Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-edu1!rafferty
From: rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Non-Proof by Dan
Message-ID: <266@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 3-May-85 21:42:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-e.266
Posted: Fri May  3 21:42:21 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 6-May-85 01:09:29 EDT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 56

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> What is the difference
> between God creating Adam, and a reptile giving birth to a bird?
>

Nothing, since neither happened.

----
            Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University }

"According to convention there is a sweet and a bitter, a hot and a cold,
and according to convention, there is an order.  In truth, there are atoms
and a void."
                -Democritus(400 B.C.)