Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

Kyrisch

This Statement Is False
Jun 15, 2008
135
8
New Jersey
✟7,805.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
Now, scientists don't have any power to dictate to people in the way that the Supreme Court does. Moreover, the opinions of scientists can be very easily disregarded and disbelieved by lay people for any reason at all. Even more so if the lay person has a proposition that it unassailable. The natural laws are unassailable propositions that can substantiate the position of a lay person and discredit the opinion of a highly-trained scientist. As I have shown, a lot of scientific ideas have no merit on the basis of the 2nd Law. Much of evolution and associated theories fall into that category. One doesn't need to be a full-time scientist to recognize this.

THis is exactly what baggins is talking about. Scientists don't have opinions, they have arguments based on fact. As such, the lay person has absolutely no grounds to "disregard and disbelieve for any reason at all" because the lay person has not spent years and years studying in the field. Just because the lay person doesn't understand why something doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't mean they have the right to treat it as trash. The Second Law would not be called as such if it weren't apparent as a physical law in the universe. In fact, scientists would be the first ones to throw it away if they found something that contradicts it, the same way Newton's Law of Gravity was superceded with the more specific Theories of General Relativity.

And for your closing comment. Yes, one does most definitely indeed need be a full-time scientist or at least have had some form of college-level education on a subject to make any comment on something scientists have tested for centuries. Now, I don't mean to thread hijack, but if you may would you mind letting me know exactly what theories contradict the Second Law? This is besides evolution because we will never get anywhere with that.
 
Upvote 0

us38

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities
Jan 5, 2007
661
35
✟8,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
As I have shown, a lot of scientific ideas have no merit on the basis of the 2nd Law.

I'm gonna come right out and say it: you've got some serious balls. You haven't attempted, not even once, to show that any of the crap you attribute to the 2nd law can be derived from it. Not only that, but you've been called out by me and others to do so. Even then, you haven't attempted to back up your assertions. not even once. Now you have the audacity to say that you've shown your assertions to be true? That takes some serious ****ing nuts.

Maybe you're too used to the courtroom, where you can bluff about what you've "shown" to be true. After all, the people you are trying to convince don't want to be there, and they can't object to your assertions. But guess what? This isn't the courtroom. This is a public forum, where everything everyone says is recorded for all to see. You can't bluff about what you've "shown" to be true, because someone will call you on it. Everytime. Not once, not a single damned time, have you even attempted to derive your baseless assertions from the 2nd laws. Not a single damned time.

So here's the 2nd law again. Start deriving.

abb639ee87e7f36fd877e3e212a87f41.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baggins
Upvote 0

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
44
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
THis is exactly what baggins is talking about. Scientists don't have opinions, they have arguments based on fact. As such, the lay person has absolutely no grounds to "disregard and disbelieve for any reason at all" because the lay person has not spent years and years studying in the field. Just because the lay person doesn't understand why something doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't mean they have the right to treat it as trash. The Second Law would not be called as such if it weren't apparent as a physical law in the universe. In fact, scientists would be the first ones to throw it away if they found something that contradicts it, the same way Newton's Law of Gravity was superceded with the more specific Theories of General Relativity.

And for your closing comment. Yes, one does most definitely indeed need be a full-time scientist or at least have had some form of college-level education on a subject to make any comment on something scientists have tested for centuries. Now, I don't mean to thread hijack, but if you may would you mind letting me know exactly what theories contradict the Second Law? This is besides evolution because we will never get anywhere with that.

We'll have to agree to disagree about your first paragraph. As to your question in the second paragraph, here is an incomplete list of incorrect theories I have been debating over the last few weeks on CF:

1. Gas clouds gravitationally collapse to become stars. [A star is a lower entropy state than gas clouds, and purported exogenous events like supernova don't reasonably explain the collapse of gas clouds into a star.]
2. Simple molecules coalesce to become living organisms, or else complex self-replicating "hypercycles" or "protobionts." [A highly complex, organized sytem is in a lower entropy state than a collection of simple molecules, and the exogenous rules of chemistry don't reasonably explain how simple molecules coalesce to form a living system.]
3. The overall strength of the earth's magnetic field (the sum of the dipole and non-dipole components] is remaining stable or even increasing over time. [The dipole moment of a magnetic field is a lower entropy state than the non-diplole components, and the overall magnetic field must lose energy over time. The exogenous influx of solar radiation is not a sufficient energy source to counteract the reduction in radiative heat and the loss of convection energy within the mantle].
4. Any continental drift/plate tectonics taking place today is occurring at the same rate today as it did millions of year ago. [By the 2nd Law, friction and other contrary forces must cause the continents to slow down at a diminishing exponential rate, and convection within the earth and other forces are insufficient to drive the movement of the plates at a constant rate.]
5. The rate of mutation among living organisms today is the same as it was in the past. [For purposes of this issue, a collection of living organisms, such as the entire human race, is best thought of as a single self-replicating machine, and like all machines, our genome is decaying. Whatever the engine of that decay, the decay rate is causing and will cause mutations in our genome that will eventually cause the extinction of our species, even with the intervention of human ingenuity, which itself is a subset of the machine of the human species. For the same reason, mutation destroys life and does not lead to progressive evolution in the direction of greater complexity].

Each of these theories, which I believe incorrect on the basis of first principles, relates to the issue of whether we are created beings, or whether we arose from chance. I believe the evidence and the principles enunciated above points directly to a divine Creator God.
 
Upvote 0

TheGnome

Evil Atheist Conspiracy PR Guy
Aug 20, 2006
260
38
Lincoln, Nebraska
✟8,107.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
We'll have to agree to disagree about your first paragraph. As to your question in the second paragraph, here is an incomplete list of incorrect theories I have been debating over the last few weeks on CF:

1. Gas clouds gravitationally collapse to become stars. [A star is a lower entropy state than gas clouds, and purported exogenous events like supernova don't reasonably explain the collapse of gas clouds into a star.]
2. Simple molecules coalesce to become living organisms, or else complex self-replicating "hypercycles" or "protobionts." [A highly complex, organized sytem is in a lower entropy state than a collection of simple molecules, and the exogenous rules of chemistry don't reasonably explain how simple molecules coalesce to form a living system.]
3. The overall strength of the earth's magnetic field (the sum of the dipole and non-dipole components] is remaining stable or even increasing over time. [The dipole moment of a magnetic field is a lower entropy state than the non-diplole components, and the overall magnetic field must lose energy over time. The exogenous influx of solar radiation is not a sufficient energy source to counteract the reduction in radiative heat and the loss of convection energy within the mantle].
4. Any continental drift/plate tectonics taking place today is occurring at the same rate today as it did millions of year ago. [By the 2nd Law, friction and other contrary forces must cause the continents to slow down at a diminishing exponential rate, and convection within the earth and other forces are insufficient to drive the movement of the plates at a constant rate.]
5. The rate of mutation among living organisms today is the same as it was in the past. [For purposes of this issue, a collection of living organisms, such as the entire human race, is best thought of as a single self-replicating machine, and like all machines, our genome is decaying. Whatever the engine of that decay, the decay rate is causing and will cause mutations in our genome that will eventually cause the extinction of our species, even with the intervention of human ingenuity, which itself is a subset of the machine of the human species. For the same reason, mutation destroys life and does not lead to progressive evolution in the direction of greater complexity].

Each of these theories, which I believe incorrect on the basis of first principles, relates to the issue of whether we are created beings, or whether we arose from chance. I believe the evidence and the principles enunciated above points directly to a divine Creator God.

Wow, this is so stupid.

You're not a fan of the facts, huh? Can't be bothered to check them out when they conflict with your faith, apparently.
 
Upvote 0

Kyrisch

This Statement Is False
Jun 15, 2008
135
8
New Jersey
✟7,805.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
We'll have to agree to disagree about your first paragraph.

But that point is at the very core of this argument. The real problem is simply your attitude towards science.

As to your question in the second paragraph, here is an incomplete list of incorrect theories I have been debating over the last few weeks on CF:

1. Gas clouds gravitationally collapse to become stars. [A star is a lower entropy state than gas clouds, and purported exogenous events like supernova don't reasonably explain the collapse of gas clouds into a star.]

Measuring entropy is not "hmm, stars look more ordered than a gas cloud and thus must have less entropy". Entropy is a mathematical quantity based on statistical physics concerning the number of possible quantum states which a system can assume without it losing its overall properties. In simple terms, the vast amounts of heat a star radiates away more than compensates for its structural order, in terms of entropy.

2. Simple molecules coalesce to become living organisms, or else complex self-replicating "hypercycles" or "protobionts." [A highly complex, organized sytem is in a lower entropy state than a collection of simple molecules, and the exogenous rules of chemistry don't reasonably explain how simple molecules coalesce to form a living system.]
Again, as long as the overall entropy of the system decreases, the Second Law is not violated. For instance, the processes of spontaneous replication of RNA (which is observed and documented to occur today) are actually manifestations of the molecule's attempt to find lower, more stable states of existence.

For instance, Hydrogen always, except in the most extreme of cases, exists as a diatomic molecule H2. Now while this may seem more orderly than monatomic hydrogen, the energy content of H2 is actually much less than the sum of the energy contents of two individual hydrogen atoms. Upon bonding, the reaction emits large amounts of heat which cause the overall entropy of the system to decrease.

Oh, and as an added bonus, the reaction H (g) + H (g) --> H2 (g) is completely spontaneous (entropy goes down) and is one of the main reactions that fuel the cores of stars. Funny how this all ties together, isn't it?
3. The overall strength of the earth's magnetic field (the sum of the dipole and non-dipole components] is remaining stable or even increasing over time. [The dipole moment of a magnetic field is a lower entropy state than the non-diplole components, and the overall magnetic field must lose energy over time. The exogenous influx of solar radiation is not a sufficient energy source to counteract the reduction in radiative heat and the loss of convection energy within the mantle].

I am well-versed in biology, chemistry, and physics. I am not so in Geology and other Earth Sciences. Unlike you, I will not pretend that I know what I am talking about. I defer this point to someone more knowledgeable than myself, or maybe (just maybe) five minutes of wikipedia might give you some insight. If that isn't below you.

4. Any continental drift/plate tectonics taking place today is occurring at the same rate today as it did millions of year ago. [By the 2nd Law, friction and other contrary forces must cause the continents to slow down at a diminishing exponential rate, and convection within the earth and other forces are insufficient to drive the movement of the plates at a constant rate.]

The movement of the tectonic plates is not subject to solely simply Newtonian physics...:doh:There is more than just one force acting on the plates. On top of that, most of the Earth's processes are powered by the energy we receive from the Sun so within the frame of reference of just the Earth, Entropy may seem to do strange things but I assure you if the entire Solar System were taken into account Entropy would duly increase over time.
5. The rate of mutation among living organisms today is the same as it was in the past. [For purposes of this issue, a collection of living organisms, such as the entire human race, is best thought of as a single self-replicating machine, and like all machines, our genome is decaying. Whatever the engine of that decay, the decay rate is causing and will cause mutations in our genome that will eventually cause the extinction of our species, even with the intervention of human ingenuity, which itself is a subset of the machine of the human species. For the same reason, mutation destroys life and does not lead to progressive evolution in the direction of greater complexity].

This is a direct stab against evolution and uses arguments that have been previously refuted. So as not to distract you from the more important idea that the Second Law is not violated in any standing theory I will also defer this to another poster or to a later time. Thank you for your patience.

Each of these theories, which I believe incorrect on the basis of first principles, relates to the issue of whether we are created beings, or whether we arose from chance. I believe the evidence and the principles enunciated above points directly to a divine Creator God.

You need to stop this. This has no place in a debate because it is solely comprised of opinion. Please refrain from preaching in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cabal
Upvote 0

us38

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities
Jan 5, 2007
661
35
✟8,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
[By the 2nd Law, friction and other contrary forces must cause the continents to slow down at a diminishing exponential rate, and convection within the earth and other forces are insufficient to drive the movement of the plates at a constant rate.]

Prove it. Start here:
abb639ee87e7f36fd877e3e212a87f41.png


Remember, T_B, just saying "2nd law" does not count as an explanation. And don't you dare pretend you've already shown this to be true.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Assumption #1: The words of the Constitution are the law of the land and are binding upon all branches of government, include the justices of the Supreme Court.
Assumption #2: The words of the Constitution mean way they say, and should neither be added to no detracted from.

The Sixth Amendment says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." The Supreme Court has construed the Sixth Amendment to forbid the police from wiretapping a suspect's car after arraignment and with a warrent from a magistrate on the basis of denial of the suspect's right to counsel. But the 6th Amendment only says that a suspect has the right to counsel during trial--it does not say that his car cannot be wiretapped where the police have a warrant. On the basis of my common sense and the two propositions above, I conclude that the Supreme Court ruling has no merit. Anyone can rightly look at that particular ruling and say that the case was wrongly decided, whether or not they have a law degree or a special expertise in constitutional law. Obviously the Supreme Court justices are in a position of power so their decrees must be obeyed. But their power does not mean they are right and everything they say should be treated as gospel. If people believed everything the Supreme Court said, we would be giving ourselves over to an oligarchy.

Interesting example. But not really appropriate to the point I was making about logical propositions.

Note how you relied on a background and knowledge of the rule of law. You start with knowledge of the Constitution and you roll in knowledge of the Supreme Court findings and what those findings mean.

Now, imagine if I, a complete idiot on this particular topic said that it is obvious, by the right of certiorari that The Supreme Court was right and you were wrong!

You of course would come back and say "Certiorari has nothing to do with this topic! Don't be an idiot! Sure the Supreme Court has that right and obviously acted on it when it heard the case, but that has nothing to do with the decision!"

And then imagine if I were to repeat it several times. "By certiorari, the Supreme Court ruling in the case True Blue mentioned was correct and True Blue is in error!"

Then you ask me to do the following:

1. Define certiorari
2. Explain how certiorari relates in any way to the 6th ammendment

I wave around some commentary (using really big words, because I can, you see, I actually have a really big vocabulary) that includes the concept of "Supreme Court" and "inaction" and somehow I link it back to "speedy trial" and since the Supreme Court has the right of certiorari, I tie it all up without ever actually technically addressing the giant gaping hole in my point.

And then I never actually explain point-by-point how I think Certiorari makes the Supreme Court decision correct and your opinion incorrect.

But imagine,if you will, in this dystopian future, where I repeatedly make the claim and then loudly proclaim how I have shown it to be true.

What would you think of me then? Would you think I should be dispensing legal advice?

Even more so if the lay person has a proposition that it unassailable.

Well, demonstrably your point has been shown to not be that. It has been assailed by professionals in the fields you have attempted to play in. You have been shown how you are in error, or you have been asked to explain yourself fully to the scientists.

The natural laws are unassailable propositions that can substantiate the position of a lay person and discredit the opinion of a highly-trained scientist. As I have shown, a lot of scientific ideas have no merit on the basis of the 2nd Law.

Well, I claim by certiaorari and laches and estoppel that you are clearly in error.

See? You have been asked numerous times to back any of your claims up.

I understand the math is probably too hard, I'll admit it gets hard for me too. But indeed when you talk about this stuff you can and will be called out to back it up with the math. You have done nothing of the sort.

You see, that is why I would never have the cojones to stand up to a physical chemist with expertise in thermodynamics and tell them they are wrong without expecting to be raked across the coals six ways to sunday over my lack of math skills. I wouldn't even be able to approach the chalkboard. And then, of course, I don't think I'd be able to continue to tell the thermodynamics professor that he or she is wrong and I am clearly right. And the more I balked at doing the math the more I'd look like I'd lost.

This is why I know not to get in a debate over thermo with someone more skilled than myself. (And truth be told, thermo is not my bag nor has it ever been. But I know enough to see how it can be misapplied.)

When dealing with the second law topics, I think you really need to learn what US38 and others have pointed out to you. You must go back to first principals and show us how the rest of the world is wrong and you are right when it comes to your "unique" and error-riddled application of the Second Law.

If you think the Second Law is something people in the sciences treat lightly, please readjust your set. This is a very important topic in thermodynamics and one people much smarter than you have spent entire careers working out.

Please be respectful of their work and show us how your unique application of the 2nd Law is correct. You've been given the formula, work it out.

If you like I can recommend a couple of Thermodynamics books (Fermi "Thermodynamics" for one) and a couple others that might be worth your time to read.

Or you could do P.W. Atkins Physical Chemistry. It's one of my faves.

Much of evolution and associated theories fall into that category. One doesn't need to be a full-time scientist to recognize this.

One doesn't need to be a full-time scientist to critique science, but one must know some science.

Sadly you have shown yourself to be somewhat deficient in this area.

Unless, of course, you are willing to hire me to represent your company in front of the USPTO. I've had that extension class and I do get to hang with the IP folks at my work.

If you do hire me to head up your legal department, I'll have to ask for a significant salary raise over what I get right now. I'm a scientist. We don't get paid "lawyer scratch".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
44
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican

I'm gonna come right out and say it: you've got some serious balls. You haven't attempted, not even once, to show that any of the crap you attribute to the 2nd law can be derived from it. Not only that, but you've been called out by me and others to do so. Even then, you haven't attempted to back up your assertions. not even once. Now you have the audacity to say that you've shown your assertions to be true? That takes some serious ****ing nuts.

Maybe you're too used to the courtroom, where you can bluff about what you've "shown" to be true. After all, the people you are trying to convince don't want to be there, and they can't object to your assertions. But guess what? This isn't the courtroom. This is a public forum, where everything everyone says is recorded for all to see. You can't bluff about what you've "shown" to be true, because someone will call you on it. Everytime. Not once, not a single damned time, have you even attempted to derive your baseless assertions from the 2nd laws. Not a single damned time.

So here's the 2nd law again. Start deriving.

abb639ee87e7f36fd877e3e212a87f41.png

US38, the 2nd Law is not an equation--it's an idea. An equation can be used to correctly describe a parameter of that idea and to model the practical functioning of the idea, but the equation itself is not the 2nd Law. The 2nd Law is a universal law of decay. We are disagreeing about which items are subject to decay, and what form the decay takes. Moreover, an equation is only useful to the extent that it communicates an idea in an effective manner to the reader. Your equation notation in the context of this thread is a form of obfuscation, not illumination.

More basically, I am using the 2nd Law in an attempt to disprove a closely held, personal belief--a religion if you will--that naturalism rather than God explains the origin of life. My argument will only be effective for a person balanced somewhere in the the middle, or someone who already shares my views about God. To a person strongly opposed to the idea of God, I fully recognize that all of my arguments, no matter how well argued, will not be effective.
 
Upvote 0

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
44
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Interesting example. But not really appropriate to the point I was making about logical propositions.

Note how you relied on a background and knowledge of the rule of law. You start with knowledge of the Constitution and you roll in knowledge of the Supreme Court findings and what those findings mean.

Now, imagine if I, a complete idiot on this particular topic said that it is obvious, by the right of certiorari that The Supreme Court was right and you were wrong!

You of course would come back and say "Certiorari has nothing to do with this topic! Don't be an idiot! Sure the Supreme Court has that right and obviously acted on it when it heard the case, but that has nothing to do with the decision!"

And then imagine if I were to repeat it several times. "By certiorari, the Supreme Court ruling in the case True Blue mentioned was correct and True Blue is in error!"

Then you ask me to do the following:

1. Define certiorari
2. Explain how certiorari relates in any way to the 6th ammendment

I wave around some commentary (using really big words, because I can, you see, I actually have a really big vocabulary) that includes the concept of "Supreme Court" and "inaction" and somehow I link it back to "speedy trial" and since the Supreme Court has the right of certiorari, I tie it all up without ever actually technically addressing the giant gaping hole in my point.

And then I never actually explain point-by-point how I think Certiorari makes the Supreme Court decision correct and your opinion incorrect.

But imagine,if you will, in this dystopian future, where I repeatedly make the claim and then loudly proclaim how I have shown it to be true.

What would you think of me then? Would you think I should be dispensing legal advice?

Well, demonstrably your point has been shown to not be that. It has been assailed by professionals in the fields you have attempted to play in. You have been shown how you are in error, or you have been asked to explain yourself fully to the scientists.

Well, I claim by certiaorari and laches and estoppel that you are clearly in error.

See? You have been asked numerous times to back any of your claims up.

I understand the math is probably too hard, I'll admit it gets hard for me too. But indeed when you talk about this stuff you can and will be called out to back it up with the math. You have done nothing of the sort.

You see, that is why I would never have the cojones to stand up to a physical chemist with expertise in thermodynamics and tell them they are wrong without expecting to be raked across the coals six ways to sunday over my lack of math skills. I wouldn't even be able to approach the chalkboard. And then, of course, I don't think I'd be able to continue to tell the thermodynamics professor that he or she is wrong and I am clearly right. And the more I balked at doing the math the more I'd look like I'd lost.

This is why I know not to get in a debate over thermo with someone more skilled than myself. (And truth be told, thermo is not my bag nor has it ever been. But I know enough to see how it can be misapplied.)

When dealing with the second law topics, I think you really need to learn what US38 and others have pointed out to you. You must go back to first principals and show us how the rest of the world is wrong and you are right when it comes to your "unique" and error-riddled application of the Second Law.

If you think the Second Law is something people in the sciences treat lightly, please readjust your set. This is a very important topic in thermodynamics and one people much smarter than you have spent entire careers working out.

Please be respectful of their work and show us how your unique application of the 2nd Law is correct. You've been given the formula, work it out.

If you like I can recommend a couple of Thermodynamics books (Fermi "Thermodynamics" for one) and a couple others that might be worth your time to read.

Or you could do P.W. Atkins Physical Chemistry. It's one of my faves.

One doesn't need to be a full-time scientist to critique science, but one must know some science.

Sadly you have shown yourself to be somewhat deficient in this area.

Unless, of course, you are willing to hire me to represent your company in front of the USPTO. I've had that extension class and I do get to hang with the IP folks at my work.

If you do hire me to head up your legal department, I'll have to ask for a significant salary raise over what I get right now. I'm a scientist. We don't get paid "lawyer scratch".

Thaumaturgy, I don't generally use a bare math equation to prove something in the real world--I use real world events to prove the math. [I've always been puzzled by those who try to do otherwise.] For example, I can't use the velocity equation distance/time to prove my moving car has velocity. I use the velocity equation to show how fast my car is traveling by dividing distance traveled by elapsed time. The bare equation itself is not proof of anything. The equation E=MC2 has no potency or power to prove anything if in the real world energy and matter were not related to each other via the speed of light.

In this debate, I've made assumptions, just as I did in the legal analysis I presented to you. Because I am set in those assumptions, and because you guys are set in your assumptions, there's probably not much room for debate. A disagreement cannot be resolved unless there is common ground. I would hope that you will eventually accept the assumptions I've described them, perhaps by looking at the real world and deciding that the real world data supports the assumptions and conclusions based on those assumptions.

I must also reaffirm that degrees, titles, tenure, published papers, popular acclaim, eloquence, etc. are not as important as the underlying ideas. The ideas have merit, or they do not. Karl Marx was an absolutely brilliant man. I will never, ever be as smart as he is, and I would never be able to complete with him in many areas one might measure intellectual prowess. But I have complete confidence that my ideas on economics, based on Adam Smith and 150 years of failed communism and socialism, are right and that Karl Marx's economic ideas are wrong. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." True knowledge and understanding come from God and nowhere else.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

us38

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities
Jan 5, 2007
661
35
✟8,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
US38, the 2nd Law is not an equation--it's an idea.

No, it very much is an equation. My job would be absolutely impossible if it wasn't.

An equation can be used to correctly describe a parameter of that idea and to model the practical functioning of the idea, but the equation itself is not the 2nd Law.

Yes, yes it is. All laws in science are mathematical equations. They may be stated as words, but they are all ultimately equations. You see, this is why it's important to have a scientific background if one wishes to do science.

The 2nd Law is a universal law of decay. We are disagreeing about which items are subject to decay, and what form the decay takes.

You are, thus far, the only person to suggest that the 2nd law has anything to do with decay. I know, because I couldn't possibly do my job without it, that the 2nd law is a way to balance the entropy of a system. I also know, because I have actually taken the time to study the development of thermodynamics, that entropy is a measure of energy in a system that cannot be converted to work. The only one discussing decay is you. No thermodynamicist agrees with your definition

Moreover, an equation is only useful to the extent that it communicates an idea in an effective manner to the reader. Your equation notation in the context of this thread is a form of obfuscation, not illumination.

The equation that is the 2nd law very much illuminates that you are making stuff up as you go along. You can't derive your assertions from that equation, and you know it.

More basically, I am using the 2nd Law in an attempt to disprove a closely held, personal belief--a religion if you will--that naturalism rather than God explains the origin of life. My argument will only be effective for a person balanced somewhere in the the middle, or someone who already shares my views about God. To a person strongly opposed to the idea of God, I fully recognize that all of my arguments, no matter how well argued, will not be effective.

Your arguments don't become valid or meaningful by the viewpoint of the audience. Even if I was christian, everything you've attibuted to the 2nd law would still be wrong.

And get it through your head: evolution and abiogenesis could've happened, and it wouldn't have any effect on the existence of your god. Stop trying to create a false dichotomy.
 
Upvote 0

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
44
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican

You are, thus far, the only person to suggest that the 2nd law has anything to do with decay. I know, because I couldn't possibly do my job without it, that the 2nd law is a way to balance the entropy of a system.


I both agree and disagree with your statement about the 2nd Law being an equation. There is a subtle point of distinction between our two concepts.

I am not the only person to equate entropy with decay, and I'm unconcerned if thermodynamicists disagree with me. I don't believe that is the case anyway, at least for those thermodynamicists that are not myopically focused on their narrow field. This article conveys my view of entropy. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Entropy
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mpok1519

Veteran
Jul 8, 2007
11,508
347
✟28,850.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
My argument will only be effective for a person balanced somewhere in the the middle, or someone who already shares my views about God. To a person strongly opposed to the idea of God, I fully recognize that all of my arguments, no matter how well argued, will not be effective.


I am balanced in the middle; I hold a belief in God very dearly; yet I am fully opposed to your ideas about science, for they are provably false, and hardly worth spending time debunking them.

sorry if that sounds harsh, but, seriously....we dont need to spin quasi-religious and quisi-scientific ideas around each other to amalgamate into a web of nonsensical confusion.
 
Upvote 0

us38

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities
Jan 5, 2007
661
35
✟8,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I both agree and disagree with your statement about the 2nd Law being an equation. There is a subtle point of distinction between our two concepts.

The 2nd law is and always has been an equation. Deal with it.

I am not the only person to equate entropy with decay, and I don't care who disagrees with me.

And I don't care if you disagree, either. So long as you know you're wrong and they never let you work where the 2nd law would actually need to be applied, I don't care what you think entropy is.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

True_Blue

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian
Mar 4, 2004
1,948
54
44
California
✟2,444.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Note to self.
Pray to God I never need a lawyer in Hawaii.
In fact avoid Hawaii JTBS.

It's tragic that you're more interested in posting insults than posting real contributions to this thread.
 
Upvote 0

sinan90

Member
Jan 20, 2008
172
13
Cambridge, UK
✟7,967.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I am not the only person to equate entropy with decay, and I'm unconcerned if thermodynamicists disagree with me. I don't believe that is the case anyway, at least for those thermodynamicists that are not myopically focused on their narrow field. This article conveys my view of entropy. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Entropy


It seems liek the definition of entropy you're using from that site is only applicable in a sociological sense, and not to do with thermodynamics, so that definition has no meaning in this argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aerika
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
US38, the 2nd Law is not an equation--it's an idea. An equation can be used to correctly describe a parameter of that idea and to model the practical functioning of the idea, but the equation itself is not the 2nd Law.
No. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is that equation. To say anything else is to describe something completely different.

The 2nd Law is a universal law of decay. We are disagreeing about which items are subject to decay, and what form the decay takes. Moreover, an equation is only useful to the extent that it communicates an idea in an effective manner to the reader. Your equation notation in the context of this thread is a form of obfuscation, not illumination.
It's called mathematical precision. If you can't understand the equation, then why are your harping on about the second law?

More basically, I am using the 2nd Law in an attempt to disprove a closely held, personal belief--a religion if you will--that naturalism rather than God explains the origin of life.
But since you don't even know what the second law is, your on very shaky grounds. Is this really how they taught you to argue your case in lawyer school?

My argument will only be effective for a person balanced somewhere in the the middle, or someone who already shares my views about God. To a person strongly opposed to the idea of God, I fully recognize that all of my arguments, no matter how well argued, will not be effective.
But this has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs: you're just wrong. We're not throwing around baseless insults, it's just that you are wrong, categorically and unequivocably. There's no other way to put it, I'm afraid.

There is no universal law of decay, there is only the Second Law. You can't argue a conclusion derived from a false premise. Did they teach you this much in lawyer school?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aerika
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
To a person strongly opposed to the idea of God, I fully recognize that all of my arguments, no matter how well argued, will not be effective.

Don't be insulting! Either your claims about entropy and the Second Law and chemistry and geology are factually compelling or they are not. God has nothing to do with your inability to communicate your ideas with sufficient facts and proof.

This is an absurdity.

Your arguments are not well argued when you fail repeatedly to show a comprehension of the material you are debating against.

But more importantly, why would you spend so much time giving yourself an "out" on these debates?

First it was the Temperate Challenge on using your "random process" to predict the outcome of an organic reaction. You dodged and weaved and came up with more posts worth of excuses as to why you wouldn't even try.

Now you are using the "if you don't believe in God my arguments won't convince you" approach???

What kind of reasoning and logic is that? If you have something that is compelling proof of God (which, if you read the NAME of this thread: Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God I would assume you would be able to provide.)

So I think you actually thought your arguments would be effective in proving God, but when you were faced with numerous people who actually know the facts on the ground, you have to dodge and weave and give yourself an "out".

That's the unfortunately price of hubris I suspect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aerika
Upvote 0