Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site azure.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!teklds!azure!chrisa From: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: A new voice. Message-ID: <300@azure.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 00:40:50 EDT Article-I.D.: azure.300 Posted: Wed Jul 3 00:40:50 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 28-Jun-85 01:38:56 EDT References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> Reply-To: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 97 Summary: In article <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > 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! First of all, Evolution isn't just one theory. It's a large collection of theories all of which are based on a central hypothesis (that life evolved from lower life forms by means of mutation and natural selection). The point at which these theories disagree with each other is when they try to pinpoint the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection are, and then try to figure out in what way did they affect the evolution of life on earth (ie we know the ingredients, now how do we mix them?). The supposed proofs against evolution that have been batted about in this newsgroup seem to dwell on how each theory presents the mechanisms, but they never actually assault the central hypothesis itself. Someone may say that some evidence shows that such and such theory about how life evolved is wrong, but that does not mean that life didn't evolve. > > 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 Big deal, so fifteen(?) billion years ago there was a big bang, how does this prove 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. Perhaps you just have a homocentric viewpoint. Somehow, perhaps because you yourself are human, you find it difficult to believe that humans are not inherently more important then the rest of "creation". Therefore you find it difficult to understand those who say differently. On the other hand, the evolutionists may be uncomfortable with the idea that humans are more important then the rest of the universe, because logic seems to imply that we have no more significance to the scheme of things then a housefly. > > 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. I can give my own personal reason for believing in evolution over creation (that is creation as presented by the creationists). It makes sense. Note that this is a purely personal opinion having no scientific basis, but when it comes to matters like this that strike so deep at the heart of existance itself, all one really has *is* personal opinion. Chris Andersen