RE: Phil Johnson on the Second Law of Thermodynamics

From: Nelson Alonso (nalonso@ecal.com)
Date: Thu Nov 09 2000 - 13:21:23 EST

  • Next message: silk: "Ultimate premises/Arguing for aguments sake!"

    DNAunion: There is none. Richard was being "humorous". The implication is
     that "our" version of thermodynamics is that "order never comes from
     disorder" (as Paul posted), or that "evolution violates thermodynamics".
     However, anyone who has followed the discussions here will see that NEITHER
     SEJones nor I propose either of these.

    Nelson:
     I have found that most of these debates are really people talking past
     eachother.

    Paul Robson:
     I agree, Nelson. But DNA and Steve seem to think that what they write
     is what "Creationists say" about 2LT. Most of them don't, they just
     use the simple version they have copied from a Morrisian tome.

    Nelson:
    I would advise that all of you agree to disagree with the Creationists about
    the 2LOT and move on.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 13:20:18 EST