Creation science

This is primarily a response to Anduin, who expressed a desire to know more about this subject when it came up in a different forum, but other interested parties are welcome to join in!
Just a quick outline of the scientific evidence for Special Creation (as opposed to cosmic/organic evolution):
The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, as mentioned in the other thread. The First Law precludes the possibility of the universe having somehow created itself. The Second Law excludes the possibility that it has always existed, because if so it would have run down completely long ago, with all matter and energy being converted into useless heat energy and evenly distributed throughout the universe. The Second Law's principle of increasing entropy also means that if you go back far enough, there was a point in time without entropy. This is consistent with an originally perfect Creation. Evolution is directly contradicted by both of these laws, the best established principles in science.
The fossil record is often cited as evidence of evolution. The fact is that the gaps in the fossil record are systematic, just as would be expected if each 'kind' of animal and plant had been created. Fossil animals, no matter how far 'back' you go, fit into the same categories as modern animals. Missing links are the rule. There have been billions of fossils discovered around the world, representing some 250,000 species. NOT ONE is a transitional form between major categories of animals. The most reasonable conclusion from that evidence is that there are no transitional fossils because there were no transitions in the first place.
There are a number of powerful evidences for a young earth (less than 10,000 years), most notably 1) The decay of the earth's magnetic field; 2) The small amount of radiogenic helium in the upper atmosphere (4.6 billion years of radioactive decay should have produced vastly more helium than what actually exists); 3) The fact that Carbon-14 and normal Carbon-12 are not in equilibrium in the atmosphere (not even close, actually), something that would happen in only about 30,000 years from the original formation of the atmosphere. This equilibrium was one of the original assumptions in the Carbon-14 dating method. A few years later, when they noticed that a lot of the dates they were getting were obviously way off, they checked closer and discovered this interesting little fact, to the embarrassment of all old-earthers.
Probability makes evolution a mathematical impossibility. Even the simplest living cell is almost unimaginably complex. The level of mathematical impossibility is considered to be 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power (1 followed by 50 zeros). Even given the most absurdly generous conditions, the best odds for the chance formation of a living cell are on the order of 1 in 10 to the 160th power. Remember, 10 to the 51st power is already TEN TIMES GREATER than 10 to the 50th. To give it some perspective, there is estimated to be 10 to the 80th power electrons in the entire universe! I think it was Fred Hoyle (I'm too lazy to go look it up right now) who said that the chances of a living cell forming spontaneously is approximately the same as the chances of a tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a Boeing 747.
This is some of the evidence that favors special creation over evolution. There are many fine books on the various aspects of the case for Creation out there. One good source for material is the Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021-0667. You can also visit their web site at www.icr.org
I'm not a professional scientist or anything, but I've studied this issue a lot on my own, and have a number of good Creation books in my personal collection. I would be happy to try to answer any questions any of you might have on the subject.
Thanks to Anduin and the others who expressed interest in this topic in the other thread. I appreciate your comments.

Here we go again...

OK Quickbeem.

So, how exactly do you say that the 1st and 2nd principles of thermodynamics are contradicted by the old universe hypothesis? And where did you read that, what are your sources?
Everytime a Creation "scientist" has cited the principles of thermodyn. and entropy, he/she has stated and used it quite wrong.

Also, it's my experience that biologist are the worst when using probabilities... Man! I can give you everyday events that HAVE happened, and to which the probability assigned to it is less than 1 over 10 to the power of 160... Probability is one of the most misused mathematical concept in natural sciences...

The decay of earth's magnetic field... sheesh!!! The model of earth magnetic field is still basically unsolved, so its decrease can't be an evidence for or against old or new age of earth (let alone the universe!).

Man! I could go on! Why don't you go out there and read a bit of the response from geologist, anthropologist, etc...

I've done my bit, I've read Denton et al. Even read some **** from Creation "scientists"...

I don't know personnally the age of the universe or other such complicated questions; but when it comes to making sense and to be honest about discoveries and explanations, "Scientific Creationism" is one of the worse association out there.

I can respect someone believing in creation as a matter of faith (for sciences themselves depend on some kind of faith about human cooperation), but that official organism, "Scientific Creationism", has not ceased to misquote scientists since its creation to try to force their point to credulous and/or misguided people.

Be carefull.
Don't believe them.
Don't believe me.

Doubt, criticism, the belief that absolute truth may be unattainable: let these be your friends in your journey or research.

The effectiveness of the education establishment's indoctrination tactics rears its ugly head again. OK, I'll try to give some answers, even though you obviously don't want to hear them.

"So, how exactly do you say that the 1st and 2nd principles of thermodynamics are contradicted by the old universe hypothesis? And where did you read that, what are your sources?"
I thought my above paragraph was pretty clear, but I'll try to make it clearer. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is constant. Nothing is ever created or destroyed. Therefore, the universe could not have created itself. So where did everything come from? The asssumption that it has always been there doesn't work, because of the Second Law. This states that in a closed system (like the universe, if there is no God) entropy (the amount of energy no longer available for work) always increases. In simpler terms, this means that everything has a natural tendency to break down, to go from complexity toward simplicity. Eventually, if things go on long enough without Divine intervention, everything in the universe will be converted into unusable heat energy and evenly distributed throughout the universe. If the universe had always existed, this would already have happened. So there must have been a beginning, when there was NO entropy. The ONLY explanation of the origin of the universe consistent with the Two Laws is Special Creation. Evolution has to try to explain away the Two Laws. The Creation model PREDICTS them. Which, therefore, is the more logical view?
The Two Laws should be found in any decent science textbook at the high school level or higher. The implications of the Laws to origins is a matter of basic logic. Dr. Henry Morris (of ICR) was the first author I read that pointed these things out, in several of his books. Others have also made the points.

"I can give you everyday events that HAVE happened, and to which the probability assigned to it is less than 1 over 10 to the power of 160."
No, you can't. Nothing facing those kind of odds has EVER happened. Give me what you THINK is an example, and I'll prove you wrong.

"The model of earth magnetic field is still basically unsolved, so its decrease can't be an evidence for or against old or new age of earth (let alone the universe!)."
The RATE of decay of the earth's magnetic field has been measured for close to a century and a half now. It has been decaying exponentially during this time, with an estimated half-life of about 1400 years. This means it was twice as strong 1400 years ago, four times as strong 2800 years ago, etc. There's a limit to how strong the field can be based on the composition of our planet and the way the field is generated, and about 10,000 years seems to be the limit for the age of the earth on that basis. Again, evolution has to try to explain this, while the Creation model predicts it.

"Why don't you go out there and read a bit of the response from geologist, anthropologist, etc..."
I HAVE. Most of what evolutionists say in response is to dismiss creationism as religion without substantively answering the points, and then engage in personal attacks on the creationists.

"'Scientific Creationism', has not ceased to misquote scientists since its creation to try to force their point to credulous and/or misguided people."
This is just one of the attacks used by evolutionists instead of answering the scientific points. Creationists quote evolutionists acccurately, because some of the most damaging anti-evolution statements come from evolutionists themselves. For example:
"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record." - Stephen Jay Gould
Gould is one of the leading evolutionists in the world, but even he can't deny that the fossil record does not look anything like what it should if evolution really happened. This is not a misquote or taken out of context. Eveolutionists, on the other hand, constantly misquote and quote out of context statements creationists make. The most common type is to take a statement made regarding BIBLICAL craetionism and quote it as a statement on SCIENTIFIC creation (these two things, while complementary, are completely separate issues. No true creationist advocates using Biblical arguments as part of science classes, especially in public schools). The assault on creationists by evolutionists is vicious, and to some extent understandable: they can't answer the scientific points, and it's frustrating to them.

I'll say again what I said in the other forum: DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR ANY OF THIS! Study ALL the evidence on BOTH sides for yourself, with an open mind. You haven't done this, and the fact that you cite "**** from Creation 'scientists'" amply demonstates that whatever rading you did on the subject was not for the purpose of genuine learning. You may be interested to know that there are thousands of Creation scientists around the world, many with advanced degreees, and most of whom are former evolutionists who were persuaded over time by the weight of the evidence that Creation is by far the better model of origins. Just give yourself a fair chance to walk that road yourself. Don't be afraid to open your mind.

i'm not doing a long post.

i only want to say that i don't believe in science. the laws of science are only aproximations to the truth (as juntel said that is unattainable). in fact truth is not the object of science (at least of natural and experimental science); its object is only the evidence. science depends on meassure and meassure always carries error. science theories are only provisional things till other theories refute them (ya, Popper).

i don't think science can prove Creation. Sorry, Quickbeami also distrust that 'Scientific Creationism' current. BTW, AFAIK, it's only established on the USA, only there you may find a certain number of scientists of that current, but i can be wrong in this.

and i don't think sciece can prove self-creation or the eternity of energy and matter. science can study evolution from a certain "historic" point, but what happened "before" (if that word can be used)? science have no answers for that question.

the problem, in fact is that "before" is a completly wrong word in this matter, we have no words to express eternity or absence of time. there wasn't time before time.

Creation and Science are compatible and not mutually refutable.

i assure you i didn't want to do a long post

"The effectiveness of the education establishment's
indoctrination tactics rears its ugly head again"
-Firstly, being in agreement with an establishment
doesn't imply indoctrination.
-Secondly, if i was indeed indoctrinated, I wouldn't
have said I didn't know the age of the universe, etc...
I would have blindly quoted the official position of
the establishment.
-Thirdly, I must point out to you that I did not defend
evolution or the theories of evolution; I only critisized
your sources and lack of precision. This isn't a black
and white situation. You're simplifying.

"Nothing is ever created or destroyed. Therefore,
the universe could not have created itself"
-Who said it was created in the first place? The "life"
of the universe is still being studied by questioning
it (rather than read thousand year old mythologies from
sacred texts), and the properties of matter and energy
have yet to be uncovered completely, and time itself
is under tight scrutiny. Words like "beginning" and
"creation" when speaking of the universe and all things
cannot simply be used as in the usual everyday meaning.
You think of your god as eternal, uncreated. Think about
how this could be applied to the universe...

"Eventually, if things go on long enough without Divine
intervention, everything in the universe will be converted
into unusable heat energy and evenly distributed throughout
the universe. If the universe had always existed, this would
already have happened."
-What, you want to go into a discussion about the Entropy state
of the Universe back then when it could have been of zero size,
when the nature of time and matter are still debated by
physicists? (Physics has the humility to say that there are
still a lot to be learned about the universe, especially
billions of years ago... the only book science can read is
nature itself...) I don't know you, but i'm pretty sure
quantum physics is not your daily bread; it was for me long ago,
but i'm quite rusted at it... but if you want to go into that
arena, be prepared...

"The Creation model PREDICTS them [two laws of thermodyn]"
-Wha...? The two laws of thermodynamics are PREDICTED by
Creation "model"? Please do give us the links/source of this
affirmation...


"No, you can't. Nothing facing those kind of odds has EVER happened.
Give me what you THINK is an example, and I'll prove you wrong"
-OK. First, remember that in the classical sense probability is a
measure of our unability to have exact information on the state of
a complex system. Now for my example, take a container of dimension
1 Meter by 1 Meter by 2 Meters, and fill it half with sand;
there are alot of sand inside then; assuming that a grain of sand is
less than 1 mm cube, then there is at least 1 billion grains of sand
in that container.
Now with some mechanical device, shake that big container to mix up
the sand. After a few shakes, the container is put down, and the
sand will settle inside. Consider now the state of the grains of
sand, ie the set of position of all of them inside. Now, try to
calculate what is the probability that those grains did indeed
fall in that final position. If you can calculate that, I assure
you you end up with a stageringly small probability (my estimate
is equal to factorial of 1 billion... i'll let you translate that
into apower of 10 !!! Use Stiltje's approximation.)
This simple example can be converted into everyday life examples.
E.g. molecules of air in a room, grains of sand on a windy beach,
etc...
These estimates are really probabilities, even if we assume a deter-
ministic world; in such a world, one could try to calculate the exact
trajectory of the grains of sand, and if successfull we would arrive
at not a probability, but a certainty... Unfortunately the situation
is too complex, even though the physics is simple: too many variables
to handle; that's why we use probabilities...
A small probability by itself means NOTHING. It only means something
if we are sure OF WHAT is it a probability of, and WHAT IS THE SPACE
OF POSSIBILITIES, so that we may compare that small probability with
the other probabilities.


"Most of what evolutionists say in response is to dismiss creationism as
religion without substantively answering the points, and then engage in
personal attacks on the creationists"
-Wrong. You've not looked hard enough. Some time ago when investigating
that question (and i did investigate it) I easily found books entirely
dedicated to respond the feeble attacks of Creation "Science" in a
universty's biology library. The response were directly aimed at the
creationists' arguments, including passages and bibliographies, and
addresses of the Creationists for people who wanted more details.

"Gould is one of the leading evolutionists in the world, but even he can't
deny that the fossil record does not look anything like what it should if
evolution really happened"
-Gould is one of the most misquoted evolutionists by the Creationists, and
he himself has said that. Creationists take the healthy scientific debates
that happen within a science and they try to tell people this is a proof
that the evolutionists are misleading themselves, that their science is
wrong.
What Gould is actually saying is that evolution may not have happened exactly
as the "theory of evolution by natural selection" (ie Darwin's kind of
evolution) say; Gould and an associate believe rather that evolution has
happened according to what they call "saltationism", some kind of evolution
that happen by spurts, rather than smooth changes.
So you see, Gould isn't talking agains evolution, but agains "evolution by
natural selection"; it is very important to separate in your mind "evolution",
and a "theory of evolution", the former beign about the observation that life
forms appear to evolve in complexity according to time, the later being about
how that evolution actually happened (ie the "mechanics" of evolution).


*Sigh*... abortion debate, canada/us/a-bomb debate, then this... quite a
rock-n-roll board this is!!!!!

Let me finish this post by this: even the Vatican (yes! the Vatican!) has
recently admitted that evolution and the billion year old universe given
by astronomers isn't in contradiction with the scriptures.
Pierre Theillard-deChardin, a French jesuit and anthropologist firmly
believed in evolution, as well as in his god (he was even censored by
the Vatican back then in the 20's). I may not have agreed with him if I had
had the honor to have a talk with him, but at least he didn't close his eyes
in front of the discoveries of science.

I do agree with QB on this: don't trust the words you see in this thread, go
by yourselves to look for YOUR answers. QB says I have a closed mind, but
it's really because I don't agree with him...

QB, I'm acquainted with Mr Morris et al. I'm acquainted with that old
debate. I may be rusty, but I'll brush up for a continuation of this debate.
I'll go find again the books at the university library on the replies to
the creationists, and i'll give you the references. And you give us the
references that you think appropriate.

I aint perfect, neither are you, and neither is anybody.
My view is that Creation "Science" is ****. But this view does not reflect
on you; it is not my opinion of you.
I am more open minded than you think; I am not a 100% believer in anything
that science says. I listen to the arguments, and when I see flaws, I see
****, that's all. That happened a lot when reading Creation "Science" material,
and it happens sometimes when reading "regular" science stuff.

now, that was a really loooong post

Pierre Theillard-deChardin, a French jesuit and anthropologist firmly believed in evolution, as well as in his god (he was even censored by the Vatican back then in the 20's).

In fact John Paul II said some years ago that "evolution is something more that only a scientific theory".

"long post"... yeah... and I had network problems at that time also (and still have)...

"In fact John Paul II said..."
Yup, that's what I was refering to before my bit about Theillard.

It's dailight now here, so I must go to sleep

Ok Juntel... you said Quantum phys were your daily once... Can you tell me more Matter, Antimatter and their link with the first Law enounced earlier? I'd like to know cause when I was at Ste-Foy cegep, we did not have the time to study qauntum physics

brrrrrrr... I'm still awake, couldn't resist coming back here...

Shanamir, you wouldn't have learned much about quantum physics in cegep, just the first few steps.
I recommend Hawkin's "Brief History of Time" to get a taste of the subject.

Still awake! I hope so unless you're working nights: it's just 1 pm!!! And for the book... well i won't have time for that soon. But what i wanted to know is say: of a proton and an antiproton anihilating each other... is it constistent with the first law?

For a fast answer, one could say that the law of energy conservation can be violated for a brief time (ie within a time lapse inversely proportional to the energy created or destroyed).

A phenomenon in which pairs of particle/antiparticle are created and then destroyed within such a brief time was theorized early in quantum physics; these pairs are called virtual pairs. Some predictions have been made later concerning that phenomenon, and experiments done to confirm or deny it (yes FatMiddle, Popper would have said to falsify it!). The results of those experiments support the theory (or, as Popper would have said, they do not falsify it).

A Brief History of Time is what prompted me to ask for more info in the first place. I am currently trying to read that one. However, if I knew that it was going to set off such a fierce discussion, I might not have asked. Naw, I probably would have anyway. Thanks both of you for the input. I certainly can say that I now have a better understanding of the 1st and 2nd Laws of Theromodynamics. The rest of the stuff may take a bit of time to sink in. I mentioned in the other thread, The Naked Ape. Morris has some interesting explainations for how we evolved....how we came to see in color, why women grow breasts when female apes don't, why we don't have fur any longer, certain things about our behavior, the list goes on. Has anyone read it, and if so, what do you think of the things that Morris has to say?

Oh boy. I'm gonna try to gather my notes tonight and hopefully post on this tomorrow.

I'm going to eschew quotes this time to try to cut down the size of a post that will already be large enough. Please refer back to Juntel's post if you don't understand what I'm responding to.

When I referred to 'indoctrination', I primarily meant the hostility toward Creation science that was evident in your post. My lack of precision was because I was attempting to present a brief outline of the basic evidence, not write a college thesis. Naturally I was trying keep things as simple as possible. I assume most of the posters here realize that these subjects are far too complex to be fully explored in this kind of setting. That's why I recommended that people research these matters for themselves.
I never stated as a fact that the universe was created. However, by the physical laws that we know govern the universe, there cannot be spontaneous generation of matter or energy. So any kind of non-supernatural beginning is excluded. And because of increasing entropy, an eternal universe also contradicts the known laws. The only other options are 1) Special Creation, or 2) some unknown natural process that is capable of defying the known laws of science. Both are speculation outside of the realm of true science, but only the first is CONSISTENT with the known laws of science.
A 'model' of origins is simply the basic framework within which to interpret the evidence. In the creation model, the universe was specially created on a one-time basis. There would be no ongoing creation of matter or energy after that. Thus, one of the predictions of the Creation model is that nothing would change the totality of the matter and energy that had been created. Also, such a Creation would be initially perfect. So a second prediction is that any qualitative changes from the initial state of perfection would be in a downward direction. The Two Laws of Thermodynamics are precisely what is predicted by the creation model. The evolution model requires a non-supernatural origin of the universe, and long-term changes in an UPWARD direction. The Two Laws contradict these things.
As to probabilities, your example begs the question. Let me first give a summarization of the probability argument made by Dr. Henry Morris in the book, 'What is Creation Science?':
Let's assume that the known universe is 5 billion light-years in radius. Then let's assume that it is crammed solid with particles the size of an electron. It has been estimated that there are about 10 to the 80th power (1 followed by 80 zeros) such particles in the universe, but if there were no empty space it could hold approximately 10 to the 130th. Now let's assume that each particle can take part in 10 to the 20th events each second, and allow 10 to the 20th seconds of cosmic history (this is about 100 times the evolutionary estimate of the age of the universe. Allowing these absurdly generous conditions gives us a total of 10 to the 130th * 10 to the 20th * 1020 = 10 to the 170th events. The problem is that even the simplest living cell contains far more stored information than represented even by such a gigantic number as 10 to the 170th. It has calculated that even with a generously high probability of 1 out of 2, it would take a series of 1500 successive correct events to form a simple living cell by chance. 2 to the 1500th = 10 to the 450th. Dividing by our previous very generous allowance of 10 to the 170th events, this gives us a probability of the chance formation of one living cell in the entire history of the universe of 1 in 10 to the 280th (I earlier cited 10 to the 160th, but that was faulty memory on my part. This time I looked it up.). When the probability of occurrence of any event is smaller than one out of the number of events that could ever possibly occur - in this case 10 to the 170th - then the probability of its occurrence is considered by mathematicians to be zero. So the chance origin of life is impossible. Add to that the fact that every subsequent improvement to that initial living cell even if it could form faces odds at least as high as those against its formation, and you can see that life arising by chance and evolving into all the life forms we see is impossible by factors far beyond our ability to really comprehend.
Juntel, your sand illustration doesn't work. Your description reminded me of people I know who play the high-jackpot lotteries, because "someone has to win - why not me?" I try to bring such people back to reality by offering to bet them $100 that they will NOT win any given lottery they buy tickets for. No one has yet taken the bet. The fact is that even though there WILL be one set of winning numbers, the chances that ONE SPECIFICALLY SELECTED PERSON will hold those numbers is minuscule, and that's what we are talking about. Only ONE succession of events can randomly produce life, and the odds against THAT SPECIFIC OCCURRENCE are far beyond impossible, to say nothing of all the other occurrences that would have had to take place to produce the variety of life we see in the world.
I HAVE read anti-creation books, and have yet to read one that actually answers the points raised by creationists. Typically they fall back on things like, "Just because we can't yet prove evolution doesn't mean it isn't true," amidst rehashing the party line 'evidences' for evolution. They'll use the 'open system' argument for how evolution could have occurred in spite of the Second Law, relying on raw energy from the sun, which in reality actually speeds up the accumulation of entropy. They fool themselves into believing that feeble answers like this answer the Creationists' arguments, because they have no real answers, and are unwilling to admit that much of what they believe and have dedicated their professional lives to concerning origins is simply wrong.
Gould's alternate theory of evolution, 'Punctuated Equilibrium', is his attempt to explain away the lack of a clear 'vector of progress' in the fossil record. So, from the evolution point of view, fossils of transitional forms would prove evolution, and the lack of these forms now also proves evolution. The rational explanation for the lack of transitional fossils - that there were NO TRANSITIONS - can't be considered because only naturalistic explanations are allowed. This is the kind of anti-logic that passes for 'science' in evolutionary circles. The fact that such vastly different theories as 'Neo-Darwinism' and 'Punctuated Equilibrium' can simultaneously exist clearly demonstrates that scientists know absolutely nothing about the mechanisms that allegedly resulted in all the forms of life in the world.
I'm not going to get into the Vatican thing, because I'm carefully avoiding bringing religion into my arguments here. This thread is about the relative merits of the two scientific models of origins. Personal opinions of religious figures are irrelevant.
Juntel, I suggest you get past your preoccupation with specific sources. I'm a scrupulously honest person, and I'm willing to assume you are too. The kinds of things I'm talking about in this thread can be found in many sources. I've mentioned Henry Morris, and I'll add Duane Gish. Numerous books authored or co-authored by these two gentlemen can lay out the whole case for creationism in all its aspects quite efficiently. Other Creationist authors I have read include John Morris, Steven Austin (no, not THAT Steve Austin ), Robert Gentry, Ian T. Taylor, Ken Ham, Donald B. DeYoung, and Gary Parker. There are others as well. The information is out there for anyone who cares to look.
And Juntel, I only think your mind is closed in the sense that you don't really allow for the possibility of Creation being correct, whether you yourself realize it or not. If you would spread your healthy skepticism more equally between creation and evolution, you would be better equipped to fairly evaluate all the claims on both sides.
Oh, and Fat Middle, there are organizations of Creation Scientists all over the world. The modern Creation movement did start in the USA, but it has spread to all corners of the globe as more and more scientists come to realize that evolution theory just doesn't work.

"by the physical laws that we know govern the universe,
there cannot be spontaneous generation of matter or energy"

False. Quantum virtual particles created withing vacuum, and then disintegrated quickly. Read my above answer to Shanana.
You must brush up your knowledge of physics.


"because of increasing entropy, an eternal universe also contradicts the known laws"

You reason within an everyday ordinary knowledge of what time is.
Again, brush up your knowledge of physics, read a bit about Hawkins works on cosmology, and the weird things we learn about time, the universe and everything...


"only [Special Creation] is CONSISTENT with the known laws of science"

Laughable. Who created the universe then?
Is that creator CONSISTENT with the know laws?
Ah! He created the laws! So he doesn't HAVE to be consistent with them (ie to obey them) for creation, is he?
So, after all, no problem really for Special Creation to be consistent with the knows laws, it's main hypothesis is that the laws are mysterious divine creations.
In real science, we do not take as a hypothesis what we want to prove....


"The evolution model requires a non-supernatural origin of the universe, and long-term changes in an UPWARD direction"

I guess by UPWARD direction, you mean about complexity...
Well, the universe is a big place isn't it... Do you really think that the 2nd law (eg) imposes a uniform degredation of energy?
The laws of thermodynamics (especially the Second) are mostly STATISTICAL laws about systems, and locally the entropy of a system can decrease, if it's not closed. It IS a fact that the solar system isn't closed, so don't mock people that say so. The solar system loses tremendous amount of solar energy, and the earth itself receives enormous amount of solar energy, making it an very very very open system. To deny the enormous influence of the sun on life would be strange.
As for the universe, even if there are local regions where entropy decreases, what is important are closed systems, ie systems that do not lose nor gain energy whatsoever to and from outside.
As a (probably) closed system, the entropy of the universe must not decrease according to the second law of thermodyn. That doesn't prevent
pockets of open systems where entropy decreases.
Such as earth.



=>About your answer to my probabilistic problem.

Your summary of Morriss' book is one of those example of misuse of the notion of probability, as well as a misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution.
"It has calculated that even with a generously high probability of 1 out of 2, it would take a series of 1500 successive correct events to form a simple living cell by chance"
Why by chance? Natural selection contains no chance in it. Yes, evolution does need mutational changed, which ARE somewhat random, but the process of selection within an environment is a TREMENDOUSLY important ingredient that is never taken into account in such calculations of pro-
babilities, which is why these calculations are WORTHLESS.
Just try to take into account natural selection, which in a way prunes the tree of possibilities, according to the environement. Make your calculations with that in mind, if you can.
"life arising by chance" you say... i even don't believe in that ALONE.
The revolution brought by Darwin is NOT "life arising by chance", it is the Evolution by means of NATURAL SELECTION.
But you people always forget about that, and only concentrate on glib probability calculations.
"The probability of its occurrence is considered by mathematicians to be zero"
*Sigh* Mathematically, the probability that a dart will land ANYWHERE on a target
IS zero also... Nevertheless it does land somewhere on the target.
Probability is a beast that must be manipulated carefully, for anybody can use it to say just anything...


"Juntel, your sand illustration doesn't work"

I see you have read and understood the illustration, but have not learned its lesson. The fact I wanted to point out with this illustration is that any probability, HOWEVER SMALL, could be produced easily (just increase the amount of sand!) I do understand your reaction to my illustration, and you are right in
your reasoning about it (and about jackpot machines!) However, the point is that the probability of the event I gave you was incredibly small, and you haven't yet proven me wrong about THAT.
Be carefull about probabilities!
Coming back to our subject of life and evolution, let me ask you then again about how to calculate the probability of a cell emerging in the universe, BUT taking into account natural selections that happen in the universe, on myriads
of planets, for myriads of molecules, etc...
I hope you can see now that to calculate that probability is not as simple as making simple combination manipulation and churning out a number.

I am specially concerned with this you said:
"Only ONE succession of events can randomly produce life"

Oh yes?! How do you know that? How do you know that life cannot arise differently, with different kind of nucleic acids (or no nucleic acids)?
How can you be sure that only one kind of life basis can exist in the universe? (because after all the calculations, to be correct, must be about all the universe, about all the ways of life that could emerge...)...
I hope you see my point here.
It is my belief (and prove me wrong on this) that there is no way really to calculate the probability of life in the universe, if only because we can never know all the different ways life can emerge from the universe.
But if you want to calculate it, then go ahead, but be sure to make the proper assumptions because i'll be there wathching over...


"The fact that such vastly different theories as 'Neo-Darwinism' and 'Punctuated Equilibrium' can simultaneously exist clearly demonstrates
that scientists know absolutely nothing about the mechanisms that allegedly resulted in all the forms of life in the world"

Hey! We do agree here... well almost...
Here again, you misunderstand the ways of science. It is natural that competing theories clash to explain the complexities of nature.
Let me be clear about this: I don't think science will ever KNOW how life exactly came about. Science is there for us to use to try to solve that problem. But it can't work miracles.
Science is not there to attain an absolute knowledge; i don't believe there is such a thing in human affairs.
Different theories of things appear in science because scientists really abhor dogmas; establishments are never that secure, because new things are always discovered that may change one's point of vue of nature.
Establishments in science come and go naturally (and evolution and darwinism may one day fall also, who knows?)



"And Juntel, I only think your mind is closed in the sense that you don't really allow for the possibility of Creation being correct, whether you yourself realize it or not"

Hum... I don't think you understand me well, and know me less.
You may be right about my reticence toward "Special Creation" advocated by "Creation
Scientists", because I DID read some of their work, and then some... and found them to be just some of those literalists that only want in the end TO JUSTIFY THEIR SCRIPTURES. Their arguments were never really that strong.
I do often consider the possibilities of creation, but way far from what literalist
christians do. The point of vue of creation from the Hindu Upanishads (what you christians would call pagan demonic pantheism!!!) is quite an attractive view, because of the closeness between "creator" and "created" that seems more attuned with what we know of nature now.
(NO! I am not a New-Ager! I dislike Fritjof Capra!)


I do understand that the Creation "Scientist" would called closed-minded the people that didn't want to consider their model. They only do that because they think their model is at par with Darwinism (or other theories of evolution).
In that, they are wrong: they are far from being as plentifull as Darwinism.
(I'm not even a strict darwinist and i can still say that!)

okey QB, thanks for the clarification

juntel, i hope there's some sarcasm in that "the Hindu Upanishads (what you christians would call pagan demonic pantheism!!!)"

we, christians try to be respectful with other religions. perhaps we may call it pantheism, but not demonic

yes, there was some sarcasm...
it's just that there are some zealots who DO use that kind of expression (eg the usual tv preachers, and others of the kind)

All of my friends are of a religion or another (most are christians, of the different denominations), and most if not all wouldn't use that expression.

So I did generalize, and I apologize to those who would not use such an expression...

uh, no problem, i was almost sure of that sarcasm. i'm getting to know your style

Have you seen Mike Wong's site? I won't link to it as it might offend you but you ought to know that Creation is a belief and not a scientific theory. There is no such thing as "creation science", only creation faith.