>>> DNAunion: There is none. Richard was being "humorous". The implication
is that "our" version of thermodynamics is that "order never comes from
disorder" (as Paul posted), or that "evolution violates thermodynamics".
However, anyone who has followed the discussions here will see that NEITHER
SEJones nor I propose either of these.
>>>Nelson: I have found that most of these debates are really people
talking past each other.
>>>Paul Robson: I agree, Nelson. But DNA and Steve seem to think that what
they write is what "Creationists say" about 2LT. Most of them don't, they
just use the simple version they have copied from a Morrisian tome.
DNAunion: I disagree. It is my opponents that lable my arguments as being
Creationist: I vehemently deny it, but usually to no avail.
I have been presenting the same position concerning thermodynamics as it
applies to the origin of life for at least a year (I have learned some about
thermo since I started, and my original posts were surely less informed).
This position of mine is NOT based on any Creationist material I have read:
it based on my skeptical mind finding wholes that are just assumed to be
filled in, and in fact, are said to be filled in. But because I am skeptical
about nature's ability, alone, to generate a functioning cell from a random
pool of simple organics, here on Earth, in the amount of time available,
under the conditions presumed to have been present, then ANYTHING I say is
labeled as Creationist. Even when I explain that aliens designing life and
seeding it on Earth is a live possibility, I am still labeled a Creationist.
Go figure.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 10 2000 - 22:28:01 EST