Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!dan From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Response to flames Message-ID: <310@scgvaxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-May-85 11:39:56 EDT Article-I.D.: scgvaxd.310 Posted: Wed May 8 11:39:56 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 10-May-85 12:07:39 EDT References: <253@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA> <303@scgvaxd.UUCP> <1518@hao.UUCP> Reply-To: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA Lines: 130 Summary: 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