[...]
>>>SEJones: 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"
DNAunion: Hmmm, so even when Paul is told up front the problem, he blindly
falls prey to it. Paul has taken SEJones legitimate questions and turned
them into a "simpler version" that says "2LT says order never comes from
disorder". This is what he focuses on, not on SEJones' real argument. Why
does Paul not actually address what SEJones is saying, instead of negatively
stereotyping SEJones' statements? Why does Paul not pay attention to what
SEJones is *really* saying?
>>>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 ?
DNAunion: If you would listen to SEJones' actual statements, instead of
twisting them into your own distorted preconceived and prejudiced versions,
you might understand. Simply put, sufficient energy is not necessarily a
sufficient cause for the kind of "organization-from-chaos" required to
transform inanimate molecules into a cell. Something had to channel the
available energy into performing biologically-relevant, useful work. Even
once life existed - today, in fact - cells employ "coupling mechanisms" to
properly capture/channel the available energy: remove those mechanisms, now,
or at anytime in the past, and life ceases. Why? *Because* of
thermodynamics.
>>>Paul Robson: This is the "evolving junkyard" argument. All this para
says is that energy is not sufficient *on its own* to increase entropy.
DNAunion: You've got it backwards. None of us is denying in the least that
energy can INCREASE entropy. In fact, that is part of the problem.
Undirected, uncontrollable energy has more of a tendency to increase disorder
rather than to reduce it (the Bull running amuck in a China shop analogy).
>>>Paul Robson: But 2LT does not say *anything* about this. No evolutionist
ever said energy was sufficient on its own.
DNAunion: Great, then explain to us what else was needed. Could it be some
kind of a preexisting coupling mechanism? Something that captured and
channeled the available energy into producing useful work?
>>>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
!
DNAunion: So does the rest! But you can't see it because you keep
missing/misrepresenting SEJones' point. The anti-IDists/anti-Creationists
call upon the "magic" of open-system thermodynamics to solve the problem, but
it doesn't. They dismiss a real problem as being a figment of the
IDists/Creationist's imagination, "hogwash, the Earth was receiving energy
from the Sun". Great - so how did the photosynthetic mechanisms arise to
allow cells to *use* the sun's energy, if that energy had to already be
*usable* in order to create the first cells and first photosynthetic
machinery?
>>>Paul Jones: 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).
DNAunion: From the quotes I saw that SEJones posted, there was no confusing
of open and closed systems. Care to point out from SEJones' quotes exactly
where you came up with your observation? Second, it appears as though you
are once again agreeing that a source of sufficient energy is not necessarily
a sufficient cause for the origin of life. That is our point. Now, could
you explain the rest - what besides energy was present that allowed for the
decrease in entropy associated with self-organizing of simple, random
molecules into an autonomous, functioning cell?
>>>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.
DNAunion: No, it's perfectly clear that you don't understand the other
side's position - even when laid out for you. Your response to SEJones
demonstrates most of what SEJones said (I count you falling prey to 2 or 3 of
the 4 problems he mentioned).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 08 2000 - 20:44:50 EST