Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth
From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Response to flames
Message-ID: <470@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-May-85 12:23:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.470
Posted: Fri May 10 12:23:38 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 14-May-85 07:50:20 EDT
References: <253@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA> <303@scgvaxd.UUCP> <1518@hao.UUCP> <310@scgvaxd.UUCP>, <311@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 95

Sigh - so much to flame, so little time.  So maybe we can *try* to
be reasonable here.

All the lines starting with ">" came from Message <311@scgvaxd.UUCP>
(dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)).  As to who's saying what within
the quotes, your guess is as good as mine.

>DAN:
>    I guess I should restate this from my last posting!
>
>    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.

Reread the above quote, substituting the word "creator" for "universe"
and "creationist theory" for "natural law".  Dan, absolutely every theory
has to start from some "given".  Evolutionary theory assumes that the
universe exists.  It does *not* attempt to explain where it came from.
The creationist theory assumes (and I do mean "assumes" here) that a
creator exists.  It does *not* attempt to explain where it came from.
If you want to fight about which assumptions are the most appropriate,
prepare yourself.  Even creationists do not doubt that the evolutionary
assumption is valid (i.e., everybody agrees the universe exists).  You're
task is to give some pretty strong evidence why assuming the existance of
a creator of the universe without explanation is necessary; why just
assuming the universe exists is insufficient.  Good luck.

[a *lot* of stuff talking about increasing order, ending with:]
>FLAME!
>  Why do you say that ice is more ordered than liquid water?
>
>				      Dan
>
>Because it is less random; the molecules are not free to wander around
>to the same extent that they can in a liquid.
>DAN:
>
> In other words, water, when acted upon by an external energy source,
> (electricity), with a driving mechanism and a program for specific
> work, (refrigeration), is transformed to a state of higher order.
> But when left to its own devices reverts back to a lower order or
> random state.
>
> Remember this:
> 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.

Dan has just stated that ice *is* more ordered than water.  He then
states "Every system when left to its own devices always tend [sic] to move
from order to disorder".  Dan from California, would you mind explaining
then how the polar caps are nothing but ice.  Why is more than 70% of
the water on the face of the earth in the form of (ordered) ice?  Why
isn't this system, which is left to its own devices, moving from order
to disorder?  Furthermore, why does ice form in Chicago every few months
or so?  Why does *this* system *increase* in order on a regular basis?
Where is all this order coming from?  Could it be that Chicago is an open
system, subject to external fluctuations in energy which turn water into
ice (which *by your own statement* is an *increase* in order)?  Can you
extrapolate from this example, and actually imagine how other open systems
could show local increases in order?

[a lot of stuff regarding design, including:]
> For example, what does it take to make an airplane fly? Creative
> design and organization. Take off the wings and see if they will
> fly! Take out the engine and see if it will fly. In other words,
> an airplane is a collection of non-flying parts! But what makes it
> fly? Creative design and organization.
> Second, among all the molecules that translate DNA into protein, there'e
> not one molecule that is alive. Not a single molecule in your body is
> alive. A living cell is a collection of non-living molecules. What does
> it take to make a living cell alive? Design and CREATION!

And among all the molecules in an ice cube, there's not one molecule
that's cold.  Not a single molecule in an ice cube is cold.  A cold
ice cube is a collection of not cold molecules.  What does it take to
make an ice cube cold?  *NOT* Design and CREATION!  There are properties
that groups have that none of the members of the group have.  That
implies *nothing* about design.  (This is, admittedly, just a refutation
of an invalid argument.  I don't mean to imply that design is a valid,
relevant scientific point.  It isn't.)

>					Dan (A created being)

Not exactly.  The offspring of some distant ancestor whom it has yet to
be demonstrated was created.

-- 

--JB                                           "The giant is awake."