Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!derrick
From: derrick@ut-sally.UUCP (Derrick Hartsock)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: A new voice.
Message-ID: <2208@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 22:03:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.2208
Posted: Thu Jun 27 22:03:53 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 00:58:00 EDT
References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 122

I'd like to thank Steve Robiner for his reply to Dan's posting.
He hit a lot of things I was going say, so I will just add a few
necessary remarks.

> 	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
                          ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
                      evidence? What you mean is that these guys
                      changed their sentence structures and republished it.

> 	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.

        OK. All the F.L.T. says is that energy cannot be created/destroyed.
        The energy content of our universe is believed to be constant,so the
        only question that this brings up is where did the original energy
        come from? This is not for scientists to answer. If the big bang
        occured, then any knowledge of what happened before is completely
        unattainable. ALL science can do is trace back as accurrately as
        possible to that point. By concluding that energy must have been
        CREATED by an outside force is not necessarily true(however in
        all fairness of what I said above, must remain a possibility).
        And besides, how do you conclude that outside force in the one
        Christian God in all his glory?(Please respond directly to this
        point Dan). 
  
> 	    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.

      Steve's reply to this seems to be satisfactory. But again I will
      restate: The fact that we can trace the universe back to a
       "beginning" is in no way inconsistant with evolution, in fact
      evolution requires this to be true.

> 	    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.

     I've been anxiously awaiting this one.
     I can see your race of individuals who can reason, learn, experience
     a myriad of emotions, but I also see a race of individuals who can
     persecute, war and kill. Actually, putting it down on your level
     of interpretation of chance, I think we could have gotten a much 
     roll on the cosmic dice. (It could have been worse I suppose. :-) )

> 	    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

Steve answered this one wonderfully. I'd like to ditto it here for the record.

Alas, since this was directed at me personally, however, I feel I must
respond to you myself. I don't know exactly which of the Creationist faction
you align yourself with, so please excuse me if I assume wrong.

First of all, I don't understand why you creationists find it so Ego-shattering
to think that you might have come out of the sea. I feel secure enough to
see the process of evolution and see its beauty instead of mistaking it
as an enemy. I feel I must elaborate on what Steve said simply because the
fossil record is the really big hint. YOU JUST DON'T FIND THE THE FOSSILS
OUT OF PLACE RELATIVE TO WHERE EVOLUTION SAYS THEY SHOULD BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(except near a fault line perhaps).
Now, If you believe in a 6000 year old earth then all I have to say is
goodbye.
If you believe in an old earth then why weren't advanced species that we
see today showing up in the fossil record???

Oh, that reminds me of a show I saw on PBS a couple of years ago.
They showed a classroom of kids(approx. 6th grade) in a creationist
school. When asked why man is found in the upper strata of the earth,
a girl replied "Well, when the big flood came the other animals sank
but since man could swim, he drowned last after the others were covered
up.(I swear this is true. I don't know about you, but I think that anybody
who can support this kind of "education" , or even keep from getting sick
when thinking about it, is not only a danger to society, but an enemy
of truth and a corrupter of knowledge).

And BTW, if you're wondering what type of religious beliefs I might hold,
all I can say is the closest that I can get to telling you is to say:
Listen to "Days of Future Passed" by the Moody Blues. Carefully.
I think if I ever saw someone throw this album in a fire at an     
album burning, they would be the next on top.

                                     [How can we understand
                                      Riots by the people for the people
                                      Who are only destroying themselves
                                      And when you see a frightened
                                      Person who is frightened by the
                                      People who are scorching this earth?]
                                            
                                          -The Moody Blues
                                           off Seventh Sojourn
-- 
Derrick Hartsock - CS DEept.  University of Texas at Austin
{seismo, ihnp4}!ut-sally!derrick   :    derrick@ut-sally.{ARPA, UUCP}