[net.origins] Just old tricks, Dan.

hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/05/85)

___________________________________________________________________________

> { From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) }
> 
> "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.)

> 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.)

> Biological clocks, electro-dynamic fields, DNA (bulding blocks),
> all are evidence of "design".

Oh really?  Actually, no comment until you give me the definition of
design.

> 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.

Please waste your time 'cause I (and a lot of my friends) must be
blind.

> 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.

Are you just looking for flames or what?  Do you even know what the
second law says?  Obviously not.

> 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!

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.

> Big Bang - No, Explosions cause disorder not order.

Oh.  And I suppose you call the universe ordered?  Since YOU brought it
up, how about defining "order"?  (Same warning as above.)

> Steady State - No, its running down!! Its not steady!!

"down"?  to what?  I think someone must have explained the second
law to you while you were drunk.  You, like many other creationists,
use metaphoric explanations as literal explanations.  When a scientist
tries to explain the second law to someone unaware of all the technical
details, he/she might try explaining in simple terms.  But if someone
says to you that "every action demands a reaction", an equivalent of
what a creationist does is to try to apply an "eye for eye" label to
the scientists and say that they are violent people.  Fools!

> Creation - Definite beginning, design, order, running down, hmmm, seems
> to fit my origins theory!

Sweet dreams.

> Darwinism is on its way out!

Quite true.  Strict Darwinism is flaky.  However, the essence of Darwinism
lives on in all evolutionary theories.  (By the way, this last sentence
contains metaphorical references, and is NOT to be taken literally!  It
seems that only warnings like this can prevent creationists from abusing
the words of scientists.)

> If you don't think so, you are not up on current Evolution theory.

Seems like YOU are not up on ANY evolutionary theory.  Care to explain
one?  I'll settle for any.  (Similar warning to above.)

> 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?

On second thought, don't even attempt an explanation of Punctual Equilibrium.
You will mutilate it beyond recognition, as you did above.

"magic"?  Oh really?  Since when does science allow for "magic"?

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.
___________________________________________________________________________

Live long and prosper.
Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }