thats not what the Punctuationists say. You better had read up on > the new evolutionary trend. Hopeful monsters is where its at, man! I'm not sure if Dan is just totally misrepresenting Punctualism here out of either ignorance or malice, or whether I just haven't heard of this new evolutionary theory called punctuationism. The latter seems rather unlikely, of course. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I said, 'Doc, a world war passed through my brain.' He said, 'Nurse, grab your pad, the boy's insane.'"-Dylan
rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (05/10/85)
> 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. 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. Your examples do not really support your conclusion. You have shown that SOME systems in which order increases have a "program". No number of examples can show that ALL systems in which order increases have a "program". However it only takes ONE example to prove your statement wrong. A laser is such an example. (There are others, but only one is required.) Here you have a disordered gas and a disordered source of energy. The result, however, is the emision of VERY orderd light. You may try to argue that a laser is an artificial object and therefore has a hidden plan, but not all lasers are artificial. Natural lasers have been discovered in which interstelar gas produces coherent light. Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/10/85)
Sigh - so much to flame, so little time. So maybe we can *try* to be reasonable here. All the lines starting with ">" came from Message <311@scgvaxd.UUCP> (dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)). As to who's saying what within the quotes, your guess is as good as mine. >DAN: > I guess I should restate this from my last posting! > > Therefore, the universe did not create itself. There is nothing in the > present structure of natural law that could possibly account for its > own origin. Reread the above quote, substituting the word "creator" for "universe" and "creationist theory" for "natural law". Dan, absolutely every theory has to start from some "given". Evolutionary theory assumes that the universe exists. It does *not* attempt to explain where it came from. The creationist theory assumes (and I do mean "assumes" here) that a creator exists. It does *not* attempt to explain where it came from. If you want to fight about which assumptions are the most appropriate, prepare yourself. Even creationists do not doubt that the evolutionary assumption is valid (i.e., everybody agrees the universe exists). You're task is to give some pretty strong evidence why assuming the existance of a creator of the universe without explanation is necessary; why just assuming the universe exists is insufficient. Good luck. [a *lot* of stuff talking about increasing order, ending with:] >FLAME! > Why do you say that ice is more ordered than liquid water? > > Dan > >Because it is less random; the molecules are not free to wander around >to the same extent that they can in a liquid. >DAN: > > In other words, water, when acted upon by an external energy source, > (electricity), with a driving mechanism and a program for specific > work, (refrigeration), is transformed to a state of higher order. > But when left to its own devices reverts back to a lower order or > random state. > > Remember this: > Every system when left to its own devices always tend to move from order > to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed to lower levels of > availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and > unavailability for further work. When all the energy of the cosmos > has been degraded to random heat energy, with random motion of molecules > and uniform low-level temperature, the universe will have died a heat > death. Dan has just stated that ice *is* more ordered than water. He then states "Every system when left to its own devices always tend [sic] to move from order to disorder". Dan from California, would you mind explaining then how the polar caps are nothing but ice. Why is more than 70% of the water on the face of the earth in the form of (ordered) ice? Why isn't this system, which is left to its own devices, moving from order to disorder? Furthermore, why does ice form in Chicago every few months or so? Why does *this* system *increase* in order on a regular basis? Where is all this order coming from? Could it be that Chicago is an open system, subject to external fluctuations in energy which turn water into ice (which *by your own statement* is an *increase* in order)? Can you extrapolate from this example, and actually imagine how other open systems could show local increases in order? [a lot of stuff regarding design, including:] > For example, what does it take to make an airplane fly? Creative > design and organization. Take off the wings and see if they will > fly! Take out the engine and see if it will fly. In other words, > an airplane is a collection of non-flying parts! But what makes it > fly? Creative design and organization. > Second, among all the molecules that translate DNA into protein, there'e > not one molecule that is alive. Not a single molecule in your body is > alive. A living cell is a collection of non-living molecules. What does > it take to make a living cell alive? Design and CREATION! And among all the molecules in an ice cube, there's not one molecule that's cold. Not a single molecule in an ice cube is cold. A cold ice cube is a collection of not cold molecules. What does it take to make an ice cube cold? *NOT* Design and CREATION! There are properties that groups have that none of the members of the group have. That implies *nothing* about design. (This is, admittedly, just a refutation of an invalid argument. I don't mean to imply that design is a valid, relevant scientific point. It isn't.) > Dan (A created being) Not exactly. The offspring of some distant ancestor whom it has yet to be demonstrated was created. -- --JB "The giant is awake."
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (05/11/85)
> > > WOW! What a series of flames. But so far all I got was name-calling > and NO SCIENCE!! > I would like to point out that there were many responses to Dan's posting that he did not reproduce in his response. Many of these were very rational repudiations of his ideas. I can see why he would not want to address them, but to pretend that they were never posted is a bit childish. Dan can rant and rave in as many multi-hundred line postings as he likes, it does not change the fact that he has not yet presented a single line containing evidence for creation.
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (05/12/85)
>Dan: > Please! You don't think the Big Bang ranks as superstition? 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. Dan would you care to provide references to this, or is just creationist ravings? Padraig Houlahan.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/13/85)
In article <311@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: >FLAME! > Why do you say that ice is more ordered than liquid water? > > Dan > >Because it is less random; the molecules are not free to wander around >to the same extent that they can in a liquid. >DAN: > > In other words, water, when acted upon by an external energy source, > (electricity), with a driving mechanism and a program for specific > work, (refrigeration), is transformed to a state of higher order. > But when left to its own devices reverts back to a lower order or > random state. > I can't let this pass, it is absurd. Just go look at a pond coverd with ice next winter! Where is the "driving mechanism and PROGRAM" that produced *that* ice! It isn't there, the ice formed spontaneously, without any help from man. Of course there *was* energy from outside, but that is just the definition of an *open* system, which is what is required for increase order. > >FLAME: > Darwinism is on its way out! If you don't think so, you are not up > on current Evolution theory. Punctuationism is whats happening and this > is just as much magic as you say Creation is. What is the difference > between God creating Adam, and a reptile giving birth to a bird? > >Come on! No punctuated equilibriumist will tell you that a reptile ever >gave birth to a bird! Quit misrepresenting things which you obviously >know little about! > >DAN: >See "The Wonderful Egg", IPCAR, 1958. Specific recommendation from the >American Association For The Advancement of Science and the American >Council on Education. What does IPCAR stand for, just who are these people? >FLAME: > "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! > >Fool! You people never give up, do you?! Would you care to explain >how one defines "design"? (I warn you, I will nail you to the wall >if you even try 'cause I know you will have to strain logic beyond >its limits to do this.) >DAN: > Design - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary - verb. To conceive and plan > out in the mind. To have as a purpose. To devise as for a specific > function or end. To conceive or execute a plan. > noun. A mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down. > A particular purpose held in view by an individual or group. > Deliberate purposive planning! > > Design can be described as that which has irreducible properties of > organization. How do you get this from the Webster definitions? They *all* *presuppose* the existance of a designer, thus by according to Webster you cannot recognize design without *first* recognizing the designer. Thus, there is no basis in the Webster definitions to support reasoning from *purported* design to a designer! >FLAME: > Before you say there is no evidence of design, first read what > Darwin himself had to say concerning the "eye"! > >Why don't you present us with the quote(s)? (Same warning as above.) >DAN: >"Darwin Life and Letters", Vol 2, page 67, "The eye to this day gives me >cold shudders". >"The Origin of Species", page 160, "To suppose that the eye, with all of >its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, >for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of >spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural >selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." > Of course this is a *very* old quote, there has been a *lot* of research since then, and we have *much* evidence that was not available to Darwin. I do not think Darwin would have said this if he had all of the data we have today. This is why I keep saying that *old* scientific papers are primarily of historical interest and provide no real evidence one way or the other. >FLAME: >Dan, are you try to give us a good laugh or what? I guess it would >take some beating to convince you that you don't even understand the >surface of the second law of thermodynamics and that there is much >more than just "a running down universe". The design argument is >bogus. How do you perceive design? What "designed" things are you >using to compare? What "non-designed" things are you using to compare? >If, as creationists claim, God designed everything, how do you perceive >design when you can't tell the difference between a "designed" article >and a "non-designed" article (because you can't)? I am interested as >to what you will propose to get out of this bind. > > The difference between a tumbled pebble and an arrowhead, an automobile > and a junkyard, a statue and a mountain, a human being and a pile of > chemicals is that one is a result of time, chance, and inherent properties > of matter, and the other has irreducible properties of organization that > were produced by design and creation. Try giving us *objective* criteria for recognizing something is designed, and then show that said criteria necessarily imply the existance of a designer. So far all you have done is use subjective comparisons between various things, and have *not* shown how the differences imply a designer. BTW do not refer to the definition of design to justify concluding a designer, I want you to justify applying a word which implies a designer to the natural phenonoma you claim show design. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
sidney@linus.UUCP (Sidney Markowitz) (05/14/85)
I don't know why I'm bothering, but somehow I just can't let such obvious illogic go unchallenged. I have this faint, irrational hope (is that faith?) that Dan might actually think through the logic of an argument if it is presented in sufficiently small and simple steps. So even if I am perpetuating the sin of arguing nits instead of ignoring them and continuing to press the creationists for a theory, here goes... In article <311@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: > > WOW! What a series of flames. But so far all I got was name-calling > and NO SCIENCE!! For the sake of (minimization of) argument I will concede that the particular responses you selected are "flames" and will present "scientific" alternative answers: (By the way - Dan, would you please use the ">" convention in your quotes -- It was very hard to tell who wrote what in your messages. Thanks) >DAN: > 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. >FLAME: >Are you just looking for flames or what? Do you even know what the >second law says? Obviously not. Non-flame alternative answer: The laws of thermodynamics state that entropy increases in a closed system. The implication is that the universe will die a heat death. Another implication is that there is some kind of starting point. As entropy increases, everything "winds down", meaning that a direction is imposed on time. By looking at what is happening at what rate we can extrapolate back to some "beginning". This extrapolation seems to indicate that some billions of years ago, the universe was at such a low entropy that it has taken this long to get to the current level of overall "disorder", and it has quite a few more billions of years to play itself out. 1) In quoting the second law and talking about its implied beginning to the universe, are you really conceding that the special act of creation you are talking about was a super-low entropy universe billions of years ago? That seems to be the implication. 2) "Entropy" is not exactly the same as lack of "order" or "complexity". When used in thermodynamics it represents a mathematical quantity which is more closely related to the concept of "concentration of energy". So in a closed system, everything will tend to get to the same temperature. In the case of water, it takes less energy for the molecules to fit snugly together in a regular crystalline structure. So, if increasing entropy means that when the available energy is spread around evenly the molecules don't have enough energy to keep themselves apart, you'll have ice. If there is more total energy in the system, then each molecule will have more and you'll have water. The point is that the second law does not talk about order or complexity. It talks about concentrations of energy. It allows for snowflakes and people to come into being without a violation of the second law for each individual. It even allows for energy concentrated in the sun to be distributed to the earth where it could lead to DNA forming in a soup in a process that takes *much* longer than the formation of a snowflake. 3) Calling the second law of thermodynamics a "law" is a bit misleading, just like Newtons "laws" of motion. Thermodynamics provides an organizing principle for observations made at a certain level of detail of size, speed, time, energy, etc. Newton's laws proved to be inaccurate for the very large, very fast and very small. Same thing with thermodynamics. The "laws" work well in the world of direct experience -- we don't see cups of water spontaneously boil at room temperature and pressure, we don't have to worry about all the air molecules in the room suddenly going off in one direction. But if you extrapolate the state of the universe far enough back in time you get to such extreme conditions of concentration of energy that we have to say that further research is needed to explain how things behaved under those conditions. Before you take this to mean that scientific laws are therefore inexact and therefore nonsense, let me add: Just like Newton's laws of motion continue to validly describe objects well below light-speed, current scientific theories do very well at describing the universe since approximately 1e-32 seconds or so after the "Big Bang". If you want to explain the remaining portion as a special act of a creator, go ahead, but I would allow at least another 1e-64 seconds or so that may yet be explained by physicists over the next few years. ( :-) ) >DAN: > 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! >FLAME: >Evolution "started"? "on earth"? you mean evolution actually had a >beginning? you mean evolution does not occur elsewhere? PLEASE! Get >some real understanding of what you criticize before you begin criticizing >it! Evolution is not limited to the earth! What do you think we are? >Special? Evolution does not have a beginning! Evolution is just another >name for the natural flow of things. There is no reason to believe that >there is actually a beginning for the natural flow of things. >DAN: > Do you know how the English language works. I said, "Before E. could > have started on earth...it first had to produce earth" > > Where did I say that it started "ON" earth. Who is quoting who out > of context? Non-flame answer: "Evolution" within the context of this newsgroup usually refers to the set of explanations for the development of life in its current form on Earth that attempts to account for such evidence as the fossil record, similarities in proteins, etc. by describing mechanisms by which species can change (evolve) over long time periods. "Creationism", in contrast, seems to be the belief that life in its current form was created on Earth all at once. (I would like to say that it is an explanation for the development ... that attempts to account for evidence ..., but I've yet to see any creationist theory presented in that form. Unlike Evolution, the belief comes first.) Given those definitions, you can believe anything you want about the origin of the "closed system" of the Universe and still be on either side of the Evolution/Creationism "debate". By this definition, Evolution did not produce Earth, it is a set of explanations about what happened on Earth afterwards. In regards to the production of the Earth without a special act of creation, that is not contradicted by the laws of thermodynamics. Given the proper initial conditions, a planet will form. Just like given the proper initial conditions a snowflake will form. How did those initial conditions arise? From the immediately preceding conditions. And so on. You can extrapolate back about 10 billion years or so that way before scientists don't know anymore. As I said before, if you want to call the origin of the universe at the time of the big bang act of special creation, go right ahead (until physicists extend their theories a little further back and you have to extend your act of creation back, too.) > Evolution had no beginning? Sounds like Hinduism! What kind of science > is this? Is this net.ORIGINS or net.naturalflow? Here I will flame: I resent your implied criticism of Hinduism! If you want to flame about the ignorant pagans who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior, please do so in net.religion.bigot!!! >FLAME! > Why do you say that ice is more ordered than liquid water? > > Dan > >Because it is less random; the molecules are not free to wander around >to the same extent that they can in a liquid. >DAN: > > In other words, water, when acted upon by an external energy source, > (electricity), with a driving mechanism and a program for specific > work, (refrigeration), is transformed to a state of higher order. > But when left to its own devices reverts back to a lower order or > random state. > > Remember this: > Every system when left to its own devices always tend to move from order > to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed to lower levels of > availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and > unavailability for further work. Non-flame answer: Ice may be "more ordered" than liquid water, but that's not what entropy means. When water is placed in a cold environment, increasing entropy implies heat transfer from the water to the environment. When ice is placed in a warm environment, increasing entropy implies heat transfer to the ice. In the one case, increasing entropy leads to ice, in the other to liquid. A simpler explanation for water freezing in the refrigerator is that it's cold in there! Take the water to Antartica and you will see water, left to its own devices, turn into ice. How do I think this is this relevant to a discussion of evolution/creationism? It illustrates the point that you can't apply the second law of thermodynamics to an arbitrary definition of "order" when it really talks about a mathematically defined notion of "entropy". >FLAME: > Darwinism is on its way out! If you don't think so, you are not up > on current Evolution theory. Punctuationism is whats happening and this > is just as much magic as you say Creation is. What is the difference > between God creating Adam, and a reptile giving birth to a bird? > >Come on! No punctuated equilibriumist will tell you that a reptile ever >gave birth to a bird! Quit misrepresenting things which you obviously >know little about! Non-flame answer: Punctuated Equilibrium is an evolutionary theory that claims that evolutionary changes tend to cluster in relatively short (on the order of 10,000 years) periods, in between relatively long (millions of years) periods of stability. The scientists who espouse P.E. tend to avoid magical explanations quite as much as other scientists do, and would be as unlikely to claim that reptiles give birth to birds as they would be to claim that all humans are descended from the Adam (and Eve) of Genesis. >FLAME: > "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! > >Fool! You people never give up, do you?! Would you care to explain >how one defines "design"? (I warn you, I will nail you to the wall >if you even try 'cause I know you will have to strain logic beyond >its limits to do this.) >DAN: > Design - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary - verb. To conceive and plan > out in the mind. To have as a purpose. To devise as for a specific > function or end. To conceive or execute a plan. > noun. A mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down. > A particular purpose held in view by an individual or group. > Deliberate purposive planning! > non-flame answer: The original proposition was "(1) Design is evidence of a designer. (2) Living things are obviously designed. (3) Therefore there is a designer." [my paraphrase] There are actually three words to define here, "design" (noun), "designer" and "design" (verb). Webster's New Collegiate (9th edition) provides 7 definitions for the noun form of "design", of which you mentioned only #2, #1a and b. Definition 5a "an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing or unfolding: PATTERN, MOTIF <as in: the general design of the epic>" is the only one that does not contain an element of "deliberate purposive". Webster's definition of "designer" is: "one that designs: as a) one who creates and often executes plans for a project or structure; b) one that creates and manufactures a new product style or design, esp: one who designs and manufactures high-fashion clothing." The verb form is as you stated, although you didn't distiguish between the transitive and intransitive forms. (Saying something was designed is a use of the transitive form.) So, with these definitions, we have: 1) "Design is evidence of a designer" is tautologically true -- the applicable definitions of "design" all imply a designer who planned it. Alternatively, you could allow the word "design" to mean "pattern or motif" and then this statement is not true for that use of the word "design". So we'll continue the line of reasoning, remembering not to use that definition of "design" in this context. 2) "Life is obviously designed" -- Here is the flaw in the argument. All the definitions of "design" (verb, trans.) include purposive planning. Just using the word implies a designer. The source of your error is revealed in the next quote: > Design can be described as that which has irreducible properties of > organization. Here's the problem. By this definition (ignoring the ambiguities) life can be called "designed". Or perhaps you can stretch it a bit more and say that life "has design", and then use that to say that it "is designed". But -- you have just made up a new definition of design in terms of organization. Webster does not say anywhere that design == organization. So, according to Webster, you should say "life is highly organized" instead of "life is designed". Implying structure, rather than purposive planning. > For example, what does it take to make an airplane fly? Creative > design and organization. Take off the wings and see if they will > fly! Take out the engine and see if it will fly. In other words, > an airplane is a collection of non-flying parts! But what makes it > fly? Creative design and organization. And here you add the word "creative" to the "design == organization" assumption. The organization ( == structured relationship) of the parts is necessary for the plane to fly. The creative design is something else, that went into building it. (I won't argue with the statement that someone designed and built that airplane.) > Second, among all the molecules that translate DNA into protein, there'e > not one molecule that is alive. Not a single molecule in your body is > alive. A living cell is a collection of non-living molecules. What does > it take to make a living cell alive? Design and CREATION! And now you have dropped the word "organization" and turned the phrase "creative design" into "design and CREATION". Those three phrases do not mean the same thing. If you eliminate the fallacial equivalence of "design" and "organization", then you are left with: airplanes fly because of the organization of non-flying parts; cells live because of the organization of non-living parts. > The difference between a tumbled pebble and an arrowhead, an automobile > and a junkyard, a statue and a mountain, a human being and a pile of > chemicals is that one is a result of time, chance, and inherent properties > of matter, and the other has irreducible properties of organization that > were produced by design and creation. > > Dan (A created being) How is it that your arguments allow for you to have arisen from your parents, and not through an individual act of special creation? Do you consider that God set a process in motion by creating Adam and Eve, and that process continues today? Is that how snowflakes come to be? If so, how would believing in a creator that started things off with the big-bang and a very well thought out set of laws contradict any of your arguments? I too find wonder and delight in the beauty of the construction of the universe, the way everything fits together so that the chaos of a big-bang can lead to the joy of a baby's laughter. I think of the quarks trapped in a cloud of virtual gluons in their hadron bubbles in that tumbled pebble, and it is every bit as wonderous an example of the organization of the universe as is a human being. Anyway, my apologies for such a long posting -- I hope that I have at least sufficiently dealt with the second law and the "design ==> designer" arguments in a way that can be easily understood. -- Sidney Markowitz ARPA: sidney@mitre-bedford UUCP: ...{allegra,decvax,genrad,ihnp4,philabs,security,utzoo}!linus!sidney
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (05/15/85)
>>[Dan, I think] >> 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. > [Ralph Hartley] > [...] it only takes ONE example to prove your statement wrong. > > A laser is such an example. (There are others, but only one is > required.) Here you have a disordered gas and a disordered source of > energy. The result, however, is the emision of VERY orderd light. > > You may try to argue that a laser is an artificial object and therefore > has a hidden plan, but not all lasers are artificial. Natural lasers > have been discovered in which interstelar gas produces coherent light. But you forget: the universe was created about 6,000 years ago, and the light which appears to be coming from distant objects was actually created in transit, so that humans would be able to see God's greatness. Since these natural lasers don't really exist, they don't make a very good counterexample. Even if they *did* exist, these lasers would be just more proof for creation, since they obviously show design. -- 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 Oh, yes, I almost forgot: B-)