[...]
>>>DNAUnion: As usual, the "evolutionist" counter argument stopped at
open-system thermodynamics and never bothered to mention the other required
half of the solution. At no point in its 3.5 billion year history here on
Earth did life evolve solely because the Earth is an open system.
>>>Paul Robson: Well, DNAUnion, that might be because it is directly
connected with the statement that the SLOT is violated "because everything
decays always", This argument is found in much YEC literature. This isn't a
valid criticism. If you are told "Evolution violates the SLOT because of the
tendency of everything to decay" for example, you can merely answer "no it
doesn't because it is not a closed system".
***************************************
DNAunion: But what if the argument includes the question of how the second
half of the solution came to be (in order to provide more than a partial
explanation)? I admit that the response I quoted does not pertain to this,
but that is the question that SEJones and I were asking about. "We" are told
that the Earth is an open system - that's it. That does not answer the
question of how the first cell came to be - a sufficient energy source is not
sufficient in itself to evolve a cell from scratch.
"Okay", one might might say, "but that pertains exclusively to the origin of
life, and not evolution". I think not - I think this also pertains to the
big picture of evolution. Life can evolve using available energy *only
because it already possesses those "coupling mechanisms"*, so there still
remains a basic question of how life can evolve: HOW DID IT FIRST BECOME ABLE
TO EVOLVE? Answering that an airplane does not violate gravity when it flies
is not an answer as to how an airplane flies.
*************************
[...]
Part 3
=====
>>>DNAunion: As others have done, the author switches away from talking about
thermodynamics as it applies to biology to focussing on ONLY thermodynamics.
So what? What is wrong with this? Simple, but I will need to use an
analogy. ...
>>>Paul Robson: That's because the Creationist has made a statement about
thermodynamics and the "Evolutionist" is explaining why that statement is not
true.
****************************************
DNAunion: The "Creationist" has made a statement about thermodynamics *as it
applies to evolution*, and evolution deals with life. So we are back to
discussing more than mere thermodynamics, but the evolutionist response only
addresses thermo, neglecting biology.
*****************************************
>>>Paul Robson: Conclusion
========
Don't see the problem. All these are the same
Creationist: "Evolution violates SLOT because everything decays"
Evolutionist:"No it doesn't because that only applies to closed systems"
It's a rebuttal ; not a complete history of evolution.
*******************************
DNAunion: Are you *sure* that "all these are the *SAME*"? Or are some of
them just similar forms of the same basic argument?
*******************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 25 2000 - 02:57:43 EST