Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: nyu notesfiles V1.1 4/1/84; site ur-univax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ur-univax!stro
From: stro@ur-univax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: A new voice.
Message-ID: <41500001@ur-univax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 18:08:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ur-univa.41500001
Posted: Thu Jun 27 18:08:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 03:22:03 EDT
References: <347@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Organization: University of Rochester: Computing Center
Lines: 94
Nf-ID: #R:scgvaxd:-34700:ur-univax:41500001:000:5365
Nf-From: ur-univax!stro    Jun 27 18:08:00 1985


> 	    The First Law of  Thermodynamics  states  that  the  total
>           amount  of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part
>           of it, remains constant. This  law  states  that  although
>           energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not
>           now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have
>           verified  this.  A  corollary  of  the  First  Law is that
>           natural  processes  cannot  create  energy.  Consequently,
>           energy  must  have  been  created  by some agency or power
>           outside of and independent of the natural universe.


first of all, the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the extremely
unusually conditions during the first seconds after the big bang.
Even if this wasn't the case, why can't one say that the universe was always
here.  If you say that God created it, then when and where was God created?
whatever your anwser is, it can just as easily be applied to the universe.

One theory of the universe is that the big bang was not the begining of all
matter and energy, but that it has existed for all time, and that it either
remained in that state until the big bang, or there existed another universe
before ours, which eventually collapsed into the black hole from which all
matter emerged during the big bang.

>           If  the  entire  universe  is  an  isolated  system,  then
>           according  to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy
>           in the universe that is  available  for  useful  work  has
>           always  been  decreasing.  But as one goes back further in
>           time, the amount of energy available for useful work would
>           eventually  exceed  the total energy in the universe that,
>           according to the  First  Law  of  Thermodynamics,  remains
>           constant.  This  is an impossible condition.  It therefore
>           implies that the universe had a beginning.

I'm not quite sure how you got this out of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
As the first law states, the total amount of matter and energy in the universe
ALWAYS remains constant ( some matter may be converted to energy, or vice versa
but the total is always constant). In any closed system when work is being
done, no energy is lost - ever.  Take a car for example, the fuel burned
in the engine releases a gas which expands and pushes pistons which transfer
their energy to moving the car.  The system is very inefficient becuase much
of the heat generated by the engine is wasted - it just radiates into the air,
the rest of car, etc.  None of the parts are completely frictionless, they are
transfering some of the kenetic energy they recieve into heat, etc.

However, still, even if the universe did have a begining, this does not
refute the theory of evolution.

>           ... I can't believe that a scientist
>           who prides himself in being rational, intelligent, and
>           objective can look at a world that behaves according to certain
>           laws of nature and mathematics, at a race of individuals who
> 	    can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions and argue
>	    that all of this can just as reasonably be explained by chance.

part of the problem with creationists, is that they fail to understand
exactly what evolution and nature selection imply.  Natural selection does not
state that "all this" was acheived by chance - far from it.  The big 'chance'
factor was the creation of the first self reproducing amino acid (which,
considering the millions of years of during which billions of non-reproducing
amino acids could have been modified by a chance (lightning, radiation, etc)
is not unlikely ).  All the rest of evolution was a process of natural selection
over a billion years of it ( that's quite a long time, by the way ) in which
entities which had a superior trait which allowed them to live longer and
have offspring with the same trait continued to exist. These traits which
were produced by random (chance, if like) scramblings of the genetic code
also produced many, many more mutations which did not survive, which were
in fact worse off than there ancestors.  This still happens to this day.  
It is the rare occurence where a trait which is helpful occurs, and then,
becuase it is helpful, allows that entity to live and reproduce.


>	     .... give me one reason
>	    to believe in Evolution. Be careful now. Don't give me any
>	    subjective answers like commonality of species which can either
>	    imply common ancestor or common design. Give me a real solid
>	    concrete reason to believe that you and I are accidents and
>	    serve no real purpose.


Well, how about the millions of years of fosil evidence which outlines 
the developement of life on Earth.

I might add that all this is hard physical scientific proof, it is consistant
and repeatable.  It makes sense.  What proof do you have? One book that
was written over two thousand years ago by people who thought the Earth was
flat, that stars were pinpoints of light shining through from heaven, etc.
Come on, when the bible was written, it was the only way to explain the
way they thought the world was.  They were wrong, that's all.

					  - Steve Robiner
					    University of Rochester

         { allegra | seismo | decvax }!rochester!ur-univax!stro