Re: Phil Johnson on the Second Law of Thermodynamics

From: DNAunion@aol.com
Date: Sat Nov 11 2000 - 11:59:36 EST

  • Next message: DNAunion@aol.com: "Re: Phil Johnson on the Second Law of Thermodynamics"

    >>>Nelson: I have found that most of these debates are really people talking
    past each other.
      
    >>>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.
      
    >>>DNAunion: I disagree. It is my opponents that lable my arguments as
    being Creationist: I vehemently deny it, but usually to no avail.

    >>>Paul Robson: Nelson's point again holds up. Whatever you and Steve Jones
    write was not the point I was making ; which was what "Creationists is
    general" say.

    This kind of thing "But because I am skeptical about nature's ability, alone,
    to generate a functioning cell from a random pool of simple organics"
    certainly sounds like the classic creationist argument, doesn't it ;-)

    ******************
    DNAunion: No, it sounds like a classic *skeptic's* argument.

    Nowhere in that phrase (or in my other posts ) have I (1) quoted the Bible,
    (2) called upon God to create things ex nihilo, (3) claimed that Noah's flood
    was real and that it accounts for the fossil record, (4) claimed the Earth is
    only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, (5) claimed that the universe was created in
    6 literal days, (6) claimed that the Earth was created in a "mature" form,
    with fully-formed mountains, valleys, oceans, streams, etc. existing from day
    one, (7) stated that evolution violates the 2nd law, (8) etc.

    So we get a chance to see that once again, as I said, "It is my opponents
    that lable my arguments as being Creationist: I vehemently deny it, but
    usually to no avail."
    ******************

    >>>Paul Robson: PS: I do subscribe to the evolution reflector so I'll read
    it if it is sent there. You might get the odd accidental private email
    because it defaults to sending it to the message originator, not the server.

     Regards, PSR

    ******************
    DNAunion: PS: I would like to add that if anyone sends me a PRIVATE e-mail
    that they do not want me to post at the PUBLIC site, that they explicitly
    state in the header/title (just preface the title, like "PRIVATE: Johnson and
    the 2nd Law" ), or somewhere in the e-mail, that the e-mail is private. I
    still use my personal e-mail - and not the Calvin site on the web - to answer
    posts and this 99% public/1% private thing is not what I am used to.
    ******************



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 11 2000 - 11:59:47 EST