Re: Where's the Evolution?
Kevin O'Brien (Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net)
Tue, 30 Mar 1999 19:56:20 -0700>
>A fundamental difference between Creationists and Evolutionists is that
>Creationist believe that the source of complexity is intelligence while the
>Evolutionist believes that the source of complexity is nature. The problem
>for Evolutionists is that empirical science squarely demonstrates that
>they're wrong. If nature can create complexity, show me just one example.
>Of course, the first thing they'll say is a snowflake. The problem with
>that is that information for that complexity has always existed (nevermind
>that there's never any hope of ice crystals becoming more complex than a
>snowflake). So, when I challenge Evolutionists to show us that nature can
>create complexity, I always include the qualifier "indefinite," as in
>"Demonstrate an indefinite increase in complexity in nature." If you read
>the past messages on "Where's the Evolution?" you'll note the absolute
>failure of Evolutionists to provide any examples -- because there are no
>examples. Evolution is foreign to nature.
>
Define "indefinite" in this context. How is a snowflake not an example of
an "indefinite" increase in complexity? How does the qualifier "indefinite"
invalidate evolution?
Once again, we cannot give you any examples until you explain more carefully
what exactly you mean. Why don't you help us out?
>
>> The difference, of course, is that ice formation does not involve
>> inherited variation and natural selection.
>
>Right. The design of snowflakes does not come from random variation nor
>selection.
>
But it does come from the physiochemical forces that govern the formation of
ice crystals, just as evolution is controled by other physiochemical forces
that create natural design in living organisms.
Kevin L. O'Brien