In a message dated 11/11/00 03:56:15 GMT Standard Time, DNAunion@aol.com
writes:
Paul Robson:
Okay. Let's see how simple I can make it.
Evolutionists claim: Evolution does not violate the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics.
Now, NOTE that they do not claim that energy is sufficient by itself to
cause evolution ["pouring gas over a car and setting it on fire will not
drive a car to the grocery store." is implying this]
DNAunion:
No. It is stating that those who rely solely on vague appeals to
open-system thermodynamics to explain the ordering and organizing of simple
organics into a functioning cell are overlooking a key part of the picture.
Paul Robson:
I don't think you get it.
"Creationists" (in general, NOT YOU specifically) repeatedly claim (see
almost ANY
creationist site,book or lecture) that Evolution violates the 2nd law of
Thermodynamics.
"Evolutionists" answer "no it doesn't because this is not a closed system"
(the
corollary to which Creationists are referring, usually inaccurately).
BUT they do not appeal to OST as a method of explaining the ordering and
organizing of simple organics into a functioning cell.
It is a RESPONSE to the claim that 2LT is violated by evolution.
Now. I agree that, by itself OST do not explain this ordering and
organising. But no
"evolutionist" to my knowledge has ever said it did.
This argument is used by Creationists (again generally, not you
specifically) as a
distractor against the open/closed system argument, because pointing out the
nature of open/closed systems knocks their initial claim out. Thus we have
two responses : (i) Open and Closed are the same "because the law has been
tested on open systems" (Morris) (ii) Evolving junkyard argument which is
what you are talking about here e.g. OST explains the "whole thing".
Who are the "those" in your sentence .....
"those who rely SOLELY on vague appeals to open-system thermodynamics to
explain the ordering and organizing of simple organics into a functioning
cell"
(my emphasis)
if you can't actually produce anyone who says this isn't your argument
an irrelevant distraction ?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 11 2000 - 04:49:57 EST