Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site digi-g.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g!brian From: brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: SOR pamphlet #2 Message-ID: <388@digi-g.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Nov-84 17:10:33 EST Article-I.D.: digi-g.388 Posted: Wed Nov 14 17:10:33 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 22-Nov-84 07:39:10 EST References: <32500008@uiucdcsb.UUCP> Reply-To: brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian) Organization: Digigraphic Systems Corp., Mpls, MN Lines: 38 Summary: These arguments (that the probability of life arising by chance is calculated to be near zero, and that it violates the second law of thermo- dynamics) have been hashed and re-hashed so much that I don't know why I'm replying...but here goes. If I shuffle a deck of cards and deal out the entire deck, the probability that a *specific* sequence is dealt is 52!; however, if I deal out the deck and say "This is AMAZING! I have dealt a sequence that has only a 1 out of 52! chance of happening!! This must be my lucky day!" - my observation is meaningless, since I must get SOME sequence. Creationists seem to assume that there is ONE and ONLY ONE combination of proteins, amino acids, etc. that are capable of supporting life, when this is not the case. (They are also impressed by the fact that almost all of the naturally occuring assymetrical organics have the same "handedness" (L instead of D), while experimentally 'cooked up' ones are an even mix of about 50% L, 50% D. Give me a break! They are designated L or D by HUMANS, there is no intrinsic left- vs right-handedness in the molecules! Are you amazed at how cities have streets arranged alphabetically?) About thermodynamics; the original article seems to have invented an additional constraint on disorder->order (in addition to an outside energy source such as the sun). For some reason, a PLAN must exist!?!?! What sort of pseudoscientific claptrap is this?? This is NOT how the second law is stated. When carbon is compressed and heated, it turns into diamonds; a regular crystal structure arising out of less ordered carbon. What sort of 'plan' is at work here? If you intend to use the second law of thermo- dynamics in an attempt to disprove evolution, don't make up arbitrary (and stupid) 'rules' like this. Lastly, the same tired false reasoning is used - disproving evolution ALSO proves creationism. Disproving evolution does exactly one thing - disproves evolution. No evidence supporting creationism was presented, and yet the conclusion of the article says that the arguments presented (somehow) support creationism. Given that the arguments had holes you could drive a cliche' through, the article seems to prove that some creationists wouldn't know a logical argument if it evolved, climbed out of the sea, and bit them. Merlyn Leroy "If funny quotes were outlawed, only outlaws would have funny quotes"