Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Second Law Of Thermodynamics

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by bzrd on July 24, 1999 04:31:25 UTC

With a few clicks of the mouse I did some investigation on the second law with respect to the Creationist side of the argument. I felt compelled to do this as a result of one of Val's quotes which stated that we (I?) used it to argue against evolution. Purposely, I went to a site that was "pro-materialist". The writer gave an eloquent description of the second law, in addition to some equations describing entropy and how order can arise from disorder, giving examples such as snowflakes, crystals etc. I could be missing something, but I fail to see how this could possibly be construed to add credence the evolutionary paradigm. Am I to think that because snowflakes will form from water-vapor, that a single celled organism can occur due to random encounters of simple organic molecules? From what I have read the state of the art postulate put forth by the materialists is that RNA was formed prior to DNA. No small miracle in of itself, but, lets take it for a ride. We know that DNA molecules contain vast amounts of information. Granted, RNA has a similar capacity for information storage. So what? Lets go a little farther and assume that the RNA that formed through a random process just happen to contain some information. Perhaps an analogy, at this juncture, would help me prove my point. If you had a compact disc with your favorite music on it, but had no CD player, could you listen to it? If you had a sea of compact discs and no CD player could listen to your music? Of course not. The "proto- RNA" would have to encode for the "proto-ribosome", but the "proto-ribosome" has to wait for the proto-ribosome that has'nt been built yet to read the information off the proto-RNA so the proto-ribosome could be built. Ludicrous.. A faith that can't stand a collision with the Truth is worth no regrets...

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins