Discussion:
Because God cares
(too old to reply)
d***@cox.net
2020-06-06 17:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Satan is going to make her suffer and suffer good.
See what I mean? All you've got are threats.
Yes, it was your free will that caused satan to act in accordance with his free
will.

See what I mean? All you've got are ................ nothings
the dukester, American-American
d***@cox.net
2020-06-06 17:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Satan is going to make her suffer and suffer good.
See what I mean? All you've got are threats.
With an unloaded gun.
She's not stepping on my toes. She's stepping on God's toes. And he never
loses. He...........is GOD.
the dukester, American-American
----------- A t h e i s t ------------
2020-06-06 18:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Satan is going to make her suffer and suffer good.
See what I mean? All you've got are threats.
With an unloaded gun.
She's stepping on God's toes. And he never loses.
Christian's threats of Imaginary God are _the_ foundation of Christianity.

LOL.
--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
sycophant - an ass kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.
A Jesus is as useful as a Zeus.
d***@cox.net
2020-06-06 17:50:31 UTC
Permalink
"No, I'm trying to interest you in becoming a Christian."
Those are your words, duke, whether you remember them or
not.
You proselytize on the ng, then lie about it on the ng.
Nope, you're destroying your word.
I don't think duke knows the difference between the truth
and a lie. He's like Trump, sitting at a keyboard and
typing wishes as though they will grow into facts.
He is so brainwashed by his silly superstition that he is driven to
say the most outrageous things knowing how it makes him appear a fool
and a liar but he has no other choice as far as he is concerned.
Hey, you can prefer to convert to a Christian or a muslim or a hindu or a
gentile.
The discussion is not about what I would prefer, Major Misdirection.
It is about what you are doing and refuse to admit to doing even when
you own words show your lies.
Right, the discussion is about what you can choose. All the options available
do not fit my message, only one. I invited you to consider all and thus me
p-wording is out of the question.

You're not very bright,
Anything is preferable to being condemned as an atheist.
the dukester, American-American
See what I mean.
the dukester, American-American
Attila
2020-06-06 19:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
"No, I'm trying to interest you in becoming a Christian."
Those are your words, duke, whether you remember them or
not.
You proselytize on the ng, then lie about it on the ng.
Nope, you're destroying your word.
I don't think duke knows the difference between the truth
and a lie. He's like Trump, sitting at a keyboard and
typing wishes as though they will grow into facts.
He is so brainwashed by his silly superstition that he is driven to
say the most outrageous things knowing how it makes him appear a fool
and a liar but he has no other choice as far as he is concerned.
Hey, you can prefer to convert to a Christian or a muslim or a hindu or a
gentile.
The discussion is not about what I would prefer, Major Misdirection.
It is about what you are doing and refuse to admit to doing even when
you own words show your lies.
Right, the discussion is about what you can choose.
No, the discussion is about how you proselytize and then deny doing
so.
Post by d***@cox.net
All the options available
do not fit my message, only one. I invited you to consider all and thus me
p-wording is out of the question.
Not so.
Post by d***@cox.net
You're not very bright,
I am bright enough to know what you are doing and to point it out.
Post by d***@cox.net
Anything is preferable to being condemned as an atheist.
the dukester, American-American
See what I mean.
No.
Post by d***@cox.net
the dukester, American-American
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

Trump 2020

There are four despicable occupations:
Pimps
Politicians
Priests
Reporters

National Socialist American Worker's Party
formally known as the Democrat Party.

Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
d***@cox.net
2020-06-06 17:53:29 UTC
Permalink
If you had your way everyone would be tortured for eternity.
The jokes on you though, because we won't exist after death.
No, I'm trying to interest you in becoming a Christian.
You don't have to call it p-wording any more.
I prefer p-wording.
Obviously, since you're always doing it on the ng. And
very ineffectually.
So just call it proselytizing. What are you afraid of?
It's against the charter rules.
Are you in compliance with the rules if you proselytize
without saying "proselytize"?
I don't.
You just claimed you do proselytize, as you quoted above.
No, I don't. I don't p-word no matter how bad you want to call it
"proselytize".
Major Misdirection, you are as dumb as a stump.
You said "No, I'm trying to interest you in becoming a Christian." It
is a few lines above.
***********
If you had your way everyone would be tortured for eternity.
The jokes on you though, because we won't exist after death.
No, I'm trying to interest you in becoming a Christian.
I am immune to that infection you are trying to spread.
Infections don't listen.
You were clearly trying to proselytize. The actual definition says
so. You will lie anytime, anywhere, about anything won't you?
Nope, I was not pushing my faith because I opened the door to all as a
preference for you to a hot death.
Just what so you think proselytizing is?
proselytize verb
pros·?e·?ly·?tize | \ 'prä-s(?-)l?-?tiz \
proselytized; proselytizing
Definition of proselytize
intransitive verb
1: to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive verb
Except I was trying to get him to reconsider the damnation of himself.
: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause
Absolutely no "recruitment".
You don't know what that means either.
Sure I do. I was advising you of better options.
the dukester, American-American
Attila
2020-06-06 19:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@cox.net
If you had your way everyone would be tortured for eternity.
The jokes on you though, because we won't exist after death.
No, I'm trying to interest you in becoming a Christian.
You don't have to call it p-wording any more.
I prefer p-wording.
Obviously, since you're always doing it on the ng. And
very ineffectually.
So just call it proselytizing. What are you afraid of?
It's against the charter rules.
Are you in compliance with the rules if you proselytize
without saying "proselytize"?
I don't.
You just claimed you do proselytize, as you quoted above.
No, I don't. I don't p-word no matter how bad you want to call it
"proselytize".
Major Misdirection, you are as dumb as a stump.
You said "No, I'm trying to interest you in becoming a Christian." It
is a few lines above.
***********
If you had your way everyone would be tortured for eternity.
The jokes on you though, because we won't exist after death.
No, I'm trying to interest you in becoming a Christian.
I am immune to that infection you are trying to spread.
Infections don't listen.
More misdirection. My meaning is clear - Superstitions are diseases.
They fit the definition:

A disease is a particular abnormal condition that negatively affects
the structure or function of all or part of an organism, and that is
not due to any immediate external injury. Diseases are often known to
be medical conditions that are associated with specific symptoms and
signs.

or

a particular quality, habit, or disposition regarded as adversely
affecting a person or group of people.

It is clear accepting a superstition as being factual and trying to
present it as such is clearly a symptom of infection and the person so
infected should be treated as if they are a carrier of a contagious
disease. Which of course they are.

Care should be taken to insure they do not unknowingly infect those
around them who are not protected,
Post by d***@cox.net
You were clearly trying to proselytize. The actual definition says
so. You will lie anytime, anywhere, about anything won't you?
Nope, I was not pushing my faith because I opened the door to all as a
preference for you to a hot death.
That is what proselytizing is you moron, and I am warning everyone you
are contagious and are trying to infect those around you.
Post by d***@cox.net
Just what so you think proselytizing is?
proselytize verb
pros·?e·?ly·?tize | \ 'prä-s(?-)l?-?tiz \
proselytized; proselytizing
Definition of proselytize
intransitive verb
1: to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2: to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive verb
Except I was trying to get him to reconsider the damnation of himself.
: to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause
Absolutely no "recruitment".
You don't know what that means either.
Sure I do. I was advising you of better options.
You were trying to spread your infection.
Post by d***@cox.net
the dukester, American-American
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

Trump 2020

There are four despicable occupations:
Pimps
Politicians
Priests
Reporters

National Socialist American Worker's Party
formally known as the Democrat Party.

Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
Attila
2020-06-06 19:24:10 UTC
Permalink
I know you're blind.
You say that because your silly superstition requires you accept
certain things without question and I simply refuse to do that.
You may "see" something because you are required to say so by your
personal beliefs or your silly superstition but neither those beliefs
or your superstition means anything at all to me.
God will not let you off because of perpetrated ignorance.
You state that as if is a fact while it is nothing more than your
belief. If it is a fact where is the supporting evidence?
Well, I guess you will have to express massive ignorance about God to get away
with it.
I am not trying to get away with anything Major Misdirection. I am
pointing out how you constantly make assertions without supporting
evidence.
Sure you are. You keep accusing me of sending you off in a wrong direction.
I accuse you of not addressing the point under discussion directly and
instead trying to divert the discussion into a different direction.
It's clear I know God and you don't.
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the existence of any
god.
Of course, it those assertions are just your beliefs and not facts you
need no such evidence.
Are your assertions facts?
Of course they are.
If they are facts they require supporting evidence. Something you
don't seem to actually have.
I don't
You don't what? Have supporting evidence? If not how do you know
they are facts? Why should anyone else pay any attention to you?
, and if you have to ask, you also have to admit
that you don't know the answer.
But I am not asserting anything as being factual. You are. I have
nothing that requires any answer.
Give a link to an example of where I have told a lie. Otherwise
either retract the accusation or let it stand as evidence of your
ongoing lies and deceits.
Forever more in your profession of blindness.
I see you once again fail to provide such a link.
You said "you fail to see" over a hundred times. Enough said.
Yes I have and I will continue to indicate your failure to provide any
supporting evidence for what you say are facts and what I dispute as
being factual. How would you suggest I indicate my ongoing refusal to
accept your assertions without such supporting evidence?

My intentions in what I am saying are clear and your continued
"misunderstanding" of my meaning in using the word only helps draw
attention to the fact that rather than providing supporting evidence
or admitting you have no such evidence you simply try to divert the
discussion into a different direction by accusing me of being blind.
Do you really think you are fooling anyone?

Or is your understanding of the English language so poor you are
unaware of certain standard phrases and how they are used?
Your pink elephant won't help you.
Exactly where did I say I expected it to help me in any way? That is
just another example of Major Misdirection at work.
I believe you are led by a pink elephant.
As a belief that needs no supporting evidence. Nor does it need to be
rational. People believe all sorts of crazy things.

Your answer has nothing to do with the question which I note you
avoiding answering. That is why you are known as Major Misdirection.
the dukester, American-American
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

Trump 2020

There are four despicable occupations:
Pimps
Politicians
Priests
Reporters

National Socialist American Worker's Party
formally known as the Democrat Party.

Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
d***@cox.net
2020-06-07 16:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Attila
I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the existence of any
god.
Of course not. You're blind.
the dukester, American-American

Sir Hømer Hall, Esq.
2020-06-06 21:25:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 6 Jun 2020, Oko tillo <***@gmail.com> wrote:

<...>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/bdLZWa9U4oY/gGFNfYxdAwAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/UwvhePENGvo/MZLirLyRAwAJ
He's basically Duke, but writing in English.
Don't be absurd. Why would any self-respecting
Christian allow deluded atheists to set the terms
of a discussion when they always move the goal
posts the minute they are proven logically bereft?

Here's a clue: atheists are on the negative side
while Christians are on the positive side. Positive
always trumps negative so it's not up to Christians
to debase themselves attempting to prove a negative.

It's up to atheists to attempt (and fail) to prove the
positive that is God the Creator.

Get it?
--
Yours Truly, Sir Gregøry

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the
essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and
not, when I came to die, discøver that I had not lived." __Henry David Thøreau
Oko tillo
2020-06-06 21:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Hømer Hall, Esq.
<...>
==
Post by Sir Hømer Hall, Esq.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/bdLZWa9U4oY/gGFNfYxdAwAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/UwvhePENGvo/MZLirLyRAwAJ
He's basically Duke, but writing in English.
Don't be absurd. Why would any self-respecting
Christian allow deluded atheists to set the terms
of a discussion when they always move the goal
posts the minute they are proven logically bereft?
Still waiting for that proof of supposed logical bereavement:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/bdLZWa9U4oY/gGFNfYxdAwAJ

But hey: if you want to assert whatever, and then back smartly out
if challenged to stand behind your assertions, it's a free Usenet;
anyone can run away at any time.
Post by Sir Hømer Hall, Esq.
Here's a clue: atheists are on the negative side
while Christians are on the positive side. Positive
always trumps negative
Argumentum ab bumper sticker?
Post by Sir Hømer Hall, Esq.
so it's not up to Christians
to debase themselves attempting to prove a negative.
What negative? You positively claimed that logic points to God.
I merely asked you to demonstrate it.
Post by Sir Hømer Hall, Esq.
It's up to atheists to attempt (and fail) to prove the
positive that is God the Creator.
It's up to atheists to prove your God for you?
Now *there's* a novel argument.
Post by Sir Hømer Hall, Esq.
Get it?
You'll have to argue that with an atheist; I'm not an atheist.

Got it?


Oko
Attila
2020-06-06 23:40:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 17:25:22 -0400, "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq."
Post by Sir Hømer Hall, Esq.
<...>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/bdLZWa9U4oY/gGFNfYxdAwAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/UwvhePENGvo/MZLirLyRAwAJ
He's basically Duke, but writing in English.
Don't be absurd. Why would any self-respecting
Christian allow deluded atheists to set the terms
of a discussion when they always move the goal
posts the minute they are proven logically bereft?
Here's a clue: atheists are on the negative side
while Christians are on the positive side. Positive
always trumps negative so it's not up to Christians
to debase themselves attempting to prove a negative.
It's up to atheists to attempt (and fail) to prove the
positive that is God the Creator.
Nonsense. It is you theists that insist your silly superstition has
any place in the real world. Since that is your assertion it is your
task to provide supporting evidence.

Or do you say that is only your belief and not factual?


I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the existence of any
god.
Post by Sir Hømer Hall, Esq.
Get it?
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

Trump 2020

There are four despicable occupations:
Pimps
Politicians
Priests
Reporters

National Socialist American Worker's Party
formally known as the Democrat Party.

Don't build a wall, build a kill zone.
Peter Pan
2020-06-07 16:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Hømer Hall, Esq.
<...>
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/bdLZWa9U4oY/gGFNfYxdAwAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/UwvhePENGvo/MZLirLyRAwAJ
He's basically Duke, but writing in English.
Don't be absurd. Why would any self-respecting
Christian allow deluded atheists to set the terms
of a discussion when they always move the goal
posts the minute they are proven logically bereft?
Here's a clue: atheists are on the negative side
while Christians are on the positive side. Positive
always trumps negative so it's not up to Christians
to debase themselves attempting to prove a negative.
It's up to atheists to attempt (and fail) to prove the
positive that is God the Creator.
Get it?
It depends on who the self-respecting Christian is.

****************************************
Subject: BLACK LIVES DON'T MATTER TO ME...
From: "Sir Hømer Hall, Esq." <***@høme.fake>
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

Fuck a bunch of uppity niggers. They will get some
respect from me when they accomplish something more
than crying like a bunch of babies.
****************************************

Now that's a real positive take. It's just what Jesus
would have said, isn't it.

Hallelujah!
Cloud Hobbit
2020-06-06 22:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Yes, it was your free will >that caused satan to act in >accordance with his free
will.
Prove Satan.

You won't because you can't.

😷🏯💣🏰💣
aaa
2020-06-07 00:17:17 UTC
Permalink
That has *nothing* whatsoever to do with life beginning on Earth,
because Earth is NOT A CLOSED (isolated) SYSTEM. When tomorrow comes
wherever you are, go outside and look up in the sky. See that big hot
yellow-white ball shining away up there? That's the sun, and it's
busy pumping energy, in the forms of heat and light, onto the Earth.
More specifically, the sun is a source of low-entropy photons of visible
light, and the night sky is a sink of high-entropy photons of infrared
radiation. The 20:1 differential forms a gradient that drives all
weather and life on Earth.
Low-entropy photon? What the fuck is that? and what does it have
anything to do with the second law?
==
==
Think of a parking lot that's on a slope. Low entropy photons are the
carts at the top, near the store entrance. High entropy ones are all the
carts that already, spontaneously, rolled to the bottom.
Bullshit. Energy is not matter. You can't measure the entropy of energy
in classical physics.
==
"Classical physics"? We're not talking classical physics: classical physics
does not contain the concept of photons. Wellcome to the twentieth century..
This is not the first time we've seen you don't know what that term even means.
Too bad. I'm talking about the second law from the view of classical
physics.
Then you have no reason to be asking about photons if you don't want to get
into the physics of photons. Which is the physics from Einstein's
1905 paper up till today.
==
I did not ask anything about photons.
Funny, "Low-entropy photon? What the fuck is that?" sounds like a question
about photons to me.
You should finish reading what I wrote before you make a reply.
Oh, I did. Hence my response.
To ignore the rest of my message, yes.
I was questioning the reason to
bring it into the discussion of the second law.
You're not discussing the second law in isolation; you're discussing it as it relates
to photosynthesis.
I'm discussing both. I'm talking about the second law in all systems
both open and closed.
And you can't intelligently discuss photosynthesis unless you understand how the
energy of a photon from the sun -- but only photons of the correct wavelength --
transfers their energy to pigment-protein complexes bound to the plant's
thylakoid membranes. And how that raises that pigment molecule to an excited
state, which then gets passed on to the next step in the chain.
Actually, such detailed information has to do with chemistry instead of
physics.
If you don't understand the basics, you can't talk intelligently about more
advanced things. It's just uneducated hand waving.
==
==
Not really. You are only trying to confuse the issue by talking about
chemistry and photons instead. You already know you are wrong. It's why
you try to ignore the second law as much as you can.
Ignore, eh?
Sonny, there are two of us here. One of us quite thoroughly understands
the Second Law.
And the other one is you.
One of us has spent a lifetime in the physical sciences.
And the other one is still you.
I've done my best to explain to you -- at length, in detail and many times. --
exactly where you get it wrong, but hey: all one can do is lead that horse to water.
Now here's the part where you dip into your vast repertoire of insulting evasions
and throw a few at me.
Which will not change the fact that I am right and you are wrong.
Because I understand the science while you understand only what you make up..
And you won't find a physicist in the world who will agree with what you make up.
Unfortunately, I know something your science teacher has never bothered
to teach you. It's called energy preservation under the second law.
Oh, I understand the process rather well. The biology, the chemistry
and the thermodynamics.
Which makes one of us.
I understand how plants stick water and carbon dioxide together to
make glucose. And I understand how it's a rather wasteful process
that generates a great increase in entropy to drive a small decrease
in entropy. All in happy compliance with the second law.
No one is talking about breaking the second law. Can you find a single
similar process in nature that does not happen in life? No?
As I also understand how nature is full of examples of using larger
amounts of energy to store smaller amounts of energy.
Photosynthesis is merely one example of many such.
Which is why I understand that the mess you made up in your own head
is, well, the mess you made up in your own head.
So, back to your praying bacteria and your spiritual dragons and your claims about
the Bible you haven't read and the philosophers you never even heard of
and all the other messes you've made up in your own head.
It's a very ... colorful world you inhabit.
And it's a world with a population of one.
Meanwhile the real world chugs along being boringly and mundanely wonderful..
Oko
Entropy is only the expression of energy within
matter. You can't measure the expression of energy within energy.. It's
meaningless.
Incorrect.
"The second law, the Planck equation, and the Gibbs–Duhem relation are used
to deduce intrinsic thermodynamic properties of individual photons. It is found
that intrinsic photon entropy is independent of the photon wavelength [which
[surprised me]. The intrinsic entropy flux associated with individual
photons supplements the entropy flux obtained from standard statistical
mechanics. Implications of intrinsic photon entropy for isolated photon systems,
a fundamental Planck temperature, and the net photon production
of the earth are discussed".
-- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020722504000102
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282729452_Entropy_of_the_photon_and_photon_gas_in_thermodynamics_of_radiation
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01622-6
Oko
When the energy is used by the matter, the entropy of the matter will
increase. The matter will become more chaotic. When the energy is
preserved in the matter, the entropy of the matter will decrease.. The
matter will become more orderly.
--
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
Oko tillo
2020-06-07 00:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by aaa
That has *nothing* whatsoever to do with life beginning on Earth,
because Earth is NOT A CLOSED (isolated) SYSTEM. When tomorrow comes
wherever you are, go outside and look up in the sky. See that big hot
yellow-white ball shining away up there? That's the sun, and it's
busy pumping energy, in the forms of heat and light, onto the Earth.
More specifically, the sun is a source of low-entropy photons of visible
light, and the night sky is a sink of high-entropy photons of infrared
radiation. The 20:1 differential forms a gradient that drives all
weather and life on Earth.
Low-entropy photon? What the fuck is that? and what does it have
anything to do with the second law?
==
==
Think of a parking lot that's on a slope. Low entropy photons are the
carts at the top, near the store entrance. High entropy ones are all the
carts that already, spontaneously, rolled to the bottom.
Bullshit. Energy is not matter. You can't measure the entropy of energy
in classical physics.
==
"Classical physics"? We're not talking classical physics: classical physics
does not contain the concept of photons. Wellcome to the twentieth century..
This is not the first time we've seen you don't know what that term even means.
Too bad. I'm talking about the second law from the view of classical
physics.
Then you have no reason to be asking about photons if you don't want to get
into the physics of photons. Which is the physics from Einstein's
1905 paper up till today.
==
I did not ask anything about photons.
Funny, "Low-entropy photon? What the fuck is that?" sounds like a question
about photons to me.
You should finish reading what I wrote before you make a reply.
Oh, I did. Hence my response.
To ignore the rest of my message, yes.
I was questioning the reason to
bring it into the discussion of the second law.
You're not discussing the second law in isolation; you're discussing it as it relates
to photosynthesis.
I'm discussing both. I'm talking about the second law in all systems
both open and closed.
And you can't intelligently discuss photosynthesis unless you understand how the
energy of a photon from the sun -- but only photons of the correct wavelength --
transfers their energy to pigment-protein complexes bound to the plant's
thylakoid membranes. And how that raises that pigment molecule to an excited
state, which then gets passed on to the next step in the chain.
Actually, such detailed information has to do with chemistry instead of
physics.
If you don't understand the basics, you can't talk intelligently about more
advanced things. It's just uneducated hand waving.
==
==
Not really. You are only trying to confuse the issue by talking about
chemistry and photons instead. You already know you are wrong. It's why
you try to ignore the second law as much as you can.
Ignore, eh?
Sonny, there are two of us here. One of us quite thoroughly understands
the Second Law.
And the other one is you.
One of us has spent a lifetime in the physical sciences.
And the other one is still you.
I've done my best to explain to you -- at length, in detail and many times. --
exactly where you get it wrong, but hey: all one can do is lead that horse to water.
Now here's the part where you dip into your vast repertoire of insulting evasions
and throw a few at me.
Which will not change the fact that I am right and you are wrong.
Because I understand the science while you understand only what you make up..
And you won't find a physicist in the world who will agree with what you make up.
==
Post by aaa
Unfortunately, I know something your science teacher has never bothered
to teach you. It's called energy preservation under the second law.
Oh, I understand the process rather well. The biology, the chemistry
and the thermodynamics.
Which makes one of us.
I understand how plants stick water and carbon dioxide together to
make glucose. And I understand how it's a rather wasteful process
that generates a great increase in entropy to drive a small decrease
in entropy. All in happy compliance with the second law.
No one is talking about breaking the second law. Can you find a single
similar process in nature that does not happen in life? No?
I have absolutely no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.

So I'll only point out that you're the boy who has endlessly claimed
that photosynthesis "defies" the second law.

It doesn't. The second law in no way forbids local decreases in
entropy which result in larger overall increases in entropy.

Oko
Post by aaa
As I also understand how nature is full of examples of using larger
amounts of energy to store smaller amounts of energy.
Photosynthesis is merely one example of many such.
Which is why I understand that the mess you made up in your own head
is, well, the mess you made up in your own head.
So, back to your praying bacteria and your spiritual dragons and your claims about
the Bible you haven't read and the philosophers you never even heard of
and all the other messes you've made up in your own head.
It's a very ... colorful world you inhabit.
And it's a world with a population of one.
Meanwhile the real world chugs along being boringly and mundanely wonderful..
Oko
Entropy is only the expression of energy within
matter. You can't measure the expression of energy within energy.. It's
meaningless.
Incorrect.
"The second law, the Planck equation, and the Gibbs–Duhem relation are used
to deduce intrinsic thermodynamic properties of individual photons. It is found
that intrinsic photon entropy is independent of the photon wavelength [which
[surprised me]. The intrinsic entropy flux associated with individual
photons supplements the entropy flux obtained from standard statistical
mechanics. Implications of intrinsic photon entropy for isolated photon systems,
a fundamental Planck temperature, and the net photon production
of the earth are discussed".
-- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020722504000102
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282729452_Entropy_of_the_photon_and_photon_gas_in_thermodynamics_of_radiation
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01622-6
Oko
When the energy is used by the matter, the entropy of the matter will
increase. The matter will become more chaotic. When the energy is
preserved in the matter, the entropy of the matter will decrease.. The
matter will become more orderly.
aaa
2020-06-07 01:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oko tillo
Post by aaa
That has *nothing* whatsoever to do with life beginning on Earth,
because Earth is NOT A CLOSED (isolated) SYSTEM. When tomorrow comes
wherever you are, go outside and look up in the sky. See that big hot
yellow-white ball shining away up there? That's the sun, and it's
busy pumping energy, in the forms of heat and light, onto the Earth.
More specifically, the sun is a source of low-entropy photons of visible
light, and the night sky is a sink of high-entropy photons of infrared
radiation. The 20:1 differential forms a gradient that drives all
weather and life on Earth.
Low-entropy photon? What the fuck is that? and what does it have
anything to do with the second law?
==
==
Think of a parking lot that's on a slope. Low entropy photons are the
carts at the top, near the store entrance. High entropy ones are all the
carts that already, spontaneously, rolled to the bottom.
Bullshit. Energy is not matter. You can't measure the entropy of energy
in classical physics.
==
"Classical physics"? We're not talking classical physics: classical physics
does not contain the concept of photons. Wellcome to the twentieth century..
This is not the first time we've seen you don't know what that term even means.
Too bad. I'm talking about the second law from the view of classical
physics.
Then you have no reason to be asking about photons if you don't want to get
into the physics of photons. Which is the physics from Einstein's
1905 paper up till today.
==
I did not ask anything about photons.
Funny, "Low-entropy photon? What the fuck is that?" sounds like a question
about photons to me.
You should finish reading what I wrote before you make a reply.
Oh, I did. Hence my response.
To ignore the rest of my message, yes.
I was questioning the reason to
bring it into the discussion of the second law.
You're not discussing the second law in isolation; you're discussing it as it relates
to photosynthesis.
I'm discussing both. I'm talking about the second law in all systems
both open and closed.
And you can't intelligently discuss photosynthesis unless you understand how the
energy of a photon from the sun -- but only photons of the correct wavelength --
transfers their energy to pigment-protein complexes bound to the plant's
thylakoid membranes. And how that raises that pigment molecule to an excited
state, which then gets passed on to the next step in the chain.
Actually, such detailed information has to do with chemistry instead of
physics.
If you don't understand the basics, you can't talk intelligently about more
advanced things. It's just uneducated hand waving.
==
==
Not really. You are only trying to confuse the issue by talking about
chemistry and photons instead. You already know you are wrong. It's why
you try to ignore the second law as much as you can.
Ignore, eh?
Sonny, there are two of us here. One of us quite thoroughly understands
the Second Law.
And the other one is you.
One of us has spent a lifetime in the physical sciences.
And the other one is still you.
I've done my best to explain to you -- at length, in detail and many times. --
exactly where you get it wrong, but hey: all one can do is lead that horse to water.
Now here's the part where you dip into your vast repertoire of insulting evasions
and throw a few at me.
Which will not change the fact that I am right and you are wrong.
Because I understand the science while you understand only what you make up..
And you won't find a physicist in the world who will agree with what you make up.
==
Post by aaa
Unfortunately, I know something your science teacher has never bothered
to teach you. It's called energy preservation under the second law.
Oh, I understand the process rather well. The biology, the chemistry
and the thermodynamics.
Which makes one of us.
I understand how plants stick water and carbon dioxide together to
make glucose. And I understand how it's a rather wasteful process
that generates a great increase in entropy to drive a small decrease
in entropy. All in happy compliance with the second law.
No one is talking about breaking the second law. Can you find a single
similar process in nature that does not happen in life? No?
I have absolutely no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.
It means finding a naturally occurring process in the non-living
environment that is similar to photosynthesis.

Can you do that?
Post by Oko tillo
So I'll only point out that you're the boy who has endlessly claimed
that photosynthesis "defies" the second law.
It doesn't. The second law in no way forbids local decreases in
entropy which result in larger overall increases in entropy.
Oko
Post by aaa
As I also understand how nature is full of examples of using larger
amounts of energy to store smaller amounts of energy.
Photosynthesis is merely one example of many such.
Which is why I understand that the mess you made up in your own head
is, well, the mess you made up in your own head.
So, back to your praying bacteria and your spiritual dragons and your claims about
the Bible you haven't read and the philosophers you never even heard of
and all the other messes you've made up in your own head.
It's a very ... colorful world you inhabit.
And it's a world with a population of one.
Meanwhile the real world chugs along being boringly and mundanely wonderful..
Oko
Entropy is only the expression of energy within
matter. You can't measure the expression of energy within energy.. It's
meaningless.
Incorrect.
"The second law, the Planck equation, and the Gibbs–Duhem relation are used
to deduce intrinsic thermodynamic properties of individual photons. It is found
that intrinsic photon entropy is independent of the photon wavelength [which
[surprised me]. The intrinsic entropy flux associated with individual
photons supplements the entropy flux obtained from standard statistical
mechanics. Implications of intrinsic photon entropy for isolated photon systems,
a fundamental Planck temperature, and the net photon production
of the earth are discussed".
-- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020722504000102
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282729452_Entropy_of_the_photon_and_photon_gas_in_thermodynamics_of_radiation
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01622-6
Oko
When the energy is used by the matter, the entropy of the matter will
increase. The matter will become more chaotic. When the energy is
preserved in the matter, the entropy of the matter will decrease.. The
matter will become more orderly.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
Oko tillo
2020-06-07 01:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by aaa
Post by Oko tillo
Post by aaa
That has *nothing* whatsoever to do with life beginning on Earth,
because Earth is NOT A CLOSED (isolated) SYSTEM. When tomorrow comes
wherever you are, go outside and look up in the sky. See that big hot
yellow-white ball shining away up there? That's the sun, and it's
busy pumping energy, in the forms of heat and light, onto the Earth.
More specifically, the sun is a source of low-entropy photons of visible
light, and the night sky is a sink of high-entropy photons of infrared
radiation. The 20:1 differential forms a gradient that drives all
weather and life on Earth.
Low-entropy photon? What the fuck is that? and what does it have
anything to do with the second law?
==
==
Think of a parking lot that's on a slope. Low entropy photons are the
carts at the top, near the store entrance. High entropy ones are all the
carts that already, spontaneously, rolled to the bottom.
Bullshit. Energy is not matter. You can't measure the entropy of energy
in classical physics.
==
"Classical physics"? We're not talking classical physics: classical physics
does not contain the concept of photons. Wellcome to the twentieth century..
This is not the first time we've seen you don't know what that term even means.
Too bad. I'm talking about the second law from the view of classical
physics.
Then you have no reason to be asking about photons if you don't want to get
into the physics of photons. Which is the physics from Einstein's
1905 paper up till today.
==
I did not ask anything about photons.
Funny, "Low-entropy photon? What the fuck is that?" sounds like a question
about photons to me.
You should finish reading what I wrote before you make a reply.
Oh, I did. Hence my response.
To ignore the rest of my message, yes.
I was questioning the reason to
bring it into the discussion of the second law.
You're not discussing the second law in isolation; you're discussing it as it relates
to photosynthesis.
I'm discussing both. I'm talking about the second law in all systems
both open and closed.
And you can't intelligently discuss photosynthesis unless you understand how the
energy of a photon from the sun -- but only photons of the correct wavelength --
transfers their energy to pigment-protein complexes bound to the plant's
thylakoid membranes. And how that raises that pigment molecule to an excited
state, which then gets passed on to the next step in the chain.
Actually, such detailed information has to do with chemistry instead of
physics.
If you don't understand the basics, you can't talk intelligently about more
advanced things. It's just uneducated hand waving.
==
==
Not really. You are only trying to confuse the issue by talking about
chemistry and photons instead. You already know you are wrong. It's why
you try to ignore the second law as much as you can.
Ignore, eh?
Sonny, there are two of us here. One of us quite thoroughly understands
the Second Law.
And the other one is you.
One of us has spent a lifetime in the physical sciences.
And the other one is still you.
I've done my best to explain to you -- at length, in detail and many times. --
exactly where you get it wrong, but hey: all one can do is lead that horse to water.
Now here's the part where you dip into your vast repertoire of insulting evasions
and throw a few at me.
Which will not change the fact that I am right and you are wrong.
Because I understand the science while you understand only what you make up..
And you won't find a physicist in the world who will agree with what you make up.
==
Post by aaa
Unfortunately, I know something your science teacher has never bothered
to teach you. It's called energy preservation under the second law.
Oh, I understand the process rather well. The biology, the chemistry
and the thermodynamics.
Which makes one of us.
I understand how plants stick water and carbon dioxide together to
make glucose. And I understand how it's a rather wasteful process
that generates a great increase in entropy to drive a small decrease
in entropy. All in happy compliance with the second law.
==
Post by aaa
Post by Oko tillo
Post by aaa
No one is talking about breaking the second law. Can you find a single
similar process in nature that does not happen in life? No?
I have absolutely no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.
It means finding a naturally occurring process in the non-living
environment that is similar to photosynthesis.
Can you do that?
Still don't know what you mean "that is similar to photosynthesis".

Similar how?
Post by aaa
Post by Oko tillo
So I'll only point out that you're the boy who has endlessly claimed
that photosynthesis "defies" the second law.
It doesn't. The second law in no way forbids local decreases in
entropy which result in larger overall increases in entropy.
which is the critical point about your claims of "defying" the second law.



Oko
Post by aaa
Post by Oko tillo
Oko
Post by aaa
As I also understand how nature is full of examples of using larger
amounts of energy to store smaller amounts of energy.
Photosynthesis is merely one example of many such.
Which is why I understand that the mess you made up in your own head
is, well, the mess you made up in your own head.
So, back to your praying bacteria and your spiritual dragons and your claims about
the Bible you haven't read and the philosophers you never even heard of
and all the other messes you've made up in your own head.
It's a very ... colorful world you inhabit.
And it's a world with a population of one.
Meanwhile the real world chugs along being boringly and mundanely wonderful..
Oko
Entropy is only the expression of energy within
matter. You can't measure the expression of energy within energy.. It's
meaningless.
Incorrect.
"The second law, the Planck equation, and the Gibbs–Duhem relation are used
to deduce intrinsic thermodynamic properties of individual photons. It is found
that intrinsic photon entropy is independent of the photon wavelength [which
[surprised me]. The intrinsic entropy flux associated with individual
photons supplements the entropy flux obtained from standard statistical
mechanics. Implications of intrinsic photon entropy for isolated photon systems,
a fundamental Planck temperature, and the net photon production
of the earth are discussed".
-- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020722504000102
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282729452_Entropy_of_the_photon_and_photon_gas_in_thermodynamics_of_radiation
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01622-6
Oko
When the energy is used by the matter, the entropy of the matter will
increase. The matter will become more chaotic. When the energy is
preserved in the matter, the entropy of the matter will decrease.. The
matter will become more orderly.
...
Oko tillo
2020-06-07 00:53:25 UTC
Permalink
God, the first mover behind the Big Bang, the expansion of
space-time, the inventor of dark matter, dark energy and the
four forces, builder of infinite planets, stars and galaxies,
the instigator of evolution on Earth four billion years ago,
and he worries about you surfing Porn
Hub and rubbing one out.
You are obviously deceived about God
and have a problem with masturbation.
I have absolutely no problem with masturbation. But what
did I get wrong about God? That he created reality,
I note that you are_now_a Creationist.This is big step for you.
or that HE has a problem with your masturbation?
Rather your statement that, "he worries about you surfing
Porn Hub and rubbing one out."
==
Ever hear of playing the Devil's advocate? This is sort
of the reverse situation.
So you were NOT surfing the web and downloading the
wickedness thereof. Is that what you are now trying to tell
us?
Then why have you expressly stated *your concern* for what
"God was thinking "while you were doing it, unless you were
under conviction of being naughty?
Andrew's going all esprit d'escalier on your ass, Teresita.

Not seeing any concern on her part there, Andrew.
Wit, yes, pointing out the absurdity of such an idea, yes.

But concern? Sounds rather blithe to me.

Oko
Oko tillo
2020-06-07 00:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Phrase from the Stephen King short story "Afterlife", which I'm currently
"Gina Scarponi -- once glimpsed sunning herself on the patio in filmy
white panties and nothing else -- was one of Bill's favorite fantasies
when he was still on his masturbation learner's permit".
The 39 Steps

==
you have an obsession with sexual deviance's
So, do you?
"For if you live according to the flesh
you will die; but if by the Spirit you put
to death the deeds of the body, you will
live."
~ Romans 8:13
I like the King James better. It has that as mortifying the deeds of the body.

Have you mortified the deeds of your body, Andrew?

And did you like doing it?

Oko
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...