Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!dan
From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: A new voice.
Message-ID: <347@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 22:26:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: scgvaxd.347
Posted: Mon Jun 24 22:26:10 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 07:27:05 EDT
References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 77

Distribution:

In article <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> derrick@ut-sally.UUCP (Derrick Hartsock) writes:
>
>I am interested in ONE piece of evidence that even suggests that Creationism
>could have possibly happened. If anybody posts instead something that
>knocks evolution and doesn't defend creationism they can be sure of being
>Flamed. Now come on, just ONE (1) , that's all I want. Now don't just jump
>for the first thing that comes to mind, think awhile.  
>

	Any evidence against Evolution is evidence for Creation and vice
	versa. This point is discussed in depth by the notable evolutionist
	scholar, Douglas J. Futuyma.

	"Science On Trial", chapter 11, page 1   "Creation and Evolution,
	between the two, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin
	of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully
	developed or they did not! If they did not, they must have developed
	from some preexisting species by some process of modification."

	If you find this difficult to accept, please state the alternative
	to Creation/Evolution!

	But since you asked for evidence for Creation, I will just give
	you Kukuk/Brown's latest evidence which is similar to a past posting
	of mine.

	    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.

	    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.
	    [END

	    Derrick, you are not the first one to ask such a question.
	    What if I were to ask you to give me one piece of evidence
	    that life arose by chance. Would you talk about the Urey/
	    Miller experiments. Those experiments could just as easily
	    be cited as reasons to believe in special creation.

	    I was flamed for saying that design is evidence of a designer.
	    The replies were filled with the idea that design is a totally
	    subjective description and all existance could just as easily
	    be attributed to chance and natural processes.

	    I did not reply to those arguments, but I believe that now is
	    the time to do so. Sure, design is subjective. But subjectivity
	    is not akin to irrational. 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.

	    And, in light of this, you have the gall to ask for a reason
	    to believe in Creation. Please, Derrick, 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.


						  Dan