Discussion:
Again the second law
(too old to reply)
Cloud Hobbit
2018-01-12 20:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics says that when energy changes from one form to another form, or matter moves freely, entropy (disorder) in a closed system increases.

Differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out horizontally after a while. Due to the force of gravity, density and pressure do not even out vertically. Density and pressure on the bottom will be more than at the top.

Entropy is a measure of spread of matter and energy to everywhere they have access.

The most common wording for the second law of thermodynamics is essentially due to Rudolf Clausius:

“ It is impossible to construct a device which produces no other effect than transfer of heat from lower temperature body to higher temperature body ”
In other words, everything tries to maintain the same temperature over time.

There are many statements of the second law which use different terms, but all mean the same thing. Another statement by Clausius is:

Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.

An equivalent statement by Lord Kelvin is:

A transformation whose only final result is to convert heat, extracted from a source at constant temperature, into work, is impossible.

The second law only applies to large systems. The second law is about the likely behavior of a system where no energy or matter gets in or out. The bigger the system is, the more likely the second law will be true.

In a general sense, the second law says that temperature differences between systems in contact with each other tend to even out and that work can be obtained from these non-equilibrium differences, but that loss of thermal energy occurs, when work is done and entropy increases.[1] Pressure, density and temperature differences in an isolated system, all tend to equalize if given the opportunity; density and pressure, but not temperature, are affected by gravity. A heat engine is a mechanical device that provides useful work from the difference in temperature of two bodies.
___________________

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems.
Any variation from a closed system is not describing the second law.

No matter how some morons wish it were different, it isn't and never will be.

Just as Einstein's theory of Relativity is not E=MC squared+2
the second law does not apply to open systems.

Claiming it applies to open systems is wrong and shows that whoever claims it does apply to open systems is misinformed or stupid or lying.
Bob Wardlaw
2018-01-12 21:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics says that when energy changes from one form to another form, or matter moves freely, entropy (disorder) in a closed system increases.
A closed system is NOT a reality, There are no closed systems except
perhaps the Universe. But Carnot's steam engine absolutely lost
heat energy through the metal plates, smoke stack and cylinders.
Secondly, there had to be an input of energy from the outside,
eventually equilibrium unless energy from the outside is input.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out horizontally after a while. Due to the force of gravity, density and pressure do not even out vertically. Density and pressure on the bottom will be more than at the top.
Entropy is a measure of spread of matter and energy to everywhere they have access.
“ It is impossible to construct a device which produces no other effect than transfer of heat from lower temperature body to higher temperature body
This is exactly backwards, I doubt you meant heat travels from lower
temperature to a higher temp. Heat can travel only from hotter bodies
to colder bodies.

Post by Cloud Hobbit
In other words, everything tries to maintain the same temperature over time.
Yes, when this happens, it's an equilibrium.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.
This is true, but it's different as I took it from above.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
A transformation whose only final result is to convert heat, extracted from a source at constant temperature, into work, is impossible.
The second law only applies to large systems. The second law is about the likely behavior of a system where no energy or matter gets in or out. The bigger the system is, the more likely the second law will be true.
Where did you get this?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
In a general sense, the second law says that temperature differences between systems in contact with each other tend to even out and that work can be obtained from these non-equilibrium differences, but that loss of thermal energy occurs, when work is done and entropy increases.[1] Pressure, density and temperature differences in an isolated system, all tend to equalize if given the opportunity; density and pressure, but not temperature, are affected by gravity. A heat engine is a mechanical device that provides useful work from the difference in temperature of two bodies.
___________________
The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems.
Any variation from a closed system is not describing the second law.
That seems to be a common belief. But I. Carnot, an steam engineer
concerned with power and efficency described the 2nd law in terms
of his locomotive. But look around. A tree dies it becomes disordered
rots over time. A building overtime if not maintained will collapse
and fall into disorder ruins. As we age, our DNA looses information
our kidneys began to fail, our bodies develop poor circulation our
skin wrinkles and becomes fallow. All of this is the 2nd law at work.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No matter how some morons wish it were different, it isn't and never will be.
It doesn't matter to me, but this is a common denial of the effects
of the 2nd law in an open system. And I fail to understand why this
is so commonly believed. The earth receiving energy from the sun is
an open system, but so is the moon. Yet the moon is desolate and
deprived of life. So there is a difference between the two bodies-
Why?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Just as Einstein's theory of Relativity is not E=MC squared+2
the second law does not apply to open systems.
You and others have stressed this over and over. It doesn't matter to
me, I don't care, but I'm curious as to why this is important.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Claiming it applies to open systems is wrong and shows that whoever claims it does apply to open systems is misinformed or stupid or lying.
You should be doing your own thinking, rather than accepting
something widely accepted, but certainly in question at best.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-01-12 22:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics says that when energy changes from one form to another form, or matter moves freely, entropy (disorder) in a closed system increases.
A closed system is NOT a reality, There are no closed systems except
perhaps the Universe. But Carnot's steam engine absolutely lost
heat energy through the metal plates, smoke stack and cylinders.
Secondly, there had to be an input of energy from the outside,
eventually equilibrium unless energy from the outside is input.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out horizontally after a while. Due to the force of gravity, density and pressure do not even out vertically. Density and pressure on the bottom will be more than at the top.
Entropy is a measure of spread of matter and energy to everywhere they have access.
“ It is impossible to construct a device which produces no other effect than transfer of heat from lower temperature body to higher temperature body
This is exactly backwards, I doubt you meant heat travels from lower
temperature to a higher temp. Heat can travel only from hotter bodies
to colder bodies.

Post by Cloud Hobbit
In other words, everything tries to maintain the same temperature over time.
Yes, when this happens, it's an equilibrium.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.
This is true, but it's different as I took it from above.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
A transformation whose only final result is to convert heat, extracted from a source at constant temperature, into work, is impossible.
The second law only applies to large systems. The second law is about the likely behavior of a system where no energy or matter gets in or out. The bigger the system is, the more likely the second law will be true.
Where did you get this?
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Cloud Hobbit
In a general sense, the second law says that temperature differences between systems in contact with each other tend to even out and that work can be obtained from these non-equilibrium differences, but that loss of thermal energy occurs, when work is done and entropy increases.[1] Pressure, density and temperature differences in an isolated system, all tend to equalize if given the opportunity; density and pressure, but not temperature, are affected by gravity. A heat engine is a mechanical device that provides useful work from the difference in temperature of two bodies.
___________________
The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems.
Any variation from a closed system is not describing the second law.
That seems to be a common belief. But I. Carnot, an steam engineer
concerned with power and efficency described the 2nd law in terms
of his locomotive. But look around. A tree dies it becomes disordered
rots over time. A building overtime if not maintained will collapse
and fall into disorder ruins. As we age, our DNA looses information
our kidneys began to fail, our bodies develop poor circulation our
skin wrinkles and becomes fallow. All of this is the 2nd law at work.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No matter how some morons wish it were different, it isn't and never will be.
It doesn't matter to me, but this is a common denial of the effects
of the 2nd law in an open system. And I fail to understand why this
is so commonly believed. The earth receiving energy from the sun is
an open system, but so is the moon. Yet the moon is desolate and
deprived of life. So there is a difference between the two bodies-
Why?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Just as Einstein's theory of Relativity is not E=MC squared+2
the second law does not apply to open systems.
You and others have stressed this over and over. It doesn't matter to
me, I don't care, but I'm curious as to why this is important.
Because morons keep claiming that evolution violates the second law.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Claiming it applies to open systems is wrong and shows that whoever claims it does apply to open systems is misinformed or stupid or lying.
You should be doing your own thinking, rather than accepting
something widely accepted, but certainly in question at best.
Aside from fundamentalist websites I can find nobody that disagrees with the second law as written.
Andrew
2018-01-13 03:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob Wardlaw
You and others have stressed this over and over. It doesn't matter to
me, I don't care, but I'm curious as to why this is important.
Because morons keep claiming that evolution violates the second law.
"Goo to you" evolution is *not possible* in light of the second law.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Claiming it applies to open systems is wrong and shows that whoever
claims it does apply to open systems is misinformed or stupid or lying.
You should be doing your own thinking, rather than accepting
something widely accepted, but certainly in question at best.
Aside from fundamentalist websites I can find nobody that
disagrees with the second law as written.
Both the first and second law tells us that there is no
Universe, and no biosphere ~ unless there is a Creator.
Andrew
2018-01-13 03:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems.
Any variation from a closed system is not describing the second law.
No matter how some morons wish it were different, it isn't and never will be.
Just as Einstein's theory of Relativity is not E=MC squared+2
the second law does not apply to open systems.
Claiming it applies to open systems is wrong and shows that whoever
claims it does apply to open systems is misinformed or stupid or lying.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.
Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but
the second law applies equally well to open systems. There is somehow
associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion
that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is
important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist)

Here is a discussion on the topic.. https://tinyurl.com/y7duxqcf
Cloud Hobbit
2018-01-13 03:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
Bob Wardlaw
2018-01-13 05:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
Apart from the Universe, in reality there are no closed
systems. Everything, including Carnot steam engine over
time reaches equilibrium.
Teresita
2018-01-13 14:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Apart from the Universe, in reality there are no closed
systems. Everything, including Carnot steam engine over
time reaches equilibrium.
Teresita makes a brisk chopping motion with both hands.

"THANK YOU! Somebody finally said it."
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Bob Wardlaw
2018-01-13 16:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Apart from the Universe, in reality there are no closed
systems. Everything, including Carnot steam engine over
time reaches equilibrium.
Teresita makes a brisk chopping motion with both hands.
"THANK YOU!  Somebody finally said it."
Another fact that usually overlooked about the 2ND law:
When water turns to ice, there is a transfer of heat from
the warmer water to the cooler atmosphere. When crystals
are formed, heat is transferred from crystal to the
surroundings.
Finally there is no case where entropy is decreased without
the expenditure of energy from the outside. But not just any
energy, but becomes directed or guided energy. Raw unguided
energy is destructive or ineffective. As a spring wound
clock runs down, it will,over time, stop without the input
of energy from the outside. A steam engine starts with wood
or coal from the outside and unless fuel is added the steam
engine, will over time, reach equilibrium and stop. So,
there is no exception to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Andrew
2018-01-13 05:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
The reason you try to force your nuance upon it is because
you know that the emergence of life is an ~*impossibility*~
in light of the second law.

So you say that the input from the Sun makes the Earth an
open system thus invalidating the ~*impossibility*~factor.

However those who are interested in *the truth* can easily
see through your mendacity.

"There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies
equally well to open systems.

"There is somehow associated with the field of far-from
equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law
of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important
to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist)
https://tinyurl.com/y7duxqcf
Cloud Hobbit
2018-01-13 06:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
The reason you try to force your nuance upon it is because
you know that the emergence of life is an ~*impossibility*~
in light of the second law.
So you say that the input from the Sun makes the Earth an
open system thus invalidating the ~*impossibility*~factor.
However those who are interested in *the truth* can easily
see through your mendacity.
"There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
"There is somehow associated with the field of far-from
equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law
of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important
to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist)
https://tinyurl.com/y7duxqcf
https://piv.pivpiv.dk/
That you can find the one or 2 people who agree with you doesn't make you right.

I will stick with the majority on this one.
Andrew
2018-01-13 11:23:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
The reason you try to force your nuance upon it is because
you know that the emergence of life is an ~*impossibility*~
in light of the second law.
So you say that the input from the Sun makes the Earth an
open system thus invalidating the ~*impossibility*~factor.
However those who are interested in *the truth* can easily
see through your mendacity.
"There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
"There is somehow associated with the field of far-from
equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law
of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important
to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist)
https://tinyurl.com/y7duxqcf
https://piv.pivpiv.dk/
Your retort shows the level you have descended to.

Which is what happens to those who fight against
the truth.

Folks, you can't fight against the truth and expect
to win!
Post by Cloud Hobbit
That you can find the one or 2 people who
agree with you doesn't make you right.
Truth is independent of the numbers who adhere
to it.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I will stick with the majority on this one.
You may agree with whoever you want, and
believe whatever you want, but be it known
to you, that you are fighting against the truth.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-01-13 19:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
believe whatever you want, but be it known
to you, that you are fighting against the truth.


That is what you believe.
In the real world you are still full of crap. You are the one fighting the truth. Or maybe just fighting.

You are a troll who keeps repeating the same mantra over and over as if that makes any difference.

If you want to believe in an awesome creator go for it.
Why you think this is the place to tell your dad story is beyond me. I do know what science says and I know that science has done a much better job of interpreting reality than religion has done and has done more to make everyone's life better and more productive and free from many diseases that used to decimate humanity.

Your awesome creator ain't done squat.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-13 12:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
The reason you try to force your nuance upon it is because
you know that the emergence of life is an ~*impossibility*~
in light of the second law.
So you say that the input from the Sun makes the Earth an
open system thus invalidating the ~*impossibility*~factor.
However those who are interested in *the truth* can easily
see through your mendacity.
"There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
Well, when reality and theory conflict, the theory must fall. So, given there
is life, if the 2nd law really did preclude life then the 2nd law would fall.
Teresita
2018-01-13 13:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Well, when reality and theory conflict, the theory must fall. So, given there
is life, if the 2nd law really did preclude life then the 2nd law would fall.
More likely the 2nd law does not preclude life.

"We can, by isolating parts of the world and postulating rather
idealised conditions in our problems, arrest the increase, but we cannot
turn it into a decrease. That would involve something much worse than a
violation of an ordinary law of Nature, namely, an improbable
coincidence. The law that entropy always increases-the second law of
thermodynamics-holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of
Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the
universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations-then so much the
worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by
observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes.
But if your theory is found to be against the second law of
thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to
collapse in deepest humiliation." (Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the
Physical World," [1928], The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Andrew
2018-01-13 14:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.

Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.

Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Teresita
2018-01-13 15:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of
thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to
collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928], The
Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1933,
reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator* would be a theory found
to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
That's aaa talking.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Andrew
2018-01-13 15:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928], The
Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1933,
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator* would be a
theory found to be against the second law of thermodynamics.
That's aaa talking.
Truth remains truth whoever says it. If you think the above
is not truth, then you need to state where. But I am standing
on ~your~ citation.
Ted
2018-01-13 17:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Teresita" wrote: >>
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928], The
Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1933,
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator* would be a >> theory
found to be against the second law of thermodynamics.
That's aaa talking.
Truth remains truth whoever says it. If you think the above is not truth,
then you need to state where. But I am standing on ~your~ citation.
If you cared about truth, you wouldn't run from questions.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-13 18:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
"Teresita" wrote: >>
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928], The
Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1933,
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator* would be a >> theory
found to be against the second law of thermodynamics.
That's aaa talking.
No. That is Drooling Andy lying through his teeth.
Post by Ted
Truth remains truth whoever says it. If you think the above is not truth,
then you need to state where. But I am standing on ~your~ citation.
As do lies. Which is all Drooling Andy has ever done here.

The word "truth" was one of the first casualties of Christianity's
Orwellian redefinitions used to control the minds of its followers,
going back to its earliest days. Even to the NT.
Post by Ted
If you cared about truth, you wouldn't run from questions.
HE CAN'T HANDLE THE THRUTH!
Teresita
2018-01-13 15:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did not arise by
'naturalistic only' processes.
Atheists don't buy into the "watch implies a watchmaker" argument. I
already posted a long article on the Mullerian Two Step that refutes
irreducible complexity.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-13 15:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life (which
it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation is
wrong.
Andrew
2018-01-13 15:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God.
Not an exception.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
If the 2nd law precluded life (which it doesn't, of course)
It does.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
then the 2nd law would fall.
No.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The fact that your interpretation of the 2nd law
contradicts reality
No, it points to reality which you refuse to see.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
means your interpretation is wrong.
No.
Bob Wardlaw
2018-01-13 17:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life (which
it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation is
wrong.
No, it doesn't, However, there is an implication of something:
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.

This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
hleopold
2018-01-13 18:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life (which
it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation is
wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
Or some kid with his HeathKit Build-A-Universe kit in the next universe up.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

“The rapture's already happened and Jimmy Hoffa was the only one worthy.“
- Witziges Rätsel
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-13 20:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?

How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile. Unless you were
brainwashed in childhood to believe in it.

What's wrong with these morons? They're stuck in 19th century ideas of
causality.

The laws of thermodynamics were formulated before anybody knew about
relativity, let alone radioactivity or quantum mechanics.

After Einstein, mass had to be added to them. And they haven't caught
up with the fact that quantum physics knows about particles appearing
ex nihilo, which "borrow" the necessary energy and "pay it back" at
the end of their life.

The laws are simply part of the history of science. The only time
they're mentioned as such, is either in high school to students
learning about it, or in books and articles for the ignorant layman,
because those working with thermodynamics use the underlying
principles.

Not to mention, that the universe is considered to have a zero sum
over its lifetime, just like the virtual particles (which is a
misnomer, they're actually real).

So the most parsimonious of the various scenarios suggested by
cosmologists, is that the big bang was the result of a quantum event
(or similar) - which breaks no known laws of physics.

Unlike the unnecessary, unevidenced and unjustified, maximally defined
magical superbeing with its equally unjustified attributes like
omnipotence that creationists plucked out of their arses to insist did
it.
Post by hleopold
Or some kid with his HeathKit Build-A-Universe kit in the next universe up.
I just wish these idiots would bother to learn something about what
they attack out of ignorance.

Mark Vuletic goes into what I just described, including quotes from
leading physicists.

The only problem, is that the loonies will imagine this is
atheist-specific because theists leave it to us to explain it...

https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
Bob Wardlaw
2018-01-13 21:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity, but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe. Unless there is an incontrovertible and undisputed
empirical evidence of another explanation, then this deity has to be
falsified.
Unless you were
Post by Christopher A. Lee
brainwashed in childhood to believe in it.
This is one reason I consider myself to be agnostic. My father was
a universe professor and an diehard atheist. My mother, a high school
science teacher. I never knew her religious feelings, since she never
discussed it out of fear and impatience of my father. So, no I was never
brainwashed unless my fear for my dad made me such in my childhood.
He was a vile, hateful, abusive human being who I didn't want to be
like.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
What's wrong with these morons? They're stuck in 19th century ideas of
causality.
The laws of thermodynamics were formulated before anybody knew about
relativity, let alone radioactivity or quantum mechanics.
Does this, you say, somehow change the effect of the second law?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
After Einstein, mass had to be added to them. And they haven't caught
up with the fact that quantum physics knows about particles appearing
ex nihilo, which "borrow" the necessary energy and "pay it back" at
the end of their life.
The laws are simply part of the history of science. The only time
they're mentioned as such, is either in high school to students
learning about it, or in books and articles for the ignorant layman,
because those working with thermodynamics use the underlying
principles.
Not to mention, that the universe is considered to have a zero sum
over its lifetime, just like the virtual particles (which is a
misnomer, they're actually real).
So the most parsimonious of the various scenarios suggested by
cosmologists, is that the big bang was the result of a quantum event
(or similar) - which breaks no known laws of physics.
Unlike the unnecessary, unevidenced and unjustified, maximally defined
magical superbeing with its equally unjustified attributes like
omnipotence that creationists plucked out of their arses to insist did
it.
Post by hleopold
Or some kid with his HeathKit Build-A-Universe kit in the next universe up.
I just wish these idiots would bother to learn something about what
they attack out of ignorance.
Mark Vuletic goes into what I just described, including quotes from
leading physicists.
The only problem, is that the loonies will imagine this is
atheist-specific because theists leave it to us to explain it...
https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
Tim
2018-01-13 22:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
It contradicts the first law.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Unless there is an incontrovertible and undisputed
empirical evidence of another explanation, then this deity has to be
falsified.
Unless you were
Post by Christopher A. Lee
brainwashed in childhood to believe in it.
This is one reason I consider myself to be agnostic. My father was
a universe professor and an diehard atheist. My mother, a high school
science teacher. I never knew her religious feelings, since she never
discussed it out of fear and impatience of my father. So, no I was never
brainwashed unless my fear for my dad made me such in my childhood.
He was a vile, hateful, abusive human being who I didn't want to be
like.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
What's wrong with these morons? They're stuck in 19th century ideas of
causality.
The laws of thermodynamics were formulated before anybody knew about
relativity, let alone radioactivity or quantum mechanics.
Does this, you say, somehow change the effect of the second law?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
After Einstein, mass had to be added to them. And they haven't caught
up with the fact that quantum physics knows about particles appearing
ex nihilo, which "borrow" the necessary energy and "pay it back" at
the end of their life.
The laws are simply part of the history of science. The only time
they're mentioned as such, is either in high school to students
learning about it, or in books and articles for the ignorant layman,
because those working with thermodynamics use the underlying
principles.
Not to mention, that the universe is considered to have a zero sum
over its lifetime, just like the virtual particles (which is a
misnomer, they're actually real).
So the most parsimonious of the various scenarios suggested by
cosmologists, is that the big bang was the result of a quantum event
(or similar) - which breaks no known laws of physics.
Unlike the unnecessary, unevidenced and unjustified, maximally defined
magical superbeing with its equally unjustified attributes like
omnipotence that creationists plucked out of their arses to insist did
it.
Post by hleopold
Or some kid with his HeathKit Build-A-Universe kit in the next universe up.
I just wish these idiots would bother to learn something about what
they attack out of ignorance.
Mark Vuletic goes into what I just described, including quotes from
leading physicists.
The only problem, is that the loonies will imagine this is
atheist-specific because theists leave it to us to explain it...
https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
Bob Wardlaw
2018-01-13 23:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
It contradicts the first law.
Explain exactly how.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Unless there is an incontrovertible and undisputed
empirical evidence of another explanation, then this deity has to be
falsified.
Unless you were
Post by Christopher A. Lee
brainwashed in childhood to believe in it.
This is one reason I consider myself to be agnostic. My father was
a universe professor and an diehard atheist. My mother, a high school
science teacher. I never knew her religious feelings, since she never
discussed it out of fear and impatience of my father. So, no I was never
brainwashed unless my fear for my dad made me such in my childhood.
He was a vile, hateful, abusive human being who I didn't want to be
like.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
What's wrong with these morons? They're stuck in 19th century ideas of
causality.
The laws of thermodynamics were formulated before anybody knew about
relativity, let alone radioactivity or quantum mechanics.
Does this, you say, somehow change the effect of the second law?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
After Einstein, mass had to be added to them. And they haven't caught
up with the fact that quantum physics knows about particles appearing
ex nihilo, which "borrow" the necessary energy and "pay it back" at
the end of their life.
The laws are simply part of the history of science. The only time
they're mentioned as such, is either in high school to students
learning about it, or in books and articles for the ignorant layman,
because those working with thermodynamics use the underlying
principles.
Not to mention, that the universe is considered to have a zero sum
over its lifetime, just like the virtual particles (which is a
misnomer, they're actually real).
So the most parsimonious of the various scenarios suggested by
cosmologists, is that the big bang was the result of a quantum event
(or similar) - which breaks no known laws of physics.
Unlike the unnecessary, unevidenced and unjustified, maximally defined
magical superbeing with its equally unjustified attributes like
omnipotence that creationists plucked out of their arses to insist did
it.
Post by hleopold
Or some kid with his HeathKit Build-A-Universe kit in the next universe up.
I just wish these idiots would bother to learn something about what
they attack out of ignorance.
Mark Vuletic goes into what I just described, including quotes from
leading physicists.
The only problem, is that the loonies will imagine this is
atheist-specific because theists leave it to us to explain it...
https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
A***@gmail.com
2018-01-14 01:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
God creates and seals the energies of our closed universe just as he did in
Genesis chapters 1 and 2. The first law and the second law were created
simultaneously and affect the rest of creation until Jesus returns and that
will happen soon.
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-14 06:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
God creates and seals the energies of our closed universe just as he did in
Genesis chapters 1 and 2. The first law and the second law were created
.> simultaneously and affect the rest of creation until Jesus returns and that
Post by A***@gmail.com
will happen soon.
Get in line, get in line. And no pushing.

--- https://tinyurl.com/yd26t6b4


AA
Tim
2018-01-14 08:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@gmail.com
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
God creates and seals the energies of our closed universe just as he did in
Genesis chapters 1 and 2.
That can't be. The universe is still evolving after 13.8 billion years. Your Ye Olde Book O'Myths says that god started and finished the while thing in 6 days.
Post by A***@gmail.com
The first law and the second law were created
simultaneously and affect the rest of creation until Jesus returns and that
will happen soon.
But the first law says that energy can't be created. So your creation myth is wrong.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-14 03:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 18:56:28 -0500, Bob Wardlaw <"Bob
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
I understand perfectly, imbecile.

There is simply no symmetry, and no reason even to suggest one.

Especially when you have been given natural explanations so there is
no reason to add one to the mix.

Not to mention that you can't rule out an infinite number of equally
unjustified ideas, imbecile.

Please engage brain before operating mouth.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
Read what you have now ignored several times. It's still at the bottom
of the article.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
It contradicts the first law.
Explain exactly how.
He can't.

He's already blocked out responses refuting his nonsense.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Unless there is an incontrovertible and undisputed
empirical evidence of another explanation, then this deity has to be
falsified.
What a fucking moron.

You rephrase baseless claims in the negative - and falsify the
negative by providing the absent evidence.

For example, two kids in the schoolyard....

"My Dad just bought a Lamborghini"

"Prove it" - "come round tonight, he'll drive you home in it
afterwards" - "Cool"

vs

"Prove he didn't".
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Unless you were
Post by Christopher A. Lee
brainwashed in childhood to believe in it.
This is one reason I consider myself to be agnostic. My father was
a universe professor and an diehard atheist. My mother, a high school
science teacher. I never knew her religious feelings, since she never
discussed it out of fear and impatience of my father. So, no I was never
brainwashed unless my fear for my dad made me such in my childhood.
He was a vile, hateful, abusive human being who I didn't want to be
like.
Irrelevant.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
What's wrong with these morons? They're stuck in 19th century ideas of
causality.
The laws of thermodynamics were formulated before anybody knew about
relativity, let alone radioactivity or quantum mechanics.
Does this, you say, somehow change the effect of the second law?
Whoever said it did?

What it actually is, not what you want it to be.

And why did you ignore the following?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
After Einstein, mass had to be added to them. And they haven't caught
up with the fact that quantum physics knows about particles appearing
ex nihilo, which "borrow" the necessary energy and "pay it back" at
the end of their life.
The laws are simply part of the history of science. The only time
they're mentioned as such, is either in high school to students
learning about it, or in books and articles for the ignorant layman,
because those working with thermodynamics use the underlying
principles.
Not to mention, that the universe is considered to have a zero sum
over its lifetime, just like the virtual particles (which is a
misnomer, they're actually real).
So the most parsimonious of the various scenarios suggested by
cosmologists, is that the big bang was the result of a quantum event
(or similar) - which breaks no known laws of physics.
And does not require initial energy to "come from somewhere".
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Unlike the unnecessary, unevidenced and unjustified, maximally defined
magical superbeing with its equally unjustified attributes like
omnipotence that creationists plucked out of their arses to insist did
it.
Couldn't address any of this?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by hleopold
Or some kid with his HeathKit Build-A-Universe kit in the next universe up.
I just wish these idiots would bother to learn something about what
they attack out of ignorance.
Mark Vuletic goes into what I just described, including quotes from
leading physicists.
The only problem, is that the loonies will imagine this is
atheist-specific because theists leave it to us to explain it...
https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
And the loonie ignored it, yet again.
Tim
2018-01-14 08:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed. It can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity suggests that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts the first law.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
It contradicts the first law.
Explain exactly how.
Many claim that this deity is self-caused. But if this deity indeed exists, then it is some form of energy. Self-caused energy contradicts the first law.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-14 11:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
And there is no reason whatsoever to posit one, especially when there
are already perfectly natural explanations which don't require it.

You keep leaving out the "reasons" to propose one - pre-existing
religious belief.

You need something better than that, but all you have is the argument
from ignorance.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed.
It can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity
suggests that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts
the first law.
And it was formulated before anybody knew about quantum mechanics,
which has experimental verification of particles forming ex nihilo.
This was predicted as a consequence of Dirac's and Heisenberg's work.

Google the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift or Bell's inequalities.

These particles have a zero sum over their lifetime, so conservation
is maintained by taking this into account.

And the universe is considered to have a zero sum over its lifetime.

So cosmologists have come up with scenarios where there is _no_
pre-existing matter or energy.

And which make minimal extrapolation from current knowledge.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
A god is merely one out of a potentially infinite number of
unjustified and un-necessary propositions, and none of these morons
have ever explained why that one should be singled out from all the
others. Especially when it's the god from somebody else's religion.

They _first_ have to demonstrate that it's more than just somebody
else's religious belief.

And why it is somehow equivalent to the falsifiable default for
baseless claims - "no it ain't, prove it", when there is simply no
symmetry.

Especially when there are perfectly natural explanations without
invoking one, which are minimal extrapolations from what is already
known.

It's like claiming there is symmetry between Russell's hypothetical
teapot in the orbit of Pluto, and "no there isn't". And adding a whole
slew of equally unjustified attributes to it, like omnipotence.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
It contradicts the first law.
Explain exactly how.
Many claim that this deity is self-caused. But if this deity indeed exists,
then it is some form of energy. Self-caused energy contradicts the first law.
It doesn't even get that far. The universe of space time expanded from
the big bang. So it would have had to happen inside itself, before
there was anything for it to happen in.

These idiots are so hung up on "it was created" that they imagine "a
god created the universe" and a recursive "the universe created
itself" are the only alternatives.

When cosmology doesn't require it to be created,

He has been given this link several times, but ignored it....

https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

It's unfortunate that it is on an atheist web site. It shouldn't be up
to atheists to correct nonsense from the ignorant, about leading edge
scientific understanding that is nothing to do with atheism.

But it gives them a dishonest excuse to keep ignoring it.
Bob Wardlaw
2018-01-14 18:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
And there is no reason whatsoever to posit one, especially when there
are already perfectly natural explanations which don't require it.
But these natural explanations are just hypothetical including the article
you referenced by Mark I. Vuletic as well as with an anti-theistic
motivation as he implies in the title Creation ex nihilo - Without God.

I studied the matter in greater depth, and developed a line of argument
which I pursued in the first entry of my Defender's Guide to Science and
Creationism. However, I neglected to revise the first version of this
article; this update rectifies that problem.
What was the problem his update supposedly rectifies? The shortcomings
he imagines in his first article. Which no doubt is to establish
a creation ex nihilo.
In Discover Magazine from September 2009 is an article where
the British scientist, Roger Penrose in an interview raises serious
objections to quantum mechanics. He points out that things are "crazy"
where a cat can be dead and alive at the same time, and where an object
can be several places at the same time. He further states that "when you
accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics, you have to give up the idea
of space-time as we know it from Einstein. You come up with something
that just isn't right."
He further points out, that people don't want to change the
Schrodinger equation leading them to what is called the 'many worlds'
interpretation of quantum mechanics. He adds You're led into this many
world stuff, which has no relationship to what we can actually
perceive.,,, my own view that quantium mechanics is not exactly right
and I think there's
a lot of evidence in that, it's just not experimental evidence within
the scope of current experiments."
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep leaving out the "reasons" to propose one - pre-existing
religious belief.
Obviously a pre-existing anti-religious belief existed in the mind of
your referenced writer. He relies on pure hypothesis much of which makes
little sense such as something can come from nothing and that the
universe, but then So, the contention is that the "nothing" of physics
is not nothingness. Then he writes "Quote [Q5] may seem, at first
glance, to bear this out. I contend that that is a misreading—Morris is
just trying to say that space never is truly empty—but we need not get
into an exegetical dispute here, since it is quite true that on
Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum vacuum fluctuations
occur in a preexisting spacetime.".
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need something better than that, but all you have is the argument
from ignorance.
"Ignorance" we are all ignorant in this regard. But much of you
references is "crazy" In his article where the universe could have come
about from nothing which is really not nothing, but rather virtual
particle generated in
a quantium vacium fluctuaations. This is unproven
nonsense which if true falsifies the Big Bang origin of the universe
which has far more supporting evidence than a universe arising as
Mark I. Vuletic describes it.
.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed.
It can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity
suggests that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts
the first law.
During the first 10^-43 seconds after the big bang "Planck Time" modern
laws of physics do not apply. The four fundamental forces are presumed
to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time
are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity.
Nothing is known of this period. So, the four fundamental forces needed
to be in place before the modern laws of physics.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it was formulated before anybody knew about quantum mechanics,
which has experimental verification of particles forming ex nihilo.
This was predicted as a consequence of Dirac's and Heisenberg's work.
In the article I referenced above, Penrose names several physics who
were skeptics
of the quantum mechanics including "Paul Dirac which is surprising
because it was Dirac who set up whole foundation, the general framework
of quantum mechanics."
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Google the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift or Bell's inequalities.
These particles have a zero sum over their lifetime, so conservation
is maintained by taking this into account.
And the universe is considered to have a zero sum over its lifetime.
This of course is all hypothetical based on quantity mechanics which
itself is hypothetical with little or no chance of verification.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
So cosmologists have come up with scenarios where there is _no_
pre-existing matter or energy.
And which make minimal extrapolation from current knowledge.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
A god is merely one out of a potentially infinite number of
unjustified and un-necessary propositions, and none of these morons
have ever explained why that one should be singled out from all the
others. Especially when it's the god from somebody else's religion.
As I've observed you referenced Mark l. Vuletic who from the beginning
had an anti religious motivation. He had the desire to have a creation
without God. So, he appealed the quantum mechanics which is not
testable in any present day lab or experimentation. So, under such
circumstances and with a pre-set motivation there is only the
limitations of imagination.
.
So, I think that agnosticism is the only rational position one can take.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They _first_ have to demonstrate that it's more than just somebody
else's religious belief.
And why it is somehow equivalent to the falsifiable default for
baseless claims - "no it ain't, prove it", when there is simply no
symmetry.
Especially when there are perfectly natural explanations without
invoking one, which are minimal extrapolations from what is already
known.
It's like claiming there is symmetry between Russell's hypothetical
teapot in the orbit of Pluto, and "no there isn't". And adding a whole
slew of equally unjustified attributes to it, like omnipotence.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
It contradicts the first law.
Explain exactly how.
Many claim that this deity is self-caused. But if this deity indeed exists,
then it is some form of energy. Self-caused energy contradicts the first law.
It doesn't even get that far. The universe of space time expanded from
the big bang. So it would have had to happen inside itself, before
there was anything for it to happen in.
These idiots are so hung up on "it was created" that they imagine "a
god created the universe" and a recursive "the universe created
itself" are the only alternatives.
When cosmology doesn't require it to be created,
He has been given this link several times, but ignored it....
https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
It's unfortunate that it is on an atheist web site. It shouldn't be up
to atheists to correct nonsense from the ignorant, about leading edge
scientific understanding that is nothing to do with atheism.
But it gives them a dishonest excuse to keep ignoring it.
Tim
2018-01-14 18:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
And there is no reason whatsoever to posit one, especially when there
are already perfectly natural explanations which don't require it.
But these natural explanations are just hypothetical including the article
you referenced by Mark I. Vuletic as well as with an anti-theistic
motivation as he implies in the title Creation ex nihilo - Without God.
I studied the matter in greater depth, and developed a line of argument
which I pursued in the first entry of my Defender's Guide to Science and
Creationism. However, I neglected to revise the first version of this
article; this update rectifies that problem.
What was the problem his update supposedly rectifies? The shortcomings
he imagines in his first article. Which no doubt is to establish
a creation ex nihilo.
In Discover Magazine from September 2009 is an article where
the British scientist, Roger Penrose in an interview raises serious
objections to quantum mechanics. He points out that things are "crazy"
where a cat can be dead and alive at the same time, and where an object
can be several places at the same time. He further states that "when you
accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics, you have to give up the idea
of space-time as we know it from Einstein. You come up with something
that just isn't right."
He further points out, that people don't want to change the
Schrodinger equation leading them to what is called the 'many worlds'
interpretation of quantum mechanics. He adds You're led into this many
world stuff, which has no relationship to what we can actually
perceive.,,, my own view that quantium mechanics is not exactly right
and I think there's
a lot of evidence in that, it's just not experimental evidence within
the scope of current experiments."
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep leaving out the "reasons" to propose one - pre-existing
religious belief.
Obviously a pre-existing anti-religious belief existed in the mind of
your referenced writer. He relies on pure hypothesis much of which makes
little sense such as something can come from nothing and that the
universe, but then So, the contention is that the "nothing" of physics
is not nothingness. Then he writes "Quote [Q5] may seem, at first
glance, to bear this out. I contend that that is a misreading—Morris is
just trying to say that space never is truly empty—but we need not get
into an exegetical dispute here, since it is quite true that on
Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum vacuum fluctuations
occur in a preexisting spacetime.".
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need something better than that, but all you have is the argument
from ignorance.
"Ignorance" we are all ignorant in this regard. But much of you
references is "crazy" In his article where the universe could have come
about from nothing which is really not nothing, but rather virtual
particle generated in
a quantium vacium fluctuaations. This is unproven
nonsense which if true falsifies the Big Bang origin of the universe
which has far more supporting evidence than a universe arising as
Mark I. Vuletic describes it.
.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed.
It can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity
suggests that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts
the first law.
During the first 10^-43 seconds after the big bang "Planck Time" modern
laws of physics do not apply. The four fundamental forces are presumed
to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time
are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity.
Nothing is known of this period.
So if nothing is known one can invoke any reason. And god is no better than nihil ex nihilo.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
So, the four fundamental forces needed
to be in place before the modern laws of physics.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it was formulated before anybody knew about quantum mechanics,
which has experimental verification of particles forming ex nihilo.
This was predicted as a consequence of Dirac's and Heisenberg's work.
In the article I referenced above, Penrose names several physics who
were skeptics
of the quantum mechanics including "Paul Dirac which is surprising
because it was Dirac who set up whole foundation, the general framework
of quantum mechanics."
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Google the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift or Bell's inequalities.
These particles have a zero sum over their lifetime, so conservation
is maintained by taking this into account.
And the universe is considered to have a zero sum over its lifetime.
This of course is all hypothetical based on quantity mechanics which
itself is hypothetical with little or no chance of verification.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
So cosmologists have come up with scenarios where there is _no_
pre-existing matter or energy.
And which make minimal extrapolation from current knowledge.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
A god is merely one out of a potentially infinite number of
unjustified and un-necessary propositions, and none of these morons
have ever explained why that one should be singled out from all the
others. Especially when it's the god from somebody else's religion.
As I've observed you referenced Mark l. Vuletic who from the beginning
had an anti religious motivation. He had the desire to have a creation
without God. So, he appealed the quantum mechanics which is not
testable in any present day lab or experimentation. So, under such
circumstances and with a pre-set motivation there is only the
limitations of imagination.
.
So, I think that agnosticism is the only rational position one can take.
Agnosticism pertains to knowledge. Obviously, as of yet we don't know what happened. Atheism pertains to belief. If, as you said above, we know nothing of the events right at and just after the big bang, how does one arrive at a belief in gods? Where is the justification for such a belief?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They _first_ have to demonstrate that it's more than just somebody
else's religious belief.
And why it is somehow equivalent to the falsifiable default for
baseless claims - "no it ain't, prove it", when there is simply no
symmetry.
Especially when there are perfectly natural explanations without
invoking one, which are minimal extrapolations from what is already
known.
It's like claiming there is symmetry between Russell's hypothetical
teapot in the orbit of Pluto, and "no there isn't". And adding a whole
slew of equally unjustified attributes to it, like omnipotence.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
It contradicts the first law.
Explain exactly how.
Many claim that this deity is self-caused. But if this deity indeed exists,
then it is some form of energy. Self-caused energy contradicts the first law.
It doesn't even get that far. The universe of space time expanded from
the big bang. So it would have had to happen inside itself, before
there was anything for it to happen in.
These idiots are so hung up on "it was created" that they imagine "a
god created the universe" and a recursive "the universe created
itself" are the only alternatives.
When cosmology doesn't require it to be created,
He has been given this link several times, but ignored it....
https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
It's unfortunate that it is on an atheist web site. It shouldn't be up
to atheists to correct nonsense from the ignorant, about leading edge
scientific understanding that is nothing to do with atheism.
But it gives them a dishonest excuse to keep ignoring it.
Bob Wardlaw
2018-01-14 23:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
And there is no reason whatsoever to posit one, especially when there
are already perfectly natural explanations which don't require it.
But these natural explanations are just hypothetical including the article
you referenced by Mark I. Vuletic as well as with an anti-theistic
motivation as he implies in the title Creation ex nihilo - Without God.
I studied the matter in greater depth, and developed a line of argument
which I pursued in the first entry of my Defender's Guide to Science and
Creationism. However, I neglected to revise the first version of this
article; this update rectifies that problem.
What was the problem his update supposedly rectifies? The shortcomings
he imagines in his first article. Which no doubt is to establish
a creation ex nihilo.
In Discover Magazine from September 2009 is an article where
the British scientist, Roger Penrose in an interview raises serious
objections to quantum mechanics. He points out that things are "crazy"
where a cat can be dead and alive at the same time, and where an object
can be several places at the same time. He further states that "when you
accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics, you have to give up the idea
of space-time as we know it from Einstein. You come up with something
that just isn't right."
He further points out, that people don't want to change the
Schrodinger equation leading them to what is called the 'many worlds'
interpretation of quantum mechanics. He adds You're led into this many
world stuff, which has no relationship to what we can actually
perceive.,,, my own view that quantium mechanics is not exactly right
and I think there's
a lot of evidence in that, it's just not experimental evidence within
the scope of current experiments."
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep leaving out the "reasons" to propose one - pre-existing
religious belief.
Obviously a pre-existing anti-religious belief existed in the mind of
your referenced writer. He relies on pure hypothesis much of which makes
little sense such as something can come from nothing and that the
universe, but then So, the contention is that the "nothing" of physics
is not nothingness. Then he writes "Quote [Q5] may seem, at first
glance, to bear this out. I contend that that is a misreading—Morris is
just trying to say that space never is truly empty—but we need not get
into an exegetical dispute here, since it is quite true that on
Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum vacuum fluctuations
occur in a preexisting spacetime.".
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need something better than that, but all you have is the argument
from ignorance.
"Ignorance" we are all ignorant in this regard. But much of you
references is "crazy" In his article where the universe could have come
about from nothing which is really not nothing, but rather virtual
particle generated in
a quantium vacium fluctuaations. This is unproven
nonsense which if true falsifies the Big Bang origin of the universe
which has far more supporting evidence than a universe arising as
Mark I. Vuletic describes it.
.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed.
It can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity
suggests that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts
the first law.
During the first 10^-43 seconds after the big bang "Planck Time" modern
laws of physics do not apply. The four fundamental forces are presumed
to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time
are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity.
Nothing is known of this period.
So if nothing is known one can invoke any reason. And god is no better than nihil ex nihilo.
For 20 years or so, I've been agnostic simply because God can
neither be proven nor falsified. However, at present the
universe is increasing in entropy and eventually it will
reach equilibrium and no energy for stars or work. So, at some
point entropy must have been at zero and energy at maximum.
Maybe prior to Plank Time. We don't know for certain where
this energy came from. But I doubt the quantum mechanical
unproven hypothesizes. Unless God is discounted then this
has as much going for it as anything else. Which is exactly
what atheist do without warrant or justification.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
So, the four fundamental forces needed
to be in place before the modern laws of physics.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it was formulated before anybody knew about quantum mechanics,
which has experimental verification of particles forming ex nihilo.
This was predicted as a consequence of Dirac's and Heisenberg's work.
In the article I referenced above, Penrose names several physics who
were skeptics
of the quantum mechanics including "Paul Dirac which is surprising
because it was Dirac who set up whole foundation, the general framework
of quantum mechanics."
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Google the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift or Bell's inequalities.
These particles have a zero sum over their lifetime, so conservation
is maintained by taking this into account.
And the universe is considered to have a zero sum over its lifetime.
This of course is all hypothetical based on quantity mechanics which
itself is hypothetical with little or no chance of verification.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
So cosmologists have come up with scenarios where there is _no_
pre-existing matter or energy.
And which make minimal extrapolation from current knowledge.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
A god is merely one out of a potentially infinite number of
unjustified and un-necessary propositions, and none of these morons
have ever explained why that one should be singled out from all the
others. Especially when it's the god from somebody else's religion.
As I've observed you referenced Mark l. Vuletic who from the beginning
had an anti religious motivation. He had the desire to have a creation
without God. So, he appealed the quantum mechanics which is not
testable in any present day lab or experimentation. So, under such
circumstances and with a pre-set motivation there is only the
limitations of imagination.
.
So, I think that agnosticism is the only rational position one can take.
Agnosticism pertains to knowledge. Obviously, as of yet we don't know what happened. Atheism pertains to belief. If, as you said above, we know nothing of the events right at and just after the big bang, how does one arrive at a belief in gods? Where is the justification for such a belief?
The default position is we don't know. However, the evidence in my
view does not rule God out. The existence and the universality of
homeobox genes gives me reason to think design is at play here.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They _first_ have to demonstrate that it's more than just somebody
else's religious belief.
And why it is somehow equivalent to the falsifiable default for
baseless claims - "no it ain't, prove it", when there is simply no
symmetry.
Especially when there are perfectly natural explanations without
invoking one, which are minimal extrapolations from what is already
known.
It's like claiming there is symmetry between Russell's hypothetical
teapot in the orbit of Pluto, and "no there isn't". And adding a whole
slew of equally unjustified attributes to it, like omnipotence.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
It contradicts the first law.
Explain exactly how.
Many claim that this deity is self-caused. But if this deity indeed exists,
then it is some form of energy. Self-caused energy contradicts the first law.
It doesn't even get that far. The universe of space time expanded from
the big bang. So it would have had to happen inside itself, before
there was anything for it to happen in.
These idiots are so hung up on "it was created" that they imagine "a
god created the universe" and a recursive "the universe created
itself" are the only alternatives.
When cosmology doesn't require it to be created,
He has been given this link several times, but ignored it....
https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
It's unfortunate that it is on an atheist web site. It shouldn't be up
to atheists to correct nonsense from the ignorant, about leading edge
scientific understanding that is nothing to do with atheism.
But it gives them a dishonest excuse to keep ignoring it.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-15 00:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:43:26 -0500, Bob Wardlaw <"Bob
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
And there is no reason whatsoever to posit one, especially when there
are already perfectly natural explanations which don't require it.
But these natural explanations are just hypothetical including the article
you referenced by Mark I. Vuletic as well as with an anti-theistic
motivation as he implies in the title Creation ex nihilo - Without God.
I studied the matter in greater depth, and developed a line of argument
which I pursued in the first entry of my Defender's Guide to Science and
Creationism. However, I neglected to revise the first version of this
article; this update rectifies that problem.
What was the problem his update supposedly rectifies? The shortcomings
he imagines in his first article. Which no doubt is to establish
a creation ex nihilo.
In Discover Magazine from September 2009 is an article where
the British scientist, Roger Penrose in an interview raises serious
objections to quantum mechanics. He points out that things are "crazy"
where a cat can be dead and alive at the same time, and where an object
can be several places at the same time. He further states that "when you
accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics, you have to give up the idea
of space-time as we know it from Einstein. You come up with something
that just isn't right."
He further points out, that people don't want to change the
Schrodinger equation leading them to what is called the 'many worlds'
interpretation of quantum mechanics. He adds You're led into this many
world stuff, which has no relationship to what we can actually
perceive.,,, my own view that quantium mechanics is not exactly right
and I think there's
a lot of evidence in that, it's just not experimental evidence within
the scope of current experiments."
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep leaving out the "reasons" to propose one - pre-existing
religious belief.
Obviously a pre-existing anti-religious belief existed in the mind of
your referenced writer. He relies on pure hypothesis much of which makes
little sense such as something can come from nothing and that the
universe, but then So, the contention is that the "nothing" of physics
is not nothingness. Then he writes "Quote [Q5] may seem, at first
glance, to bear this out. I contend that that is a misreading—Morris is
just trying to say that space never is truly empty—but we need not get
into an exegetical dispute here, since it is quite true that on
Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum vacuum fluctuations
occur in a preexisting spacetime.".
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need something better than that, but all you have is the argument
from ignorance.
"Ignorance" we are all ignorant in this regard. But much of you
references is "crazy" In his article where the universe could have come
about from nothing which is really not nothing, but rather virtual
particle generated in
a quantium vacium fluctuaations. This is unproven
nonsense which if true falsifies the Big Bang origin of the universe
which has far more supporting evidence than a universe arising as
Mark I. Vuletic describes it.
.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed.
It can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity
suggests that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts
the first law.
During the first 10^-43 seconds after the big bang "Planck Time" modern
laws of physics do not apply. The four fundamental forces are presumed
to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time
are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity.
Nothing is known of this period.
So if nothing is known one can invoke any reason. And god is no better than nihil ex nihilo.
For 20 years or so, I've been agnostic simply because God can
neither be proven nor falsified.
There's no reason even to propose it, imbecile.

Let alone single that baseless claim out from all the gajillions of
other equally baseless claims.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
However, at present the
universe is increasing in entropy and eventually it will
reach equilibrium and no energy for stars or work. So, at some
point entropy must have been at zero and energy at maximum.
Maybe prior to Plank Time. We don't know for certain where
this energy came from. But I doubt the quantum mechanical
unproven hypothesizes. Unless God is discounted then this
has as much going for it as anything else. Which is exactly
what atheist do without warrant or justification.
Stop lying, proven serial liar - it's nothing to do with atheism. So
why do you keep repeating this lie?

Why don't you at least try to provide as much scientific evidence for
your imaginary magical superbeing as there is for the results from
quantum mechanics?
Bob Wardlaw
2018-01-15 02:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:43:26 -0500, Bob Wardlaw <"Bob
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
And there is no reason whatsoever to posit one, especially when there
are already perfectly natural explanations which don't require it.
But these natural explanations are just hypothetical including the article
you referenced by Mark I. Vuletic as well as with an anti-theistic
motivation as he implies in the title Creation ex nihilo - Without God.
I studied the matter in greater depth, and developed a line of argument
which I pursued in the first entry of my Defender's Guide to Science and
Creationism. However, I neglected to revise the first version of this
article; this update rectifies that problem.
What was the problem his update supposedly rectifies? The shortcomings
he imagines in his first article. Which no doubt is to establish
a creation ex nihilo.
In Discover Magazine from September 2009 is an article where
the British scientist, Roger Penrose in an interview raises serious
objections to quantum mechanics. He points out that things are "crazy"
where a cat can be dead and alive at the same time, and where an object
can be several places at the same time. He further states that "when you
accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics, you have to give up the idea
of space-time as we know it from Einstein. You come up with something
that just isn't right."
He further points out, that people don't want to change the
Schrodinger equation leading them to what is called the 'many worlds'
interpretation of quantum mechanics. He adds You're led into this many
world stuff, which has no relationship to what we can actually
perceive.,,, my own view that quantium mechanics is not exactly right
and I think there's
a lot of evidence in that, it's just not experimental evidence within
the scope of current experiments."
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep leaving out the "reasons" to propose one - pre-existing
religious belief.
Obviously a pre-existing anti-religious belief existed in the mind of
your referenced writer. He relies on pure hypothesis much of which makes
little sense such as something can come from nothing and that the
universe, but then So, the contention is that the "nothing" of physics
is not nothingness. Then he writes "Quote [Q5] may seem, at first
glance, to bear this out. I contend that that is a misreading—Morris is
just trying to say that space never is truly empty—but we need not get
into an exegetical dispute here, since it is quite true that on
Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum vacuum fluctuations
occur in a preexisting spacetime.".
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need something better than that, but all you have is the argument
from ignorance.
"Ignorance" we are all ignorant in this regard. But much of you
references is "crazy" In his article where the universe could have come
about from nothing which is really not nothing, but rather virtual
particle generated in
a quantium vacium fluctuaations. This is unproven
nonsense which if true falsifies the Big Bang origin of the universe
which has far more supporting evidence than a universe arising as
Mark I. Vuletic describes it.
.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed.
It can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity
suggests that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts
the first law.
During the first 10^-43 seconds after the big bang "Planck Time" modern
laws of physics do not apply. The four fundamental forces are presumed
to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time
are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity.
Nothing is known of this period.
So if nothing is known one can invoke any reason. And god is no better than nihil ex nihilo.
For 20 years or so, I've been agnostic simply because God can
neither be proven nor falsified.
There's no reason even to propose it, imbecile.
Good bye Mr. Lee!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Let alone single that baseless claim out from all the gajillions of
other equally baseless claims.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
However, at present the
universe is increasing in entropy and eventually it will
reach equilibrium and no energy for stars or work. So, at some
point entropy must have been at zero and energy at maximum.
Maybe prior to Plank Time. We don't know for certain where
this energy came from. But I doubt the quantum mechanical
unproven hypothesizes. Unless God is discounted then this
has as much going for it as anything else. Which is exactly
what atheist do without warrant or justification.
Stop lying, proven serial liar - it's nothing to do with atheism. So
why do you keep repeating this lie?
Why don't you at least try to provide as much scientific evidence for
your imaginary magical superbeing as there is for the results from
quantum mechanics?
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-15 02:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 21:00:24 -0500, Bob Wardlaw <"Bob
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:43:26 -0500, Bob Wardlaw <"Bob
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
And there is no reason whatsoever to posit one, especially when there
are already perfectly natural explanations which don't require it.
But these natural explanations are just hypothetical including the article
you referenced by Mark I. Vuletic as well as with an anti-theistic
motivation as he implies in the title Creation ex nihilo - Without God.
I studied the matter in greater depth, and developed a line of argument
which I pursued in the first entry of my Defender's Guide to Science and
Creationism. However, I neglected to revise the first version of this
article; this update rectifies that problem.
What was the problem his update supposedly rectifies? The shortcomings
he imagines in his first article. Which no doubt is to establish
a creation ex nihilo.
In Discover Magazine from September 2009 is an article where
the British scientist, Roger Penrose in an interview raises serious
objections to quantum mechanics. He points out that things are "crazy"
where a cat can be dead and alive at the same time, and where an object
can be several places at the same time. He further states that "when you
accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics, you have to give up the idea
of space-time as we know it from Einstein. You come up with something
that just isn't right."
He further points out, that people don't want to change the
Schrodinger equation leading them to what is called the 'many worlds'
interpretation of quantum mechanics. He adds You're led into this many
world stuff, which has no relationship to what we can actually
perceive.,,, my own view that quantium mechanics is not exactly right
and I think there's
a lot of evidence in that, it's just not experimental evidence within
the scope of current experiments."
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep leaving out the "reasons" to propose one - pre-existing
religious belief.
Obviously a pre-existing anti-religious belief existed in the mind of
your referenced writer. He relies on pure hypothesis much of which makes
little sense such as something can come from nothing and that the
universe, but then So, the contention is that the "nothing" of physics
is not nothingness. Then he writes "Quote [Q5] may seem, at first
glance, to bear this out. I contend that that is a misreading—Morris is
just trying to say that space never is truly empty—but we need not get
into an exegetical dispute here, since it is quite true that on
Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum vacuum fluctuations
occur in a preexisting spacetime.".
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need something better than that, but all you have is the argument
from ignorance.
"Ignorance" we are all ignorant in this regard. But much of you
references is "crazy" In his article where the universe could have come
about from nothing which is really not nothing, but rather virtual
particle generated in
a quantium vacium fluctuaations. This is unproven
nonsense which if true falsifies the Big Bang origin of the universe
which has far more supporting evidence than a universe arising as
Mark I. Vuletic describes it.
.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed.
It can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity
suggests that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts
the first law.
During the first 10^-43 seconds after the big bang "Planck Time" modern
laws of physics do not apply. The four fundamental forces are presumed
to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time
are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity.
Nothing is known of this period.
So if nothing is known one can invoke any reason. And god is no better than nihil ex nihilo.
Except that it is totally unjustified. At least quantum effects are
known so there is minimal extrapolation from existing knowledge.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
For 20 years or so, I've been agnostic simply because God can
neither be proven nor falsified.
There's no reason even to propose it, imbecile.
WHAT FUCKING GOD, question-begging moron? It's the theist's
pre-existing belief that they and only they take seriously
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Good bye Mr. Lee!
I'm not the hypocrite who resorts to personal lies as ad hominems to
avoid addressing what people take the time and trouble to explain.

Nor am I the idiot who expects people to single out his religious
belief from a potentially infinite number of equally unjustified
beliefs and treat it differentially from the rest.

Or even the arrogant individual who crashes a group where he has no
business, spouting deliberate ignorance and taking no notice when
people show him why he's wrong and then whines when he reaps what he
sows.

Let alone the person who lies that leading edge science is anything to
do with atheism.

If you can't be honest, then go away and don't come back.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Let alone single that baseless claim out from all the gajillions of
other equally baseless claims.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
However, at present the
universe is increasing in entropy and eventually it will
reach equilibrium and no energy for stars or work. So, at some
point entropy must have been at zero and energy at maximum.
Maybe prior to Plank Time. We don't know for certain where
this energy came from. But I doubt the quantum mechanical
unproven hypothesizes. Unless God is discounted then this
WHAT FUCKING GOD, outside your religion, imbecile?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
has as much going for it as anything else. Which is exactly
what atheist do without warrant or justification.
Stop lying, proven serial liar - it's nothing to do with atheism. So
why do you keep repeating this lie?
Why don't you at least try to provide as much scientific evidence for
your imaginary magical superbeing as there is for the results from
quantum mechanics?
Then you might have something to say,

Instead, you run away.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-15 20:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 21:00:24 -0500, Bob Wardlaw <"Bob
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
For 20 years or so, I've been agnostic simply because God can
neither be proven nor falsified.
But then, neither have all the tens of thousands of other gods mankind
has ever believed in.

And you have never once explained why we should single yours out from
all the rest of them, let alone the potentially infinite number of
other unjustified beliefs we don't share.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There's no reason even to propose it, imbecile.
Good bye Mr. Lee!
I'm not the whining hypocrite who lies about why atheists accept
objective scientific research into origins, nor who lies about the
state of that research and turns nasty when he is corrected, nor who
repeats his original nonsense instead of addressing responses to it.

You simply reaped what you had sown - but if you had shown any honesty
and intelligence, you would have reaped what _that_ sowed, instead.

Which you have had explained several times.

And in a group set up by atheists for atheists to discuss our own
business,
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Let alone single that baseless claim out from all the gajillions of
other equally baseless claims.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
However, at present the
universe is increasing in entropy and eventually it will
reach equilibrium and no energy for stars or work. So, at some
point entropy must have been at zero and energy at maximum.
Maybe prior to Plank Time. We don't know for certain where
this energy came from. But I doubt the quantum mechanical
unproven hypothesizes. Unless God is discounted then this
has as much going for it as anything else. Which is exactly
what atheist do without warrant or justification.
Stop lying, proven serial liar - it's nothing to do with atheism. So
why do you keep repeating this lie?
Why don't you at least try to provide as much scientific evidence for
your imaginary magical superbeing as there is for the results from
quantum mechanics?
When you can't, you have no reason even to bring it up in the same
context.
Teresita
2018-01-15 02:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why don't you at least try to provide as much scientific evidence for
your imaginary magical superbeing as there is for the results from
quantum mechanics?
The problem for supernaturalists is worse than that. After they obtain
the evidence, they have to find a place in the Standard Model to put it.
And there's not much shelf space left.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Tim
2018-01-15 07:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
And there is no reason whatsoever to posit one, especially when there
are already perfectly natural explanations which don't require it.
But these natural explanations are just hypothetical including the article
you referenced by Mark I. Vuletic as well as with an anti-theistic
motivation as he implies in the title Creation ex nihilo - Without God.
I studied the matter in greater depth, and developed a line of argument
which I pursued in the first entry of my Defender's Guide to Science and
Creationism. However, I neglected to revise the first version of this
article; this update rectifies that problem.
What was the problem his update supposedly rectifies? The shortcomings
he imagines in his first article. Which no doubt is to establish
a creation ex nihilo.
In Discover Magazine from September 2009 is an article where
the British scientist, Roger Penrose in an interview raises serious
objections to quantum mechanics. He points out that things are "crazy"
where a cat can be dead and alive at the same time, and where an object
can be several places at the same time. He further states that "when you
accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics, you have to give up the idea
of space-time as we know it from Einstein. You come up with something
that just isn't right."
He further points out, that people don't want to change the
Schrodinger equation leading them to what is called the 'many worlds'
interpretation of quantum mechanics. He adds You're led into this many
world stuff, which has no relationship to what we can actually
perceive.,,, my own view that quantium mechanics is not exactly right
and I think there's
a lot of evidence in that, it's just not experimental evidence within
the scope of current experiments."
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep leaving out the "reasons" to propose one - pre-existing
religious belief.
Obviously a pre-existing anti-religious belief existed in the mind of
your referenced writer. He relies on pure hypothesis much of which makes
little sense such as something can come from nothing and that the
universe, but then So, the contention is that the "nothing" of physics
is not nothingness. Then he writes "Quote [Q5] may seem, at first
glance, to bear this out. I contend that that is a misreading—Morris is
just trying to say that space never is truly empty—but we need not get
into an exegetical dispute here, since it is quite true that on
Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum vacuum fluctuations
occur in a preexisting spacetime.".
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need something better than that, but all you have is the argument
from ignorance.
"Ignorance" we are all ignorant in this regard. But much of you
references is "crazy" In his article where the universe could have come
about from nothing which is really not nothing, but rather virtual
particle generated in
a quantium vacium fluctuaations. This is unproven
nonsense which if true falsifies the Big Bang origin of the universe
which has far more supporting evidence than a universe arising as
Mark I. Vuletic describes it.
.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed.
It can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity
suggests that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts
the first law.
During the first 10^-43 seconds after the big bang "Planck Time" modern
laws of physics do not apply. The four fundamental forces are presumed
to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time
are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity.
Nothing is known of this period.
So if nothing is known one can invoke any reason. And god is no better than nihil ex nihilo.
For 20 years or so, I've been agnostic simply because God can
neither be proven nor falsified.
Sure, but why believe in something that has no justification other than maybe?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
However, at present the
universe is increasing in entropy and eventually it will
reach equilibrium and no energy for stars or work. So, at some
point entropy must have been at zero and energy at maximum.
Maybe prior to Plank Time. We don't know for certain where
this energy came from. But I doubt the quantum mechanical
unproven hypothesizes. Unless God is discounted then this
has as much going for it as anything else. Which is exactly
what atheist do without warrant or justification.
Wrong, atheist don't believe in god due to a lack of justification for the belief. God is dismissed as a belief because there's no evidence for the belief.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
So, the four fundamental forces needed
to be in place before the modern laws of physics.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it was formulated before anybody knew about quantum mechanics,
which has experimental verification of particles forming ex nihilo.
This was predicted as a consequence of Dirac's and Heisenberg's work.
In the article I referenced above, Penrose names several physics who
were skeptics
of the quantum mechanics including "Paul Dirac which is surprising
because it was Dirac who set up whole foundation, the general framework
of quantum mechanics."
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Google the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift or Bell's inequalities.
These particles have a zero sum over their lifetime, so conservation
is maintained by taking this into account.
And the universe is considered to have a zero sum over its lifetime.
This of course is all hypothetical based on quantity mechanics which
itself is hypothetical with little or no chance of verification.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
So cosmologists have come up with scenarios where there is _no_
pre-existing matter or energy.
And which make minimal extrapolation from current knowledge.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
A god is merely one out of a potentially infinite number of
unjustified and un-necessary propositions, and none of these morons
have ever explained why that one should be singled out from all the
others. Especially when it's the god from somebody else's religion.
As I've observed you referenced Mark l. Vuletic who from the beginning
had an anti religious motivation. He had the desire to have a creation
without God. So, he appealed the quantum mechanics which is not
testable in any present day lab or experimentation. So, under such
circumstances and with a pre-set motivation there is only the
limitations of imagination.
.
So, I think that agnosticism is the only rational position one can take.
Agnosticism pertains to knowledge. Obviously, as of yet we don't know what happened. Atheism pertains to belief. If, as you said above, we know nothing of the events right at and just after the big bang, how does one arrive at a belief in gods? Where is the justification for such a belief?
The default position is we don't know.
Default position? Knowledge requires belief and that requires justification. If one lacks justification why believe?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
However, the evidence in my
view does not rule God out. The existence and the universality of
homeobox genes gives me reason to think design is at play here.
So which gods are ruled out here?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They _first_ have to demonstrate that it's more than just somebody
else's religious belief.
And why it is somehow equivalent to the falsifiable default for
baseless claims - "no it ain't, prove it", when there is simply no
symmetry.
Especially when there are perfectly natural explanations without
invoking one, which are minimal extrapolations from what is already
known.
It's like claiming there is symmetry between Russell's hypothetical
teapot in the orbit of Pluto, and "no there isn't". And adding a whole
slew of equally unjustified attributes to it, like omnipotence.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
It contradicts the first law.
Explain exactly how.
Many claim that this deity is self-caused. But if this deity indeed exists,
then it is some form of energy. Self-caused energy contradicts the first law.
It doesn't even get that far. The universe of space time expanded from
the big bang. So it would have had to happen inside itself, before
there was anything for it to happen in.
These idiots are so hung up on "it was created" that they imagine "a
god created the universe" and a recursive "the universe created
itself" are the only alternatives.
When cosmology doesn't require it to be created,
He has been given this link several times, but ignored it....
https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
It's unfortunate that it is on an atheist web site. It shouldn't be up
to atheists to correct nonsense from the ignorant, about leading edge
scientific understanding that is nothing to do with atheism.
But it gives them a dishonest excuse to keep ignoring it.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-15 21:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
You keep leaving out the "reasons" to propose one [a god] - pre-existing
religious belief.
Obviously a pre-existing anti-religious belief existed in the mind of
Obviously a lie. But that's pretty much all creationists have.
Including those who pretend they're agnostic about.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
your referenced writer. He relies on pure hypothesis much of which makes
little sense such as something can come from nothing and that the
universe, but then So, the contention is that the "nothing" of physics
is not nothingness. Then he writes "Quote [Q5] may seem, at first
glance, to bear this out. I contend that that is a misreading—Morris is
just trying to say that space never is truly empty—but we need not get
into an exegetical dispute here, since it is quite true that on
Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum vacuum fluctuations
occur in a preexisting spacetime.".
You need something better than that, but all you have is the argument
from ignorance.
"Ignorance" we are all ignorant in this regard. But much of you
references is "crazy" In his article where the universe could have come
about from nothing which is really not nothing, but rather virtual
particle generated in
a quantium vacium fluctuaations. This is unproven
nonsense which if true falsifies the Big Bang origin of the universe
which has far more supporting evidence than a universe arising as
Mark I. Vuletic describes it.
Was that meant to make any sense?
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
That's a non-sequitur.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed.
It can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity
suggests that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts
the first law.
During the first 10^-43 seconds after the big bang "Planck Time" modern
laws of physics do not apply. The four fundamental forces are presumed
to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time
are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity.
Nothing is known of this period.
So if nothing is known one can invoke any reason. And god is no better than nihil ex nihilo.
For 20 years or so, I've been agnostic simply because God can
neither be proven nor falsified.
Sure, but why believe in something that has no justification other than maybe?
Because he can't think outside that particular box.

He doesn't understand that it is merely one out of thousands of
competing god beliefs, let alone all the other weird and wonderful
beliefs we don't have.

So he imagines believing in it even though it is unproven (not to
mention un-necessary and having no reason even to propose it when
there are perfectly natural explanations) is somehow equivalent to the
falsifiable default of "until you provide the absent evidence, there's
no reason even to give it a thought" - which he oversimplifies into a
belief that isn't even there.

And instead of trying to understand that in the scientific arena which
is the only proven way of modelling reality, it isn't even there in
the negative as far as science and scientists are concerned until its
believers provide real world evidence. But he can't accept that there
is nothing to consider until that happens, and that only then is there
anything to be agnostic about.

So he lies about science, scientists and interested laymen who follow
the science he dislikes for religious reasons.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
However, at present the
universe is increasing in entropy and eventually it will
reach equilibrium and no energy for stars or work. So, at some
point entropy must have been at zero and energy at maximum.
Maybe prior to Plank Time. We don't know for certain where
this energy came from. But I doubt the quantum mechanical
unproven hypothesizes. Unless God is discounted then this
has as much going for it as anything else. Which is exactly
what atheist do without warrant or justification.
Wrong, atheist don't believe in god due to a lack of justification for
the belief. God is dismissed as a belief because there's no evidence
for the belief.
Like pretty well every theist who crashes this group, he misrepresents
atheists, ignores correction and turns into a whiningly nasty
hypocrite when he reaps what he sows.

Personal lies used as ad hominem attacks instead of addressing points,
stall any discussion.

So does trying to pick holes in objective science, out of nothing more
than wilful ignorance. This doesn't contribute anything either.
Especially when they have ignored or dismissed explanation and
repeated what has just been refuted.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
So, the four fundamental forces needed
to be in place before the modern laws of physics.
And it was formulated before anybody knew about quantum mechanics,
which has experimental verification of particles forming ex nihilo.
This was predicted as a consequence of Dirac's and Heisenberg's work.
In the article I referenced above, Penrose names several physics who
were skeptics
of the quantum mechanics including "Paul Dirac which is surprising
because it was Dirac who set up whole foundation, the general framework
of quantum mechanics."
Google the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift or Bell's inequalities.
These particles have a zero sum over their lifetime, so conservation
is maintained by taking this into account.
And the universe is considered to have a zero sum over its lifetime.
This of course is all hypothetical based on quantity mechanics which
itself is hypothetical with little or no chance of verification.
Does he seriously imagine Kasimir, Polder, Bell, Lamoreaux and others
working in the field, lied about their work including the experimental
validation of Kasimir's hypothesis?

Does he understand that eg modern disk drives use quantum effects? As
do integrated circuits.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
So cosmologists have come up with scenarios where there is _no_
pre-existing matter or energy.
And which make minimal extrapolation from current knowledge.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
Just like Russell's teapot in the orbit of Pluto.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
A god is merely one out of a potentially infinite number of
unjustified and un-necessary propositions, and none of these morons
have ever explained why that one should be singled out from all the
others. Especially when it's the god from somebody else's religion.
He has never once addressed this.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
As I've observed you referenced Mark l. Vuletic who from the beginning
had an anti religious motivation. He had the desire to have a creation
without God.
A stupid lie used as an ad hominem to avoid addressing the points.

The moron imagines that because he believes in it as part of his
religion, that makes it objectively real for everybody else.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
So, he appealed the quantum mechanics which is not
testable in any present day lab or experimentation. So, under such
circumstances and with a pre-set motivation there is only the
limitations of imagination.
This was the kind of lie I was taking about elsewhere.

Vuletic simply lives in the world of objective reality, not bronze age
myth and legend.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
So, I think that agnosticism is the only rational position one can take.
Agnosticism pertains to knowledge. Obviously, as of yet we don't know
what happened. Atheism pertains to belief. If, as you said above, we know
nothing of the events right at and just after the big bang, how does one
arrive at a belief in gods? Where is the justification for such a belief?
The default position is we don't know.
Bullshit.

That assumes a symmetry which isn't there.
Post by Tim
Default position? Knowledge requires belief and that requires justification. If one
lacks justification why believe?
If he had an IQ above about 90, he would realise that this is not
substantively different from "not knowing" about Krishna or
reincarnation, "not knowing" or any of the others.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
However, the evidence in my
view does not rule God out. The existence and the universality of
homeobox genes gives me reason to think design is at play here.
So which gods are ruled out here?
I don't think we'll ever get through to him.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-14 19:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:01:59 -0500, Bob Wardlaw <"Bob
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
And there is no reason whatsoever to posit one, especially when there
are already perfectly natural explanations which don't require it.
But these natural explanations are just hypothetical including the article
you referenced by Mark I. Vuletic as well as with an anti-theistic
motivation as he implies in the title Creation ex nihilo - Without God.
For the umpteenth time, imbecile, they are minimal extensions to what
is known.

Unlike the imaginary magical superbeing for which there is no
evidence, with a whole slew of equally unjustified powers, which you
plucked out of your arse.

And, again, nobody insists that any one of the natural explanations is
the right one - unlike your imaginary magical superbeing which
religious loonies insist did it in the real world beyond the mythology
of somebody else's religion.

Either provide as much evidence for it as there is for quantum events,
or crawl back into the woodwork.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
I studied the matter in greater depth, and developed a line of argument
which I pursued in the first entry of my Defender's Guide to Science and
Creationism. However, I neglected to revise the first version of this
article; this update rectifies that problem.
Creation is baseless bullshit derived from bronze age mythology. It is
an outright lie to call it science, because there is no creation
science at all. Just attacks on objective science by a combination of
the wilfully ignorant and the deliberate lies of their leaders.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
What was the problem his update supposedly rectifies? The shortcomings
he imagines in his first article. Which no doubt is to establish
a creation ex nihilo.
In Discover Magazine from September 2009 is an article where
the British scientist, Roger Penrose in an interview raises serious
objections to quantum mechanics. He points out that things are "crazy"
where a cat can be dead and alive at the same time, and where an object
can be several places at the same time. He further states that "when you
accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics, you have to give up the idea
of space-time as we know it from Einstein. You come up with something
that just isn't right."
Sounds like a stupid, dishonest distortion.

Even Erwin Shroedinger didn't say the cat was dead and alive at the
same time - it was a thought experiment to show ridiculous he felt the
Copenhagen interpretation was.

And it doesn't make the experimental results from quantum mechanics go
away, whatever you imagine.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
He further points out, that people don't want to change the
Schrodinger equation leading them to what is called the 'many worlds'
interpretation of quantum mechanics. He adds You're led into this many
world stuff, which has no relationship to what we can actually
perceive.,,, my own view that quantium mechanics is not exactly right
and I think there's
a lot of evidence in that, it's just not experimental evidence within
the scope of current experiments."
All it means, is that there are things we don't know, so we don't
insist that they happened that way.

But, and for the umpteenth time, this isn't the global "don't know"
that religious loonies imagine. It is within the bounds of what we
_do_ know.

And, again, nobody insists that any one of these _justified_ scenarios
is fact. The answer might lie in any one of them, or be something else
if new hypotheses are developed as the knowledge base is updated by
future observations or research.

Unlike the totally unjustified god that religious loonies insist did
it, to people outside their religion before they've even demonstrated
it to them.

You don't seem to understand that before you can claim your god in the
real world, you have to use the tools and methods of the real world -
ie in the scientific arena, you have to provide the absent scientific
evidence.

Which we all know you can't, because the information simply isn't
there so dishonest philosophers try to argue it into existence with
"proofs" amounting to nothing more than"spot the fallacy" exercises to
see where they try to generate it.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep leaving out the "reasons" to propose one - pre-existing
religious belief.
Obviously a pre-existing anti-religious belief existed in the mind of
your referenced writer.
A standard theist personal lie.

What do you imagine using lies ad hominems achieves, other than
telling us what a thoroughly and nastily dishonest person you are, as
well as an idiot trying to refute objective scientific research using
transparent fallacies?

Scientists, whether they are theist or atheist, don't even think of
religion when they "do" science, although a few dishonest one try to
reconcile their religious beliefs with their science when they talk
to a religious audience - which thinks their rationalisation is
scientific.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
He relies on pure hypothesis much of which makes
little sense such as something can come from nothing and that the
Are you pretending that Casimir, Polder and other physicists faked
their work? And that Lamoreaux and others were lying when they
experimentally verified it?

"SOMETHING FROM NOTHING" isn't "pure hypothesis", imbecile.

When it was first proposed as a conclusion from Heisenberg's and
Dirac's work, it was hypothesis - a justified, minimal extension from
what was already known.

But the hypothesis was confirmed experimentally.

Did you Google the Casimir Effect?

Or the Lamb Shift?

One of the regulars here, actually once worked in the same university
building at his university as Willis Lamb, although not in the same
department. He said that...

"I once worked in the same department as Willis did.
Not worked with him, mind, just in the same department, a couple
of floors down. In more than one sense.

"I did get to attend a lecture of his. It was on the problems
involved in quantum measurement. Takeaway: it ain't easy."
Post by Bob Wardlaw
universe, but then So, the contention is that the "nothing" of physics
is not nothingness. Then he writes "Quote [Q5] may seem, at first
glance, to bear this out. I contend that that is a misreading—Morris is
just trying to say that space never is truly empty—but we need not get
into an exegetical dispute here, since it is quite true that on
Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum vacuum fluctuations
occur in a preexisting spacetime.".
Notice that he doesn't insist that this particular model is the right
one, or that it is our spacetime.

It was the usual dishonest quote mining.

Do you honestly imagine that your wilful ignorance will make objective
results from quantum mechanics go away?

Instead of trying to pick holes in leading edge research, some of
which has won Nobel Prizes, why not provide as much evidence for the
god you want people to think did it, as there is for the results of
research into quantum mechanics?

_Before_ claiming it did anything at all, and trying to justify it
using the argument from your own personal ignorance?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need something better than that, but all you have is the argument
from ignorance.
"Ignorance" we are all ignorant in this regard. But much of you
references is "crazy" In his article where the universe could have come
about from nothing which is really not nothing, but rather virtual
particle generated in a quantium vacium fluctuaations. This is unproven
nonsense which if true falsifies the Big Bang origin of the universe
which has far more supporting evidence than a universe arising as
Mark I. Vuletic describes it.
Why can't you stop lying about this?

How come a minimal extrapolation from experimentally verified quantum
physics, is crazy - while insisting that a totally unjustified,
unevidenced and unnecessary imaginary magical superbeing from bronze
age mythology did it?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed.
It can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity
suggests that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts
the first law.
During the first 10^-43 seconds after the big bang "Planck Time" modern
laws of physics do not apply. The four fundamental forces are presumed
to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time
are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity.
Nothing is known of this period. So, the four fundamental forces needed
to be in place before the modern laws of physics.
No. Our understanding of the laws of physics breaks down.
The "holy grail" of physics is the unified "theory of everything"
which explains both the deterministic macro level and the statistical
quantum level. We will have to wait until this is found.

In the meantime, the scenarios described in the Vuletic article remain
_justified_ hypotheses. Why is it so hard to understand this, or that
nobody insists any one of them is the actual answer?

While your imaginary omnipotent magical superbeing that you insist is
the answer, has no justification whatsoever,

And that before you try to introduce it into the scientific arena, you
have to justify is scientifically?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it was formulated before anybody knew about quantum mechanics,
which has experimental verification of particles forming ex nihilo.
This was predicted as a consequence of Dirac's and Heisenberg's work.
In the article I referenced above, Penrose names several physics who
were skeptics
of the quantum mechanics including "Paul Dirac which is surprising
because it was Dirac who set up whole foundation, the general framework
of quantum mechanics."
So what?

Penrose isn't the last word on quantum mechanics, and its study has
come a long way since Paul Dirac.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Google the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift or Bell's inequalities.
These particles have a zero sum over their lifetime, so conservation
is maintained by taking this into account.
And the universe is considered to have a zero sum over its lifetime.
This of course is all hypothetical based on quantity mechanics which
itself is hypothetical with little or no chance of verification.
No liar. The quantum side of it has been experimentally verified.

And extending it to the formation of the universe is actually a
minimal extrapolation.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
So cosmologists have come up with scenarios where there is _no_
pre-existing matter or energy.
And which make minimal extrapolation from current knowledge.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
A god is merely one out of a potentially infinite number of
unjustified and un-necessary propositions, and none of these morons
have ever explained why that one should be singled out from all the
others. Especially when it's the god from somebody else's religion.
As I've observed you referenced Mark l. Vuletic who from the beginning
had an anti religious motivation.
A standard theist lie from a paranoid believer who cannot grasp even
if a scientist is theist, he leaves god(s) out of his science.

Because as far as science is concerned, they aren't there until
scientific evidence for them is provided.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
He had the desire to have a creation
without God.
STOP LYING, pathological liar.

Why is it so hard to understand just how irrelevant gods are outside
the specific context of what (in his case, and where you're posting
this nastiness) is *merely* *somebody* *else's* *religion*?

And that when theists practice science, they leave their god-beliefs
at the door?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
So, he appealed the quantum mechanics which is not
testable in any present day lab or experimentation.
Stop lying, pathological liar. He was describing the current state of
scientific knowledge.

And no matter how much you lie about it, try to dismiss it, etc, it
won't un-happen.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
So, under such
circumstances and with a pre-set motivation there is only the
limitations of imagination.
It's easier to lie about people, the state of scientific research
(which has provided everyday applications that even you take for
granted), etc than actually learn something about it.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
So, I think that agnosticism is the only rational position one can take.
Only because you're too stupid to understand that agnosticism and
atheism are orthogonal. And that you are agnostic about something
plucked out of your arse vs the objective results of leading edge
scientific research.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They _first_ have to demonstrate that it's more than just somebody
else's religious belief.
And why it is somehow equivalent to the falsifiable default for
baseless claims - "no it ain't, prove it", when there is simply no
symmetry.
Especially when there are perfectly natural explanations without
invoking one, which are minimal extrapolations from what is already
known.
It's like claiming there is symmetry between Russell's hypothetical
teapot in the orbit of Pluto, and "no there isn't". And adding a whole
slew of equally unjustified attributes to it, like omnipotence.
Well, moron? Couldn't address this?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
It contradicts the first law.
Explain exactly how.
Many claim that this deity is self-caused. But if this deity indeed exists,
then it is some form of energy. Self-caused energy contradicts the first law.
It doesn't even get that far. The universe of space time expanded from
the big bang. So it would have had to happen inside itself, before
there was anything for it to happen in.
These idiots are so hung up on "it was created" that they imagine "a
god created the universe" and a recursive "the universe created
itself" are the only alternatives.
When cosmology doesn't require it to be created,
He has been given this link several times, but ignored it....
https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
You read it this time, and instead of discussing its details, you
resorted to personal lies as an ad hominem excuse to distract from
that.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's unfortunate that it is on an atheist web site. It shouldn't be up
to atheists to correct nonsense from the ignorant, about leading edge
scientific understanding that is nothing to do with atheism.
But it gives them a dishonest excuse to keep ignoring it.
Bob Wardlaw
2018-01-14 23:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:01:59 -0500, Bob Wardlaw <"Bob
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
And there is no reason whatsoever to posit one, especially when there
are already perfectly natural explanations which don't require it.
But these natural explanations are just hypothetical including the article
you referenced by Mark I. Vuletic as well as with an anti-theistic
motivation as he implies in the title Creation ex nihilo - Without God.
For the umpteenth time, imbecile, they are minimal extensions to what
is known.
Why do you elect to insult those of us who chose to respond to you?
The truth is I don't know you; I don't care about you; I don't care
about whatever you believe. so why do you care about what I believe
especially since I don't care to change your thinking. Therefore, your
insults I do not have to put up with. If you continue these personal
insults on me, this may be my final response to you.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Unlike the imaginary magical superbeing for which there is no
evidence, with a whole slew of equally unjustified powers, which you
plucked out of your arse.
Why do you harbor so much hatred? Was it because you were abused as
a child? If so, then, as an adult you think you can get away with
abusing people from anonymity? This is very cowardly on your part!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And, again, nobody insists that any one of the natural explanations is
the right one - unlike your imaginary magical superbeing which
religious loonies insist did it in the real world beyond the mythology
of somebody else's religion.
I've pointed out several times that I think since no one can rule out
a creator God and given the appearence of design there is good reason
to maintain a agnostic position. I see the dedicated atheist and the
extremist theist as exactly the same _closed_minded_ individuals.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Either provide as much evidence for it as there is for quantum events,
or crawl back into the woodwork.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
I studied the matter in greater depth, and developed a line of argument
which I pursued in the first entry of my Defender's Guide to Science and
Creationism. However, I neglected to revise the first version of this
article; this update rectifies that problem.
Creation is baseless bullshit derived from bronze age mythology. It is
an outright lie to call it science, because there is no creation
science at all. Just attacks on objective science by a combination of
the willfully ignorant and the deliberate lies of their leaders.
Here you are not representation anything that I believe or defend.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
What was the problem his update supposedly rectifies? The shortcomings
he imagines in his first article. Which no doubt is to establish
a creation ex nihilo.
In Discover Magazine from September 2009 is an article where
the British scientist, Roger Penrose in an interview raises serious
objections to quantum mechanics. He points out that things are "crazy"
where a cat can be dead and alive at the same time, and where an object
can be several places at the same time. He further states that "when you
accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics, you have to give up the idea
of space-time as we know it from Einstein. You come up with something
that just isn't right."
Sounds like a stupid, dishonest distortion.
Not by me, I provided a reference. I am willing to bet that Roger
Penrose speaks with far more authority than you.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Even Erwin Shroedinger didn't say the cat was dead and alive at the
same time - it was a thought experiment to show ridiculous he felt the
Copenhagen interpretation was.
OK, at one time I read book entitled Schrodinger's kittens, by John
Gribbin where he discussed this. He seemed to entertain the same opinion
as Roger Pinrose.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it doesn't make the experimental results from quantum mechanics go
away, whatever you imagine.
There are no empirical thus expermental evidence even of the reality of
quantium mechanics. It's pure hypothesis.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
He further points out, that people don't want to change the
Schrodinger equation leading them to what is called the 'many worlds'
interpretation of quantum mechanics. He adds You're led into this many
world stuff, which has no relationship to what we can actually
perceive.,,, my own view that quantium mechanics is not exactly right
and I think there's
a lot of evidence in that, it's just not experimental evidence within
the scope of current experiments."
All it means, is that there are things we don't know, so we don't
insist that they happened that way.
If ever there is experimental evidence of quantum mechanics then I'll
be open to the possibility. But like the "many world" hypothesis,
where observational or empirical data is absent, whatever, can be
imagined which fits ones philosophical position is unlimited.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But, and for the umpteenth time, this isn't the global "don't know"
that religious loonies imagine. It is within the bounds of what we
_do_ know.
Quantum mechanics is not supported by any empirical or lab evidence, so
other than death and taxes, in all honesty, what do we really know?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And, again, nobody insists that any one of these _justified_ scenarios
is fact. The answer might lie in any one of them, or be something else
if new hypotheses are developed as the knowledge base is updated by
future observations or research.
AK, until then!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Unlike the totally unjustified god that religious loonies insist did
it, to people outside their religion before they've even demonstrated
it to them.
You don't seem to understand that before you can claim your god in the
real world, you have to use the tools and methods of the real world -
ie in the scientific arena, you have to provide the absent scientific
evidence.
Don't forget I argue from an agnostic position. But as an analogy, if
I find ice cubes in glass on a hot day I assume a freezer exist
somewhere nearby, eventhought I haven't seen one. There just might be
another explanation.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which we all know you can't, because the information simply isn't
there so dishonest philosophers try to argue it into existence with
"proofs" amounting to nothing more than"spot the fallacy" exercises to
see where they try to generate it.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep leaving out the "reasons" to propose one - pre-existing
religious belief.
Obviously a pre-existing anti-religious belief existed in the mind of
your referenced writer.
A standard theist personal lie.
The writer you referenced, Mark Vuletic in the title of the article
he set out to prove quote: a "creation ex nihilo without God". This was
his objective and his motivation from a per-set atheist position. So the
lie is conspicuously obvious. You are in denial.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
What do you imagine using lies ad hominems achieves, other than
telling us what a thoroughly and nastily dishonest person you are, as
well as an idiot trying to refute objective scientific research using
transparent fallacies?
If you had a reasoned response you would not feel the need to insult
rather then carry on a descent conversation. I'm letting you get away
with attacking me personally this time only. The first personal
insult you cast, will be the last I will see. So, if you do it will be
obvious that you do not or cannot carry on a real honest discussion.
And I will never see another post of yours.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Scientists, whether they are theist or atheist, don't even think of
religion when they "do" science,
I believe this is true.

although a few dishonest one try to reconcile their religious beliefs
Post by Christopher A. Lee
with their science when they talk to a religious audience - which
thinks their rationalisation is
scientific.
I don't of any case of this, since I've never attended any such assembly.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
He relies on pure hypothesis much of which makes
little sense such as something can come from nothing and that the
Are you pretending that Casimir, Polder and other physicists faked
their work? And that Lamoreaux and others were lying when they
experimentally verified it?
Verified what? When the experment was conducted it began by qith
an assumption that "modern physics assumes that a vacuum is full of
fluctuating electromagnetic waves that can never be completely
eliminated....", Then in space two mirror are attracted to each
other. This is the result of the Casimir effect. Maybe so, but
it is predicated on an assumption where another force may be
at work - gravity. >
Post by Christopher A. Lee
"SOMETHING FROM NOTHING" isn't "pure hypothesis", imbecile.
Here you go with personal insults again. Drop it or else you
will be dropped me.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
When it was first proposed as a conclusion from Heisenberg's and
Dirac's work, it was hypothesis - a justified, minimal extension from
what was already known.
But the hypothesis was confirmed experimentally.
Did you Google the Casimir Effect?
Yes see above.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Or the Lamb Shift?
No, not yet.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
One of the regulars here, actually once worked in the same university
building at his university as Willis Lamb, although not in the same
department. He said that...
"I once worked in the same department as Willis did.
Not worked with him, mind, just in the same department, a couple
of floors down. In more than one sense.
"I did get to attend a lecture of his. It was on the problems
involved in quantum measurement. Takeaway: it ain't easy."
Post by Bob Wardlaw
universe, but then So, the contention is that the "nothing" of physics
is not nothingness. Then he writes "Quote [Q5] may seem, at first
glance, to bear this out. I contend that that is a misreading—Morris is
just trying to say that space never is truly empty—but we need not get
into an exegetical dispute here, since it is quite true that on
Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum vacuum fluctuations
occur in a preexisting spacetime.".
Notice that he doesn't insist that this particular model is the right
one, or that it is our spacetime.
OK, nothing in physics is not nothing. It's waves of infinite lengths?
or virtual particles. Virtual means non substantive.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It was the usual dishonest quote mining.
No, Mr Lee I was very careful to respectifully quote with the
meaning intact. It's so easy to charge someone with "quote mining"
and not be able to back it up. The charge cannot stand on it's own.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Do you honestly imagine that your wilful ignorance will make objective
results from quantum mechanics go away?
Yet, another false and liable charge from Mr. Lee.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Instead of trying to pick holes in leading edge research, some of
which has won Nobel Prizes, why not provide as much evidence for the
god you want people to think did it, as there is for the results of
research into quantum mechanics?
_Before_ claiming it did anything at all, and trying to justify it
using the argument from your own personal ignorance?
I've about to decide that there is not a amicable bone in your decrepit
body.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need something better than that, but all you have is the argument
from ignorance.
"Ignorance" we are all ignorant in this regard. But much of you
references is "crazy" In his article where the universe could have come
about from nothing which is really not nothing, but rather virtual
particle generated in a quantium vacium fluctuaations. This is unproven
nonsense which if true falsifies the Big Bang origin of the universe
which has far more supporting evidence than a universe arising as
Mark I. Vuletic describes it.
Why can't you stop lying about this?
This is exactly as Penrose wrote it. So, I not lying, but you are
just making unjustified, unsupported and unsupportable accusation. Drop it!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How come a minimal extrapolation from experimentally verified quantum
physics, is crazy - while insisting that a totally unjustified,
unevidenced and unnecessary imaginary magical superbeing from bronze
age mythology did it?
I haven't ruled out God, and neither have you. Your blind unseasoned
hatred and intolerance not withstanding.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed.
It can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity
suggests that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts
the first law.
During the first 10^-43 seconds after the big bang "Planck Time" modern
laws of physics do not apply. The four fundamental forces are presumed
to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time
are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity.
Nothing is known of this period. So, the four fundamental forces needed
to be in place before the modern laws of physics.
No. Our understanding of the laws of physics breaks down.
The "holy grail" of physics is the unified "theory of everything"
which explains both the deterministic macro level and the statistical
quantum level. We will have to wait until this is found.
Ok, but this is not a contridiction of what I wrote. There must have
been some set of laws before Planck Time, but we don't know about them.
Modern laws of physics break down.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the meantime, the scenarios described in the Vuletic article remain
_justified_ hypotheses. Why is it so hard to understand this, or that
nobody insists any one of them is the actual answer?
While your imaginary omnipotent magical superbeing that you insist is
the answer, has no justification whatsoever,
Not in your hate driven mind.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And that before you try to introduce it into the scientific arena, you
have to justify is scientifically?
I believe that homeobox genes clearly point to a designer. When
Science shows the Pax 6 gene which controls the development of
eyes in animals can be taken from a mouse and placed in the genome
of a fruit fly, the mouse Pax 6 gene controlled the development
of multi-phasited fly eyes in the fruit fly. And this is only one
of more than 100 homeobox genes that are known. This would be
considered an excellent engineering concept under any other
circumstance. Not only that, but these genes are had to have
existed before the Cambrian explosion and they are called
highly conserved (meaning almost fixed). Of course they can be
explained perfectly by one word "evolution". But really the
Pax 6 gene is ancient and "evolved one time". but scientist
prior thought that eyes arose at least 40 times. So, this means
that these homeobox genes are extremely ancient and virtually
unchanged. So, this shows again that EVOLUTION is so broad and
elastic that it can encompass any conflicting data. Which means
evolution is non falsifiable hence non-scientific.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it was formulated before anybody knew about quantum mechanics,
which has experimental verification of particles forming ex nihilo.
This was predicted as a consequence of Dirac's and Heisenberg's work.
In the article I referenced above, Penrose names several physics who
were skeptics
of the quantum mechanics including "Paul Dirac which is surprising
because it was Dirac who set up whole foundation, the general framework
of quantum mechanics."
So what?
Penrose isn't the last word on quantum mechanics, and its study has
come a long way since Paul Dirac.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Google the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift or Bell's inequalities.
These particles have a zero sum over their lifetime, so conservation
is maintained by taking this into account.
And the universe is considered to have a zero sum over its lifetime.
This of course is all hypothetical based on quantity mechanics which
itself is hypothetical with little or no chance of verification.
No liar. The quantum side of it has been experimentally verified.
And extending it to the formation of the universe is actually a
minimal extrapolation.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
So cosmologists have come up with scenarios where there is _no_
pre-existing matter or energy.
And which make minimal extrapolation from current knowledge.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
A god is merely one out of a potentially infinite number of
unjustified and un-necessary propositions, and none of these morons
have ever explained why that one should be singled out from all the
others. Especially when it's the god from somebody else's religion.
As I've observed you referenced Mark l. Vuletic who from the beginning
had an anti religious motivation.
A standard theist lie from a paranoid believer who cannot grasp even
if a scientist is theist, he leaves god(s) out of his science.
Because as far as science is concerned, they aren't there until
scientific evidence for them is provided.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
He had the desire to have a creation
without God.
STOP LYING, pathological liar.
Why is it so hard to understand just how irrelevant gods are outside
the specific context of what (in his case, and where you're posting
this nastiness) is *merely* *somebody* *else's* *religion*?
And that when theists practice science, they leave their god-beliefs
at the door?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
So, he appealed the quantum mechanics which is not
testable in any present day lab or experimentation.
Stop lying, pathological liar. He was describing the current state of
scientific knowledge.
And no matter how much you lie about it, try to dismiss it, etc, it
won't un-happen.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
So, under such
circumstances and with a pre-set motivation there is only the
limitations of imagination.
It's easier to lie about people, the state of scientific research
(which has provided everyday applications that even you take for
granted), etc than actually learn something about it.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
So, I think that agnosticism is the only rational position one can take.
Only because you're too stupid to understand that agnosticism and
atheism are orthogonal. And that you are agnostic about something
plucked out of your arse vs the objective results of leading edge
scientific research.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They _first_ have to demonstrate that it's more than just somebody
else's religious belief.
And why it is somehow equivalent to the falsifiable default for
baseless claims - "no it ain't, prove it", when there is simply no
symmetry.
Especially when there are perfectly natural explanations without
invoking one, which are minimal extrapolations from what is already
known.
It's like claiming there is symmetry between Russell's hypothetical
teapot in the orbit of Pluto, and "no there isn't". And adding a whole
slew of equally unjustified attributes to it, like omnipotence.
Well, moron? Couldn't address this?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
It contradicts the first law.
Explain exactly how.
Many claim that this deity is self-caused. But if this deity indeed exists,
then it is some form of energy. Self-caused energy contradicts the first law.
It doesn't even get that far. The universe of space time expanded from
the big bang. So it would have had to happen inside itself, before
there was anything for it to happen in.
These idiots are so hung up on "it was created" that they imagine "a
god created the universe" and a recursive "the universe created
itself" are the only alternatives.
When cosmology doesn't require it to be created,
He has been given this link several times, but ignored it....
https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
You read it this time, and instead of discussing its details, you
resorted to personal lies as an ad hominem excuse to distract from
that.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's unfortunate that it is on an atheist web site. It shouldn't be up
to atheists to correct nonsense from the ignorant, about leading edge
scientific understanding that is nothing to do with atheism.
But it gives them a dishonest excuse to keep ignoring it.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-15 01:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:09:32 -0500, Bob Wardlaw <"Bob
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:01:59 -0500, Bob Wardlaw <"Bob
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
And there is no reason whatsoever to posit one, especially when there
are already perfectly natural explanations which don't require it.
But these natural explanations are just hypothetical including the article
you referenced by Mark I. Vuletic as well as with an anti-theistic
motivation as he implies in the title Creation ex nihilo - Without God.
That was a lie. And when you are called on it, you shouldn't turn into
a whining hypocrite.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For the umpteenth time, imbecile, they are minimal extensions to what
is known.
That was FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, but you still took no notice.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Why do you elect to insult those of us who chose to respond to you?
The truth is I don't know you; I don't care about you; I don't care
about whatever you believe. so why do you care about what I believe
especially since I don't care to change your thinking. Therefore, your
insults I do not have to put up with. If you continue these personal
insults on me, this may be my final response to you.
So stop lying about those who are better educated than you are, and
address what they explain instead of ignoring it.

You simply reap what you sow.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Unlike the imaginary magical superbeing for which there is no
evidence, with a whole slew of equally unjustified powers, which you
plucked out of your arse.
Why do you harbor so much hatred?
Why can't you stop lying?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Was it because you were abused as
a child? If so, then, as an adult you think you can get away with
abusing people from anonymity? This is very cowardly on your part!
Making it obvious that you are trolling for flames.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And, again, nobody insists that any one of the natural explanations is
the right one - unlike your imaginary magical superbeing which
religious loonies insist did it in the real world beyond the mythology
of somebody else's religion.
I've pointed out several times that I think since no one can rule out
a creator God
Which is merely one out of gajillions of equally baseless beliefs. Why
do you imagine we should treat that one any differently from all the
other equally baseless claims.

Have the honesty to address this, instead of ignoring it yet again.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
and given the appearence of design there is good reason
It only appears that way - there is no way to actually determine
design.

It is _always_ a pre-existing religious belief.

If there were any evidence for it, science would have investigated it
and gone down that route.
Post by Bob Wardlaw
to maintain a agnostic position. I see the dedicated atheist and the
extremist theist as exactly the same _closed_minded_ individuals.
Because you are a nasty, in-your-face, stupid, lying moron. Was that
clear enough, even for you?

[rest of this mindless stupidity and outright lies, deleted]
Bob Wardlaw
2018-01-14 23:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed. It
can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity suggests > that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts the
first law.
This might be true according to modern laws of physics after Planck Time
10^-43 seconds _after_ the big bang. This is when the 4 fundamental
constants separated and modern laws of physics as we know them came into
force. There was no universe, no time, no space, no matter, no laws
of physics until after the Big Bang.
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
It contradicts the first law.
Explain exactly how.
Many claim that this deity is self-caused. But if this deity indeed exists, then it is some form of energy. Self-caused energy contradicts the first law.
This would possibly be true after Planck Time.
Tim
2018-01-15 07:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity,
The first law of thermodynamics rules out an all powerful deity.
Okay. Explain exactly how. Without explaining exactly how this
is true, there can be no response.
The first law states that energy can not be created or destroyed. It
can only change form. Your notion of an all powerful deity suggests > that it created the energy of the universe. That contradicts the
first law.
This might be true according to modern laws of physics after Planck Time
10^-43 seconds _after_ the big bang. This is when the 4 fundamental
constants separated and modern laws of physics as we know them came into
force. There was no universe, no time, no space, no matter, no laws
of physics until after the Big Bang.
So how does that require a god?
Post by Tim
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Tim
Post by Bob Wardlaw
but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe.
It contradicts the first law.
Explain exactly how.
Many claim that this deity is self-caused. But if this deity indeed exists, then it is some form of energy. Self-caused energy contradicts the first law.
This would possibly be true after Planck Time.
Well if you have no issue with god being self-caused why can't the universe?
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-14 00:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
.> It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
.> sun, The universe must received energy from some source.

By that, do you mean initially? If so, that's true only if the universe
was -- and is -- in a non-zero state of energy. And there's some thought
that when in fact you add up all the positive and negative (i.e: potential)
energy, the overall sum is zero.

Here's a bit on that. The footnotes quoting Hawking, Davies, and
Tyron are useful:

-- https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

AA
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
There's no reason even to consider one, imbecile.
You misunderstand Mr. Lee, is you cannot rule out an all powerful
deity, but neither can it be proven not to exist, given the reality
of the universe. Unless there is an incontrovertible and undisputed
empirical evidence of another explanation, then this deity has to be
falsified.
Unless you were
Post by Christopher A. Lee
brainwashed in childhood to believe in it.
This is one reason I consider myself to be agnostic. My father was
a universe professor and an diehard atheist. My mother, a high school
science teacher. I never knew her religious feelings, since she never
discussed it out of fear and impatience of my father. So, no I was never
brainwashed unless my fear for my dad made me such in my childhood.
He was a vile, hateful, abusive human being who I didn't want to be
like.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
What's wrong with these morons? They're stuck in 19th century ideas of
causality.
The laws of thermodynamics were formulated before anybody knew about
relativity, let alone radioactivity or quantum mechanics.
Does this, you say, somehow change the effect of the second law?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
After Einstein, mass had to be added to them. And they haven't caught
up with the fact that quantum physics knows about particles appearing
ex nihilo, which "borrow" the necessary energy and "pay it back" at
the end of their life.
The laws are simply part of the history of science. The only time
they're mentioned as such, is either in high school to students
learning about it, or in books and articles for the ignorant layman,
because those working with thermodynamics use the underlying
principles.
Not to mention, that the universe is considered to have a zero sum
over its lifetime, just like the virtual particles (which is a
misnomer, they're actually real).
So the most parsimonious of the various scenarios suggested by
cosmologists, is that the big bang was the result of a quantum event
(or similar) - which breaks no known laws of physics.
Unlike the unnecessary, unevidenced and unjustified, maximally defined
magical superbeing with its equally unjustified attributes like
omnipotence that creationists plucked out of their arses to insist did
it.
Post by hleopold
Or some kid with his HeathKit Build-A-Universe kit in the next universe up.
I just wish these idiots would bother to learn something about what
they attack out of ignorance.
Mark Vuletic goes into what I just described, including quotes from
leading physicists.
The only problem, is that the loonies will imagine this is
atheist-specific because theists leave it to us to explain it...
https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-14 00:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 16:01:54 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life
(which it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation
is wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
And?
There is no and. It's the absolute end of everything.
That is the theorised heat death, but not necessary the absolute end
of everything.

It is highly likely that gravity will take over, causing the expansion
to go into reverse over a similar length of time, ultimately leading
to annihilation, maintaining the zero sum just like the effects seen
at the quantum level that he ignored.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How does that preclude local reductions in entropy where there is an
external energy source, like the Earth getting energy from the sun?
.> It doesn't locally, but just as the earth receives energy from the
.> sun, The universe must received energy from some source.
The moron ignored the explanation.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
By that, do you mean initially? If so, that's true only if the universe
was -- and is -- in a non-zero state of energy. And there's some thought
that when in fact you add up all the positive and negative (i.e: potential)
energy, the overall sum is zero.
Here's a bit on that. The footnotes quoting Hawking, Davies, and
-- https://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
I gave the in-your-face moron that link to confirm my summary - but he
obviously never bothered to read either the latter or follow the link.

None of these brainwashed morons ever give an honest response when
twentieth and twenty-first century science refutes their nonsense.

Why, oh, why don't they check what their lying leaders tell them,
before repeating it where people are better educated and less
gullible?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AA
Irreverend Dave
2018-01-14 16:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of
thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it
but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Perhaps he wants his piece of the "troll pie"?

I sometimes wonder if Androol is a Poe, an atheist pretending to a hard-
headed, ignorant, fundamentalist, merely doing what he does to drive home
the fact that Biblical literalists are hopelessly mired in their
confirmation bias.
--
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist
in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
Teresita
2018-01-14 17:03:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Irreverend Dave
I sometimes wonder if Androol is a Poe, an atheist pretending to a hard-
headed, ignorant, fundamentalist, merely doing what he does to drive home
the fact that Biblical literalists are hopelessly mired in their
confirmation bias.
No, he's a Catholic, who like to pretend they have a more analytical
approach to theology than even their close cousins the Eastern Orthodox.
I know because I was raised Catholic. Unfortunately, what came along
with the Catholic tradition was the concept of creation ex nihilo which
permeated Western thought so thoroughly that if you pull a Catholic's
little doll string today they will say, "How did something come from
nothing?"
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-14 17:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 16:45:15 -0000 (UTC), Irreverend Dave
Post by Irreverend Dave
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of
thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it
but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Why does Drooling Andy keep repeating the same old falsehoods which
have been repeatedly corrected every time?
Perhaps he wants his piece of the "troll pie"?
I sometimes wonder if Androol is a Poe, an atheist pretending to a hard-
headed, ignorant, fundamentalist, merely doing what he does to drive home
the fact that Biblical literalists are hopelessly mired in their
confirmation bias.
They're not normally so obsessive that they do it all day for many
years.

And if he wants people to treat him as the mentally ill, raving loonie
that this persona is, what does that make him? this persona is
Bob Wardlaw
2018-01-13 20:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hleopold
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life (which
it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation is
wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
Or some kid with his HeathKit Build-A-Universe kit in the next universe up.
Who knows. Perhaps!
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-15 10:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Wardlaw
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
"if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
(Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928],
The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75)
The concept of life emerging *without a Creator*
would be a theory found to be against the second
law of thermodynamics.
Such theory is found to be false and is "collapsed
in deepest humiliation". Because it is in violation
of the 2nd law.
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did
not arise by 'naturalistic only' processes.
Scientifc law makes no exceptions for God. If the 2nd law precluded life (which
it doesn't, of course) then the 2nd law would fall. The fact that your
interpretation of the 2nd law contradicts reality means your interpretation is
wrong.
The universe in in constant increasing entropy, so over time
the universe will become dead, black, lifeless; this is where
entropy is at maximum and energy totally spent.
This is universal equilibrium the ultimate fate of the universe.
This means according to the 2nd law, that there was a beginning
where entropy was at absolute zero and energy was at maximum.
There is no empirical evidence showing the source of this energy.
Yet, it had to come from somewhere. You cannot rule out an
all powerful deity.
No, it merely means that the entropy was lower than at any time since, and
therefore more free energy. No infinities required.

Nobody can _rule out_ and all powerful deity, (since an all-powerful deity
couldn't be detected if it didn't want to be) but its just a useless piece of
speculation without evidence. You simply can't do science in the presence of
divine intervention.

Say scientist A proposes a theory, and scientist B refutes it by giving a case
in which it clearly doesn't hold. "Aha!" says scientist A, that exception was
an example of divine intervention."

If he gets away with it, it screws up the whole scientific enterprise.

And that's exactly what you're trying to do here.
Teresita
2018-01-15 13:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
that there was a Creator of that life and that it did not arise by
'naturalistic only' processes.
Ah yes, the teleological argument. One of the long-discredited Five
Ways. If the existence of life presupposes a creator of that life, then
whence comes your living god? No one has seen your god-man savior for
2000 years, but we have heard a lot of arguments like Aquinas' Five
Ways, or Pascal's Wager that "works" for any deity who promises an
afterlife, or Anselm's ontological argument that assumes existence can
be an attribute for a thing like color or smell.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-15 16:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
.> > Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
.> > that there was a Creator of that life and that it did not arise by
.> > 'naturalistic only' processes.
.> Ah yes, the teleological argument. One of the long-discredited Five
.> Ways. If the existence of life presupposes a creator of that life, then
.> whence comes your living god? No one has seen your god-man savior for
.> 2000 years, but we have heard a lot of arguments like Aquinas' Five
.> Ways, or Pascal's Wager that "works" for any deity who promises an
.> afterlife, or Anselm's ontological argument that assumes existence can
.> be an attribute for a thing like color or smell.


But you see, Andrew doesn't debate. Andrew declares.


AA
Post by Teresita
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Teresita
2018-01-15 16:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
But you see, Andrew doesn't debate. Andrew declares.
It doesn't matter if Andrew debates or declares or both, we're looking
for evidence that his god exists.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Andrew
2018-01-15 17:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
But you see, Andrew doesn't debate. Andrew declares.
It doesn't matter if Andrew debates or declares or both,
we're looking for evidence that his god exists.
That's what atheists say, but they will never say what the
criteria is for such evidence to be acceptable to them.
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-15 18:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
But you see, Andrew doesn't debate. Andrew declares.
.> > It doesn't matter if Andrew debates or declares or both,
.> > we're looking for evidence that his god exists.
.> That's what atheists say, but they will never say what the
.> criteria is for such evidence to be acceptable to them.

I told you mine, way back then: I put it in God's hands.

I prayed, giving Him total permission to do anything
at all, with me or to me convince me of His reality.

I assumed that that would not be beyond His capabilities.

Apparently we must have had a poor connection.




Now, what evidence could convince you of the
reality of a purely naturalistic origin of the genetic code?







AA
Andrew
2018-01-15 22:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
But you see, Andrew doesn't debate. Andrew declares.
.> > It doesn't matter if Andrew debates or declares or both,
.> > we're looking for evidence that his god exists.
.> That's what atheists say, but they will never say what the
.> criteria is for such evidence to be acceptable to them.
I told you mine, way back then: I put it in God's hands.
I prayed, giving Him total permission to do anything
at all, with me or to me convince me of His reality.
I assumed that that would not be beyond His capabilities.
Apparently we must have had a poor connection.
Apparently God did not jump through your hoops
so you foolishly conclude that the Universe created
itself including the irreducibly complex life therein.

All the while the things He has made are there as
*evidence* so that you will be without excuse on
the final Day.
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-15 23:46:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
But you see, Andrew doesn't debate. Andrew declares.
.> > It doesn't matter if Andrew debates or declares or both,
.> > we're looking for evidence that his god exists.
.> That's what atheists say, but they will never say what the
.> criteria is for such evidence to be acceptable to them.
I told you mine, way back then: I put it in God's hands.
.> > I prayed, giving Him total permission to do anything
.> > at all, with me or to me convince me of His reality.
.> > I assumed that that would not be beyond His capabilities.
.> > Apparently we must have had a poor connection.
.> Apparently God did not jump through your hoops

Didn't ask for dancing girls and performing tigers;
asked for a sign. And gave total permission, full surrender of myself.

No reply.


.> so you foolishly conclude that the Universe created
.> itself

So you blatantly lie; I have never said "the Universe created itself".
Please don't put your words in my mouth; who knows where they've been.

. >including the irreducibly complex life therein.

As I've pointed out before, if there were irreducible
complexity, that would be a sign of shoddy design indeed.
If you have a programmer or an engineer who does that, fire him.

But hey: let's discuss it anyhow. Give me an example
of an irreducibly complex system, and let's see where
that leads.

Deal?
.> All the while the things He has made are there as
.> *evidence* so that you will be without excuse on
.> the final Day.

Ah, brings up yet another one you've never answered:
does this "evidence" mean that someone who has
never heard of your God will also "be without excuse on the final Day?
Should've known anyhow, because of "the things He has made"?

Hey, now we have two quite specific topics to discuss!

Assuming you don't go <POOF!> on me again.

AA
Teresita
2018-01-15 23:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
does this "evidence" mean that someone who has
never heard of your God will also "be without excuse on the final Day?
Should've known anyhow, because of "the things He has made"?
We're only beginning to learn about the universe using the tools that
Father Galileo gave to us. But the trend doesn't look good for Team
Supernatural. In fact no materialist explanation has ever been
supplanted by a supernatural one after a materialist one
has...materialized.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
%
2018-01-16 00:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
does this "evidence" mean that someone who has
never heard of your God will also "be without excuse on the final Day?
Should've known anyhow, because of "the things He has made"?
We're only beginning to learn about the universe using the tools that
Father Galileo gave to us.  But the trend doesn't look good for Team
Supernatural.  In fact no materialist explanation has ever been
supplanted by a supernatural one after a  materialist one
has...materialized.
hawking believes in god
Teresita
2018-01-16 00:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by %
Post by Teresita
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
does this "evidence" mean that someone who has
never heard of your God will also "be without excuse on the final Day?
Should've known anyhow, because of "the things He has made"?
We're only beginning to learn about the universe using the tools that
Father Galileo gave to us. But the trend doesn't look good for Team
Supernatural. In fact no materialist explanation has ever been
supplanted by a supernatural one after a materialist one
has...materialized.
hawking believes in god
Most recently he backtracked on that.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Teresita
2018-01-15 19:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
But you see, Andrew doesn't debate. Andrew declares.
It doesn't matter if Andrew debates or declares or both, we're looking
for evidence that his god exists.
That's what atheists say, but they will never say what the criteria is
for such evidence to be acceptable to them.
Whatever experiment that produces the evidence has to be repeatable by a
third party. If you have a recording of the screams of hell, for
example, you have to give the location for the well so we can drop our
microphone down there too.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-15 17:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 08:01:54 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> > Therefore again, the existence of life..is evidence
.> > that there was a Creator of that life and that it did not arise by
.> > 'naturalistic only' processes.
.> Ah yes, the teleological argument. One of the long-discredited Five
.> Ways. If the existence of life presupposes a creator of that life, then
.> whence comes your living god? No one has seen your god-man savior for
.> 2000 years, but we have heard a lot of arguments like Aquinas' Five
.> Ways, or Pascal's Wager that "works" for any deity who promises an
.> afterlife, or Anselm's ontological argument that assumes existence can
.> be an attribute for a thing like color or smell.
But you see, Andrew doesn't debate. Andrew declares.
Neither he nor any of the other fundie loonies we get here, understand
that they have nothing to debate as long as they deny reality
including objective scientific research, make up positions and invent
motives we don't have, etc.

They come here, reap what they sow and then turn into whining
hypocrites - when they have no reason even to be here, in the first
place.

If they come here, they should listen and accept that the answers they
get are honest instead of trying top pick holes in them, They should
not talk as if their beliefs were fact.
Andrew
2018-01-13 14:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
The reason you try to force your nuance upon it is because
you know that the emergence of life is an ~*impossibility*~
in light of the second law.
So you say that the input from the Sun makes the Earth an
open system thus invalidating the ~*impossibility*~factor.
However those who are interested in *the truth* can easily
see through your mendacity.
"There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
Well, when reality and theory conflict, the theory must fall.
So, given there is life, if the 2nd law really did preclude life
then the 2nd law would fall.
The 2nd law does preclude life, as well as the evolution
story, the "goo to you" origins story. The fact that there
is life does not mean that the 2nd law has failed. It means
that there is a Creator who is greater than the 2nd law.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-13 12:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
The reason you try to force your nuance upon it is because
you know that the emergence of life is an ~*impossibility*~
in light of the second law.
So you say that the input from the Sun makes the Earth an
open system thus invalidating the ~*impossibility*~factor.
However those who are interested in *the truth* can easily
see through your mendacity.
"There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
"There is somehow associated with the field of far-from
equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law
of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important
to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist)
https://tinyurl.com/y7duxqcf
Nice link actually - read the rest of it, which contains an in-depth rebuttal.
And you can be pretty sure that the quote you've mined from that thread was, in
turn, quote mined from a pay-to-read article and taken out of context.

Yes, the laws of thermodynamics apply to every system, but only providing every
element involved is taken into account.
Teresita
2018-01-13 14:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
"There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.
Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but
the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
There is no such thing as a closed system, except for the universe taken
as a whole. It's a figment. Even a black hole experiences changes in
entropy via gravitational infall and Hawking radiation.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Ted
2018-01-13 14:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Andrew
"There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.
Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but
the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
There is no such thing as a closed system, except for the universe taken
as a whole. It's a figment. Even a black hole experiences changes in
entropy via gravitational infall and Hawking radiation.
But that's just the truth, which Andrew's never found to be convincing.
Bob Wardlaw
2018-01-13 15:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Andrew
"There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.
Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but
the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
There is no such thing as a closed system, except for the universe taken
as a whole.  It's a figment.  Even a black hole experiences changes in
entropy via gravitational infall and Hawking radiation.
You are absolutely right. Oven Carnot's steam engine was not a c;osed
system.
duke
2018-01-14 18:46:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Andrew
"There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.
Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but
the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
There is no such thing as a closed system, except for the universe taken
as a whole. It's a figment. Even a black hole experiences changes in
entropy via gravitational infall and Hawking radiation.
Au contraire. Stick to something you know nothing about - God.

The universe is considered a enclosed system. Nothing on the other side.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Ted
2018-01-14 19:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by Andrew
"There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.
Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but
the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
There is no such thing as a closed system, except for the universe taken
as a whole. It's a figment. Even a black hole experiences changes in
entropy via gravitational infall and Hawking radiation.
Au contraire. Stick to something you know nothing about - God.
If you know God, Duke, then why are you an immoral lying dirtbag?
Teresita
2018-01-14 20:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
There is no such thing as a closed system, except for the universe taken
as a whole. It's a figment. Even a black hole experiences changes in
entropy via gravitational infall and Hawking radiation.
The universe is considered a enclosed system. Nothing on the other side.
That's precisely what "there is no such thing as a closed system, except
for the universe taken as a whole" means, Duke. Story problems must
have kicked your butt at Uni, eh?
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Ted
2018-01-14 21:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
There is no such thing as a closed system, except for the universe taken
as a whole. It's a figment. Even a black hole experiences changes in
entropy via gravitational infall and Hawking radiation.
The universe is considered a enclosed system. Nothing on the other side.
That's precisely what "there is no such thing as a closed system, except
for the universe taken as a whole" means, Duke. Story problems must have
kicked your butt at Uni, eh?
Not just story problems, but all of them. He wouldn't make it halfway
through Algebra I.
Tim
2018-01-14 20:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by Andrew
"There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.
Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but
the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
There is no such thing as a closed system, except for the universe taken
as a whole. It's a figment. Even a black hole experiences changes in
entropy via gravitational infall and Hawking radiation.
Au contraire. Stick to something you know nothing about - God.
The universe is considered a enclosed system. Nothing on the other side.
So there's no room for your assumed god.
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-14 22:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Andrew
"There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.
Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but
the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
.> >There is no such thing as a closed system, except for the universe taken
.> >as a whole. It's a figment. Even a black hole experiences changes in
.> >entropy via gravitational infall and Hawking radiation.
.> Au contraire. Stick to something you know nothing about - God.
.> The universe is considered a enclosed system. Nothing on the other side.

Which is exactly what Teresita just said.

Geez, I hope ArtieJoe doesn't sue me for copyright infringement, but:

YOU CAN'T READ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


AA
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.
*****
Teresita
2018-01-14 22:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
"There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.
Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but
the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
.> >There is no such thing as a closed system, except for the universe taken
.> >as a whole. It's a figment. Even a black hole experiences changes in
.> >entropy via gravitational infall and Hawking radiation.
.> Au contraire. Stick to something you know nothing about - God.
.> The universe is considered a enclosed system. Nothing on the other side.
Which is exactly what Teresita just said.
YOU CAN'T READ !
He can't read, which is why trying to learn him with story problems is
like trying to polish a turd.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
hleopold
2018-01-15 07:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Andrew
"There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.
Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but
the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
.> >There is no such thing as a closed system, except for the universe
taken
.> >as a whole. It's a figment. Even a black hole experiences changes in
.> >entropy via gravitational infall and Hawking radiation.
.> Au contraire. Stick to something you know nothing about - God.
.> The universe is considered a enclosed system. Nothing on the other side.
Which is exactly what Teresita just said.
YOU CAN'T READ !
He can't read, which is why trying to learn him with story problems is
like trying to polish a turd.
Well, MythBusters, and others, have proven that you can indeed polish a turd.
Duke, on the other hand, no, just no. Now I have to get out the brain bleach
to get that image out of my head.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

“It’s not over till the fat whale farts.”
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-13 20:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
The reason you try to force your nuance upon it is because
you know that the emergence of life is an ~*impossibility*~
in light of the second law.
So you say that the input from the Sun makes the Earth an
open system thus invalidating the ~*impossibility*~factor.
However those who are interested in *the truth* can easily
see through your mendacity.
"There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
"There is somehow associated with the field of far-from
equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law
of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important
to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist)
https://tinyurl.com/y7duxqcf
Again: ironic that you're quoting this, given that far from
equilibrium dissipative systems are the ones in which
spontaneous self-organization can occur. Prigogine
got his Nobel for exactly this thing, and it has direct
application to self organization in biological systems.

-- http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/prigogine/


AA
Andrew
2018-01-13 22:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
The reason you try to force your nuance upon it is because
you know that the emergence of life is an ~*impossibility*~
in light of the second law.
So you say that the input from the Sun makes the Earth an
open system thus invalidating the ~*impossibility*~factor.
However those who are interested in *the truth* can easily
see through your mendacity.
"There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
"There is somehow associated with the field of far-from
equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law
of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important
to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist)
https://tinyurl.com/y7duxqcf
Again: ironic that you're quoting this, given that far from
equilibrium dissipative systems are the ones in which
spontaneous self-organization can occur.
Not "ironic", because the point is the truth about the 2nd law.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Prigogine got his Nobel for exactly this thing, and it has direct
application to self organization in biological systems.
Biological systems may be cited as self organized systems. But
if you want to know the truth, then you want to understand that
biological systems have been programmed for them to be such.

Atheists can't understand that because it is outside of their
philosophical frame of thinking. Because it speaks loudly
that ---> we have a Creator. Nevertheless it is the truth.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
-- http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/prigogine/
AA
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-13 22:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
The reason you try to force your nuance upon it is because
you know that the emergence of life is an ~*impossibility*~
in light of the second law.
So you say that the input from the Sun makes the Earth an
open system thus invalidating the ~*impossibility*~factor.
However those who are interested in *the truth* can easily
see through your mendacity.
"There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
"There is somehow associated with the field of far-from
equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law
of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important
to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist)
https://tinyurl.com/y7duxqcf
Again: ironic that you're quoting this, given that far from
equilibrium dissipative systems are the ones in which
spontaneous self-organization can occur.
Not "ironic", because the point is the truth about the 2nd law.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Prigogine got his Nobel for exactly this thing, and it has direct
application to self organization in biological systems.
.> Biological systems may be cited as self organized systems. But
.> if you want to know the truth, then you want to understand that
.> biological systems have been programmed for them to be such.

Demonstrate that convincingly, and there's a Nobel in it for you too.
Note that "because I say so over and over and over" falls somewhat
short of the criteria for a convincing demonstration.


.> Atheists can't understand that because it is outside of their
.> philosophical frame of thinking. Because it speaks loudly
.> that ---> we have a Creator. Nevertheless it is the truth.

Take the dog for a walk, take Andrew for a little run.

Because Andrew inevitably runs away when I ask him
about the "philosophical frame of thinking" of the
world's Christians who have utterly no problem accepting
evolution, deep time, stellar formation, an old earth
and portions of the Bible as being in no sense literal.



AA
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
-- http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/prigogine/
AA
TheRealMccoy
2018-01-13 23:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Demonstrate that convincingly, and there's a Nobel in it for you too.
If there was one of those for the most posts on the internet, you would be a millionaire.
Andrew
2018-01-14 23:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
The reason you try to force your nuance upon it is because
you know that the emergence of life is an ~*impossibility*~
in light of the second law.
So you say that the input from the Sun makes the Earth an
open system thus invalidating the ~*impossibility*~factor.
However those who are interested in *the truth* can easily
see through your mendacity.
"There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
"There is somehow associated with the field of far-from
equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law
of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important
to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist)
https://tinyurl.com/y7duxqcf
Again: ironic that you're quoting this, given that far from
equilibrium dissipative systems are the ones in which
spontaneous self-organization can occur.
Not "ironic", because the point is the truth about the 2nd law.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Prigogine got his Nobel for exactly this thing, and it has direct
application to self organization in biological systems.
.> Biological systems may be cited as self organized systems. But
.> if you want to know the truth, then you want to understand that
.> biological systems have been programmed for them to be such.
Demonstrate that convincingly, and there's a Nobel in it for you too.
A biological fact that atheists don't like to talk about,
because it is...outside of their philosophical frame of
thinking, because it is evidence that..we have a Creator.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Note that "because I say so over and over and over" falls somewhat
short of the criteria for a convincing demonstration.
.> Atheists can't understand that because it is outside of their
.> philosophical frame of thinking. Because it speaks loudly
.> that ---> we have a Creator. Nevertheless it is the truth.
Take the dog for a walk, take Andrew for a little run.
You are the one who is running here by refusing to examine
the issue. Biological systems have been programmed for self
organization. It's in the DNA. You bring up Prigogine but
don't want to talk about it when your deception is exposed.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Because Andrew inevitably runs away when I ask him
about the "philosophical frame of thinking" of the
world's Christians who have utterly no problem accepting
evolution, deep time, stellar formation, an old earth
and portions of the Bible as being in no sense literal.
Post by Andrew
AA
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
-- http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/prigogine/
AA
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-14 23:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
The reason you try to force your nuance upon it is because
you know that the emergence of life is an ~*impossibility*~
in light of the second law.
So you say that the input from the Sun makes the Earth an
open system thus invalidating the ~*impossibility*~factor.
However those who are interested in *the truth* can easily
see through your mendacity.
"There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
"There is somehow associated with the field of far-from
equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law
of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important
to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist)
https://tinyurl.com/y7duxqcf
Again: ironic that you're quoting this, given that far from
equilibrium dissipative systems are the ones in which
spontaneous self-organization can occur.
Not "ironic", because the point is the truth about the 2nd law.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Prigogine got his Nobel for exactly this thing, and it has direct
application to self organization in biological systems.
.> Biological systems may be cited as self organized systems. But
.> if you want to know the truth, then you want to understand that
.> biological systems have been programmed for them to be such.
Demonstrate that convincingly, and there's a Nobel in it for you too.
.> A biological fact

No, actually an Andrew declaration of a fait accompli that no one else appears
to have noticed.

.> that atheists don't like to talk about,
.> because it is...outside of their philosophical frame of
.> thinking, because it is evidence that..we have a Creator.

About that "philosophical frame of thinking"?
See below.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Note that "because I say so over and over and over" falls somewhat
short of the criteria for a convincing demonstration.
.> Atheists can't understand that because it is outside of their
.> philosophical frame of thinking. Because it speaks loudly
.> that ---> we have a Creator. Nevertheless it is the truth.
.> > Take the dog for a walk, take Andrew for a little run.
.> You are the one who is running here by refusing to examine
.> the issue. Biological systems have been programmed for self
.> organization. It's in the DNA. You bring up Prigogine but
.> don't want to talk about it when your deception is exposed.

I'll happily discuss it any time you actually make an attempt to do that very thing.

But simply declaring it to be so, like a Pope from on high, is not the same thing
as "exposing" anything.

Any time you want to get down to the specifics, I'm right here.
I'll happily tech-talk for as long as you like.

And, before we forget, once again we note that:

.> > Because Andrew inevitably runs away when I ask him
.> > about the "philosophical frame of thinking" of the
.> > world's Christians who have utterly no problem accepting
.> > evolution, deep time, stellar formation, an old earth
.> > and portions of the Bible as being in no sense literal.

Think you'll ever try to deal with that one, Andrew?

AA

.> >> > -- http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/prigogine/
Andrew
2018-01-15 06:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
The reason you try to force your nuance upon it is because
you know that the emergence of life is an ~*impossibility*~
in light of the second law.
So you say that the input from the Sun makes the Earth an
open system thus invalidating the ~*impossibility*~factor.
However those who are interested in *the truth* can easily
see through your mendacity.
"There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
"There is somehow associated with the field of far-from
equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law
of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important
to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist)
https://tinyurl.com/y7duxqcf
Again: ironic that you're quoting this, given that far from
equilibrium dissipative systems are the ones in which
spontaneous self-organization can occur.
Not "ironic", because the point is the truth about the 2nd law.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Prigogine got his Nobel for exactly this thing, and it has direct
application to self organization in biological systems.
.> Biological systems may be cited as self organized systems. But
.> if you want to know the truth, then you want to understand that
.> biological systems have been programmed for them to be such.
Demonstrate that convincingly, and there's a Nobel in it for you too.
.> A biological fact
No, actually an Andrew declaration of a fait accompli that no one else
appears to have noticed.
Biological systems possess biological genetic information in code format
with instructions as to how the system is to operate. Atheists refuse to talk
about this because they are stumped to explain a "naturalistic only" origin
of this information. The only other possible option for the origin of this
information...points to an awesome Creator. The living God.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> that atheists don't like to talk about, because it is...outside of their
.> philosophical frame of thinking, because it is evidence that we have
.> a Creator.
About that "philosophical frame of thinking"? See below.
Notice that they are stumped and refuse to address the issue.

So they obfuscate and evade, as the poster AA is doing here.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Note that "because I say so over and over and over" falls somewhat
short of the criteria for a convincing demonstration.
.> Atheists can't understand that because it is outside of their
.> philosophical frame of thinking. Because it speaks loudly
.> that ---> we have a Creator. Nevertheless it is the truth.
.> > Take the dog for a walk, take Andrew for a little run.
.> You are the one who is running here by refusing to examine
.> the issue. Biological systems have been programmed for self
.> organization. It's in the DNA. You bring up Prigogine but
.> don't want to talk about it when your deception is exposed.
I'll happily discuss it any time you actually make an attempt to do that very thing.
But simply declaring it to be so, like a Pope from on high, is not the same thing
as "exposing" anything.
Any time you want to get down to the specifics, I'm right here.
I'll happily tech-talk for as long as you like.
.> > Because Andrew inevitably runs away when I ask him
.> > about the "philosophical frame of thinking" of the
.> > world's Christians who have utterly no problem accepting
.> > evolution, deep time, stellar formation, an old earth
.> > and portions of the Bible as being in no sense literal.
Think you'll ever try to deal with that one, Andrew?
AA
.> >> > -- http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/prigogine/
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-15 07:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
The reason you try to force your nuance upon it is because
you know that the emergence of life is an ~*impossibility*~
in light of the second law.
So you say that the input from the Sun makes the Earth an
open system thus invalidating the ~*impossibility*~factor.
However those who are interested in *the truth* can easily
see through your mendacity.
"There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies
equally well to open systems.
"There is somehow associated with the field of far-from
equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law
of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important
to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist)
https://tinyurl.com/y7duxqcf
Again: ironic that you're quoting this, given that far from
equilibrium dissipative systems are the ones in which
spontaneous self-organization can occur.
Not "ironic", because the point is the truth about the 2nd law.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Prigogine got his Nobel for exactly this thing, and it has direct
application to self organization in biological systems.
.> Biological systems may be cited as self organized systems. But
.> if you want to know the truth, then you want to understand that
.> biological systems have been programmed for them to be such.
Demonstrate that convincingly, and there's a Nobel in it for you too.
.> A biological fact
.> > No, actually an Andrew declaration of a fait accompli that no one else
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
appears to have noticed.
.> Biological systems possess biological genetic information in code format
.> with instructions as to how the system is to operate. Atheists refuse to talk
.> about this because they are stumped to explain a "naturalistic only" origin
.> of this information. The only other possible option for the origin of this
.> information...points to an awesome Creator. The living God.

Refuse? I can tell you ten times more about the process than you know
or would ever be interested in learning. I actually read actual biology.
Including cellular and molecular biology.

And as I've said roughly six zillion times, "We don't know" is
not equivalent to "goddidit". If it were, there are many many
things that God used to do that he abruptly stopped doing once we
figured out the naturalistic explanation for them. And there's a lesson
in there for you in that.

But I do agree with your phrase: "other possible option". There
is a naturalistic option and a Ginormous Hyperintelligent Thingie
option. Which is why I am not an atheist.

That said, I am as confident as I am of anything that the
pissed off tribal patriarch with anger management issues,
thinly disguised in a God suit that we read about in
your origins myth is in no way up to the job.

And I have said all of this before, haven't I. Many times.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> that atheists don't like to talk about, because it is...outside of their
.> philosophical frame of thinking, because it is evidence that we have
.> a Creator.
.> > About that "philosophical frame of thinking"? See below.
.> Notice that they are stumped and refuse to address the issue.

Notice that I just did. Just as I have many a time in the past.

Notice also that you ran away from my question yet one
more time. As predictable as sunrise.

.> So they obfuscate and evade, as the poster AA is doing here.

I answered. You didn't. You never will.

Thus your aggressive tone. Kind of a giveaway there.
Perhaps no one will notice your evasion if you get shirty enough.

(kind of a shame, too, as I have twice in the last day or two
posted something supportive of something you had said)

But to repeat myself, many Christians -- quite likely the majority,
worldwide -- have no problem with evolution. Nor deep time.
Nor the big bang . If there is a Creator, then they may take these as
the elegant tools He used. Whereas you are contemptuous of them.

What do you think their "philosophical frame of thinking",
their "box" is?

I predict footsteps, rapidly fading into the distance.

Surprise me.


AA
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Note that "because I say so over and over and over" falls somewhat
short of the criteria for a convincing demonstration.
.> Atheists can't understand that because it is outside of their
.> philosophical frame of thinking. Because it speaks loudly
.> that ---> we have a Creator. Nevertheless it is the truth.
.> > Take the dog for a walk, take Andrew for a little run.
.> You are the one who is running here by refusing to examine
.> the issue. Biological systems have been programmed for self
.> organization. It's in the DNA. You bring up Prigogine but
.> don't want to talk about it when your deception is exposed.
I'll happily discuss it any time you actually make an attempt to do that very thing.
But simply declaring it to be so, like a Pope from on high, is not the same thing
as "exposing" anything.
Any time you want to get down to the specifics, I'm right here.
I'll happily tech-talk for as long as you like.
.> > Because Andrew inevitably runs away when I ask him
.> > about the "philosophical frame of thinking" of the
.> > world's Christians who have utterly no problem accepting
.> > evolution, deep time, stellar formation, an old earth
.> > and portions of the Bible as being in no sense literal.
Think you'll ever try to deal with that one, Andrew?
AA
.> >> > -- http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/prigogine/
Teresita
2018-01-13 23:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Atheists can't understand that because it is outside of their
philosophical frame of thinking. Because it speaks loudly
that ---> we have a Creator. Nevertheless it is the truth.
We admire William of Ockham, who said that given two explanations the
simpler one is more likely to be true. We find a universe that exists
across all time to be simpler than a bearded homophobic being existing
across all time who subsequently creates the universe.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
TheRealMccoy
2018-01-13 23:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
simpler than a bearded
What do you have against beards?
Teresita
2018-01-13 23:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by Teresita
simpler than a bearded
What do you have against beards?
Clam is okay.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
TheRealMccoy
2018-01-13 23:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by Teresita
simpler than a bearded
What do you have against beards?
Clam is okay.
For the one who is bearded ....
Don Martin
2018-01-14 14:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by Teresita
simpler than a bearded
What do you have against beards?
Clam is okay.
The Breakfast of Champions!
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Teresita
2018-01-14 14:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by Teresita
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by Teresita
simpler than a bearded
What do you have against beards?
Clam is okay.
The Breakfast of Champions!
/me tries to shake off images of Bruce Jenner.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Don Martin
2018-01-14 19:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Don Martin
Post by Teresita
Post by TheRealMccoy
Post by Teresita
simpler than a bearded
What do you have against beards?
Clam is okay.
The Breakfast of Champions!
/me tries to shake off images of Bruce Jenner.
I know s/he trained a lot, but I doubt s/he attained _that_ degree of
flexibility.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-13 12:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The second law ONLY applies to closed/isolated systems.
In practical terms you could treat a system as closed if you included
everything involved in the interaction. For biology that would have to include
(at least) the Sun and the sky.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-13 15:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 22:45:09 -0500, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems.
Any variation from a closed system is not describing the second law.
No matter how some morons wish it were different, it isn't and never will be.
Just as Einstein's theory of Relativity is not E=MC squared+2
the second law does not apply to open systems.
Claiming it applies to open systems is wrong and shows that whoever
claims it does apply to open systems is misinformed or stupid or lying.
Cloud was preaching to the choir, but must have known that it would
set the raving loonies off.
Post by Andrew
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.
Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but
the second law applies equally well to open systems. There is somehow
associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion
that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is
important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist
Doctorate of what, you dishonest little shit? And what scientific
fields does he work in?

And what was the original context from which it was removed, before
Ann Drool put it into his own to try and "prove" his lies using the
fallacy of bogus argument from authority?

A web search didn't identify Dr. John Ross, and the only references I
found were from creationist sites as well as feedback from a loonie
creationist in the talk.origins archive.
Post by Andrew
(evolutionist)
The dishonest little shit knows perfectly well that "evolutionist" is
a dishonest creationist canard, an attempt to portray modern
scientific understanding as an ideology when it contradicts their
bronze-age mythology.

And the obsessively in-your-face, deliberately stupid, deliberately
dishonest, seriously mentally ill, pig-ignorant moron knows perfectly
well that... EVOLUTION DOESN'T VIOLATE THE 2LOT.

You don't make well-understood science go away when it is the result
of more than a century and a half of objective research into observed
facts that won't un-happen.

And if the Liars For God were right, we wouldn't even have all the
more recent sciences and technologies resulting from this
understanding.
Post by Andrew
Here is a discussion on the topic.. https://tinyurl.com/y7duxqcf
What is there to discuss?
Ted
2018-01-13 15:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 22:45:09 -0500, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems.
Any variation from a closed system is not describing the second law.
No matter how some morons wish it were different, it isn't and never will be.
Just as Einstein's theory of Relativity is not E=MC squared+2
the second law does not apply to open systems.
Claiming it applies to open systems is wrong and shows that whoever
claims it does apply to open systems is misinformed or stupid or lying.
Cloud was preaching to the choir, but must have known that it would
set the raving loonies off.
Post by Andrew
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.
Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but
the second law applies equally well to open systems. There is somehow
associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion
that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is
important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist
Doctorate of what, you dishonest little shit? And what scientific
fields does he work in?
And what was the original context from which it was removed, before
Ann Drool put it into his own to try and "prove" his lies using the
fallacy of bogus argument from authority?
A web search didn't identify Dr. John Ross, and the only references I
found were from creationist sites as well as feedback from a loonie
creationist in the talk.origins archive.
Post by Andrew
(evolutionist)
The dishonest little shit knows perfectly well that "evolutionist" is
a dishonest creationist canard, an attempt to portray modern
scientific understanding as an ideology when it contradicts their
bronze-age mythology.
And the obsessively in-your-face, deliberately stupid, deliberately
dishonest, seriously mentally ill, pig-ignorant moron knows perfectly
well that... EVOLUTION DOESN'T VIOLATE THE 2LOT.
You don't make well-understood science go away when it is the result
of more than a century and a half of objective research into observed
facts that won't un-happen.
And if the Liars For God were right, we wouldn't even have all the
more recent sciences and technologies resulting from this
understanding.
Post by Andrew
Here is a discussion on the topic.. https://tinyurl.com/y7duxqcf
What is there to discuss?
Thank you, Christopher.
Loading...