DNAunion:
Okay, so I could not find every post I have ever read at every
evolution/creation/ID site I have ever visited. Was I really expected to?
Paul Robson:
No ; you expected me to do that that actually. But you shouldn't
need to if such claims are made frequently.
DNAUnion:
But since I could find posts that back up my EXACT claim, I will retract it
and replace it with my GENERAL FORM of the claim.
Paul Robson:
This'll be interesting.
DNAUnion:
Over the course of several years, I have personally read many posts on the
internet, at various sites, in which an "evolutionist", while responding to
a
Creationist/IDist argument, relies only on open-system thermodynamics to
"refute" his opponent. In these particular exchanges, the Creationist/IDist
had argued that some biological process that involved large increases in
order and complexity (such as macroevolution or the evolution of the first
cell) could not occur by purely-natural, undirected processes because that
would go against the tendency imposed by the 2nd law - to which the
"evolutionst" counters along the lines of, "but life and/or the Earth are
open-systems, so entropy can decrease". This reliance on only open-system
thermodynamics is all that is offered by the "evolutionist" in the many
cases
I am discussing - no mention is made of the biological molecular machines
that are also required,
Paul Robson:
I agree. What do you expect as an answer ?
If I summarise this passage it would be that
1] CID is saying that "a complex biological process goes against the
second law of thermodynamics"
2] EVO is saying simply "no it doesn't, because that particular part of
SLOT only applies to open systems".
Do you agree ?
Now, I would agree that explicitly or implicitly your posts (1-6) are forms
of that argument. But I'm not quite sure what you expect. The
CID has made a statement that evolution violates a particular law.
The EVO has pointed out that it doesn't.
Now, the implied bit, that this is all there is. I don't know why you think
this. A site like t.o. (one of your quoted sites) clearly has many other
pages than the one you quoted. Are you suggesting that an answer to
"Does evolution violate SLOT ?" should contain vast amounts of
biological information.
DNAUnion:
and more importantly, the origin of those biological
molecules machines is never addressed. And should
the Creationist/IDist bring up problems of the origin of said molecular
machines, the "Evolutionist" falls back to the position that they themselves
are not part of thermodynamics: moving the goal posts.
Paul Robson:
That's because both these are distraction tactics, DNAUnion, and they
are commonly used by CIDers in my experience.
The CID wants to argue that Evolution violates SLOT. This is usually done
by praising SLOT to the heights beforehand, so their readers know
"which side" to take, then making the claim that Evo goes against SLOT,
usually not mentioning open/closed systems at all, sometimes mentioning
them but saying it doesn't matter.
Now to rebut this all one has to do is to show that the corollary does not
apply in the case of evolution.
The reason for talking about machines, energy conversion etc etc is a
cheap argument tactic to move the goalposts. Note that the CIDer said
originally that Evolution goes against Thermodynamics. He is now trying
to pretend (as are you) that Thermodynamics is all that is required.
This is the basis of the evolving junkyard response by the CIDer. "Well,
if evolution doesn't violate SLOT, why don't rusty cars repair themselves
in junkyards". Answer: "Because there are other processes going on".
Your complaint appears to boil down to an objection that Evolutionists are
relying on thermodynamics to refute a CID statement about thermodynamics.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 25 2000 - 02:52:38 EST