Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watdcsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: SOR #2, an obvious point everybody seems to have missed. Message-ID: <734@watdcsu.UUCP> Date: Sun, 2-Dec-84 20:14:47 EST Article-I.D.: watdcsu.734 Posted: Sun Dec 2 20:14:47 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 06:17:22 EST Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 28 There's something fairly obvious about Ray Miller's "2nd law" argument that other people seem to have missed: > The second law of thermodynamics can be stated in several ways. > One definition is: ``An isolated system, free of external influence, > will, if it is initially in a state of relative order, always pass to > states of relative disorder until it eventually reaches the state of > maximum disorder'' ... > Some may wonder about the implications of the second law of ther- > modynamics. Are there not instances of disorder being transformed > into order?... > In every instance when order increases, several prerequisites > must be met. First, the system must be open to available energy. > Evolution meets this requirement, since it is open to energy from the > sun.... Miller admits that evolving life is not "an isolated system, free of external influence". At this point, Miller's argument CEASES TO BE BASED ON THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS, since the second law of thermodynamics only describes the behaviour of isolated systems free of external influences. This didn't stop him from going on with his argument, and *claiming* at the end of his article that thermodynamics supports creationism. Pfui. David Canzi "...and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words." Ecclesiastes 5:3