hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/11/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) > > > 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. > > 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. As I said before, in the last time I corrected your misguided post, you perceive design in your Ford because you know for a fact that it was designed and you know the characteristics of the designs that went into the Ford. When you take a look at a tree, what characteristics can you pick out to show design? How do you know that whatever you picked out was indeed a design characteristic? What do you compare it to? If, as you probably believe, the universe is created by a grand designer, then there is nothing that is not designed. In this case, how could you possibly perceive design? > All supposed evidence for evolution is subjective. All data is > interpreted with the biased assumption of evolution behind it. Care to prove this? Or are you just whistling dixie? > 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. Incorrect example; and very old creationist complaint, of course. Fossils are not used to date strata, only the other way around is accurate. The assumption is not uniformitarianism, the assumption is consistency. No scientist could stand up and say there were no catastrophic events and keep a straight face. Evidently, you have been reading too many creationist pamphlets and not enough high school text books. > > 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. > > 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. The Big Bang is one postulate for what might have happened to send all astronomic bodies away from each other. At the "origin" of this spread, which can be found by extrapolating back the general paths of the bodies, it is highly likely that some explosion of immense magnitude occurred. (Nutshell explanation only.) > Hey! Come to think of it. I have seen some Fords that look like > they are the product of an explosion. ha..ha.. > > Closed systems can produce smaller parts (Earth) with higher order than the > > rest of the environment. This is not a problem. > > Truly, an oversimplification! This is an example of that brand of > science known as the science of evolution! Really? Care to point out exactly what the oversimplification is? Or are you just whistling ... ? > 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. Right. It also says that nothing was ever created or destroyed. In light of this fact, it seems odd that you propose a "creation" theory, when it clearly contradicts your words. > 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. Here is a very simple textbook example, Dan. If you have a set of ten balls randomly placed in space in an area of essentially complete isola- tion, the ten balls will eventually attract each other together. Their entropy has increased and some of their useful energy is used up in the attraction. One might consider this end configuration to be more ordered than the random configuration at the beginning since they are all clumped together. This is a very brief example of the Second Law at work; all things will allow all acting forces to do their part, and in the process, concentrated energy is distributed. The so-called "useful" energy must necessarily be energy isolated in some medium at some relatively high level that will spread itself to other media once the isolation is broken. The transfer of energy results in work done. The general rule is that energy only moves one-way. That is, from high concentration areas to low concentration areas. (This is the energy analog of osmosis.) > The second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning. The first > Law precludes its having begun itself. The first sentence is off the wall. Are you going to explain this or what?! The second sentence is correct as stated, though it has non-face-value inaccuracies and misrepresentations. For example, there is nothing to substantiate a beginning of the universe. (The current theories can only deal with everything up to some point in history commonly known as the Big Bang, if it really happened. We cannot deal with anything previous to the Big Bang because of the extremities postulated in the Big Bang. Of course, if it did happen and it is understood, then we can move further back to ...) > 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. Amazingly, I do not find this to be grossly inaccurate in any way, except for the subjective descriptions - "complexity" and "order". > 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. Once again ... how do you measure degrees of order? (By the way, most practical systems are finite.) > 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. No shit, Sherlock. > Examples of such directive programs are DNA in living systems and > plans and specifications for construction of artificial systems. Ditto. > Mechanisms for storing and converting energy would be photosynthesis > in plants, metabolism in animals, and machinery in artificial con- > struction. ... (I am splitting this because you are trying to lead up to your pseudo-argument, and I am going to point out exactly where you stepped out of line.) > This driving mechanism is absent in the case of supposed evolution. Right here: All of your previous examples are highly stable running systems. Evolution is the development of the biological systems. Evolution is not a system in itself. > 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. Of course you would not have said this had you read up on any primitive atmosphere experiments such as the one conducted by Stanley and Miller. One of the biggest questions addressed in these experiments is "how?". Once again ... simple high school textbook material. > Even if true, it is irrelevant until a mechanism > for converting such energy into a useful medium is accomplished. Useful? For what? This last comment is trivial once you understand "how?" from the previous comment. > > Unfortunately, you have not given any SCIENTIFIC argument for Creationism, > > just gut intuition. > > Unfortunately, you will never give any scientific evidence for > evolution because there is none. Here we go again ... "there is no evidence for creationism" ... "there is no evidence for evolution" ... "there is no evidence for creationism" ... "there is no evidence for evolution" ... Dan, how about giving us some scientific arguments FOR creationism? (rather than just making feeble attempts at debunking evolution or withdrawing into childish games.) Incidentally, please prove that there is NO evidence for evolution. > > > 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! Obviously you do not know what punctuated evolution is all about. I have already spend a good part of a previous article describing it to someone who misunderstood it in the same way you do. Please refer back to it. If you cannot find it, I can post or mail copy. ___________________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }