In a message dated 08/11/00 01:32:54 GMT Standard Time, sejones@iinet.net.au
writes:
SEJones:
Ratzsch summarises the creationist position on the SLoT:
"Morris, for instance, claims in numerous of his writings that a
system being open is not alone enough to cause a reversal of
disorder or a decrease in entropy. There are, Morris claims, some
additional requirements that must be met before that can happen
For instance, the flow of energy coming into the system must be
adequate, and there must be some already-existing "CODE" and
"CONVERSION MECHANISM" by which the incoming energy
can be harnessed, turned into some form that is useful and usable in
the system, and then properly directed and productively
incorporated into the system experiencing increasing order. These
additional requirements are not requirements of the Second Law
itself but are requirements that Morris thinks we have good
empirical grounds for accepting. Simply throwing raw energy into a
system generally does not produce increased order but destroys
some of the order already there. So the view is that special
conditions-CODES, CONVERSION MECHANISMS and the like-
are needed before growths in order can occur even in open
systems." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings," 1996,
p.92. Emphasis mine)
RW
Is there not
one creationist/IDer who is capable of expressing the argument in a
precisely accurate manner?
S.E.Jones:
Yes. See the above quotes. The problem with the SLoT is that
evolutionists generally:
1) do not bother to listen to what creationists are
*really* saying;
Paul Robson:
Most of them are saying this, or the simpler version which just says
something like "2LT says order never comes from disorder"
S.E.Jones:
2) do not address the *real* issue which is the *origin* of
the code-driven energy-conversion systems;
Paul Robson:
Which has precisely *what* to do with thermodynamics ?
This is the "evolving junkyard" argument. All this para says is
that energy is not sufficient *on its own* to increase entropy.
But 2LT does not say *anything* about this. No evolutionist
ever said energy was sufficient on its own.
S.E.Jones:
3) respond with irrelevant red- herrings about open and closed
systems, etc;
Paul Robson:
Which does actually have something to do with thermodynamics !
This must explain why the Morrises of the world fluster with stuff
about Open and Closed systems being the same because all
real world systems are open, or just conveniently forgetting it, or
doing what you do (switch from permissible to sufficient).
S.E.Jones:
and 4) cloak their answers in a lot of technical jargon which further
obscures the matter rather than clarifying it.
Paul Robson:
It's perfectly clear ; you just don't understand it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 08 2000 - 04:41:38 EST