Creationism VS Public schools

[MasterOfKrikkit]

And I addressed it as a one-time incident.

Um, yeah, that makes it sooo much better...

A) the point still stands: even a single lie by a scientist is detrimental to their career (but, according to you, a pastor can just "repent" and move on).

B) you're saying that you misinterpreted Vene's question, which was clearly intended to simply turn yours around and compare/contrast scientists with pastors. Given that you have offered no mea culpa but, rather, used this different treatment as a gotcha to me, it appears that your misinterpretation of Vene's question was deliberate. Which speaks volumes.

 

[atomweaver]

Just out of curiosity, what happens if a scientist is found to be consistently lying? Or even if he is found consistently wrong?

Just back-tracking a bit; you asked about consequences for the scientist, but not about the science. This is absolutely key... If a scientist is found to be consistently lying, the way that is typically found is because the science that the lying scientist reports doesn't work. Science is cumulative, not some long string of unrelated independent experiments. Woo Suk Hwang was caught because other scientists tried to build upon the results he reported, and couldn't reproduce his findings.


Conversely, religion still continues to "work" for its adherents, whether it is right or wrong.

 

[Naraoia]

Yes, them too; but not for the purpose of disagreement. They abuse their gift.

You almost make me reconsider my degree choice

 

[AV1611VET]

You almost make me reconsider my degree choice

I have a feeling that some people are going to have a lot of degrees made available to them.

 

[Naraoia]

I have a feeling that some people are going to have a lot of degrees made available to them.

Ah, never mind. Didn't catch your pun on the first reading.

Well, if that belief makes you feel good *shrug* If I'm afraid of death it's definitely not because of the temperature.

 

[Vene]

I have a feeling that some people are going to have a lot of degrees made available to them.

Hope to see you there.

 

[plindboe]

Ah, never mind. Didn't catch your pun on the first reading.

Well, if that belief makes you feel good *shrug* If I'm afraid of death it's definitely not because of the temperature.

It's a curious thing how a person can believe that we'll be tortured for an eternity, yet still make jokes about it. If a person finds such a thing funny, I see two options. 1.He doesn't really believe it deep down 2.He's a sociopath.

Peter

 

[atomweaver]

Buddha was a deadbeat dad traipsing around the countryside telling others how to find enlightenment.

Careful, AV, you might not want to go there... With a brush that broad, you end up painting two aspects of your favored deity in a negative light, as well;
Making full-grown adults via creatio ex nihilo doesn't strike me as involving a whole bunch of parenting skills (as evidenced further by the sophomoric error of leaving them to their own devices with a set of instructions starting with "Don't..." ) Looks like Our Father artfully dodged a bullet with some selective application of omnipotence. He didn't exactly split diaper-changing duties with Mary, either...

Jesus might not have been a 'deadbeat dad', but then that's because he never took a stab at fatherhood at all (not unless you believe some of the more 'heretical' non-Nicene Christian texts, anyways...)

 

[Gracchus]

In that case so his Buda, Mohammed, and all the myriad of other deities from around the world.

Buddha was a deadbeat dad traipsing around the countryside telling others how to find enlightenment. Mohammed was a one-man author of fiction, but a military genius who united 12? rag-tag tribes into a well-oiled fighting machine. Neither one were deities.

Neither the Buddha or Mohammad, as far as I know, ever claimed to be a deity. The Buddha, whose name was Siddhartha, was born into a royal family, so it is quite likely his son was well provided for. If you know he wasn't, please provide citations.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, Jesus was also a wandering teacher, living on alms.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither the Buddha or Mohammad, as far as I know, ever claimed to be a deity.

I don't know about Guatama, but Mohammad claimed to be a prophet, and was accused of being a false prophet by the Christians, who knew their Bibles.

The Buddha, whose name was Siddhartha, was born into a royal family, so it is quite likely his son was well provided for.

Doesn't matter --- daddy flew the coop. No changing messy diapers, no rocking little Guatama in his arms and getting spit-up on. No being there to help little Gautama get A's and B's in school. No, sir --- child-rearing wasn't his thing. HOWEVER, he did return once little Guatama was grown up.

We have names for people like that over here, you know --- and believe me --- it's not "enlightened."

If you know he wasn't, please provide citations.

Financially yes --- money is a good substitute for dad's love, isn't it?

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, Jesus was also a wandering teacher, living on alms.

Um --- no --- He was quite rich thanks to some Wise Men from the East, and some carpentry work in His earlier years. When needed though, even the fish "coughed up" some monetary support for Him. (You see, fish aren't atheists.)

 

[Aceofspades77]

It sounds to me like you don't want to be corrected when you state things that are wrong. How else can you learn?

Well actually I don't mind be corrected but not chastised when I have not had a chance to state my opinion and when my idea is not in accordance with your own. But i am willing to continue to debate. Seeing this thread is as good as any.




You forgot to mention, because we were talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you throw out the most important part of the 2nd law, you're not talking about reality anymore.

No we are talking about reality. Hey now lets keep it to the 2nd law. Lets start from the beginning if that's cool with you. I'm picking up better habits I hope.




No need to be sorry. I was interested in your claim that evolution violates the 2nd law, i.e. what the science says. If you believe that the 2nd law says something it doesn't, that's fine, but realize that and stop describing your misunderstanding as "the 2nd law of thermodynamics", as such would be dishonest.

I have not had a chance to describe my understanding of the 2nd law without you disagreeing or chastising me for my horrible writing. I could pull out the exact definition as stated in the Webster dictionary and we could move from there if you prefer. I do speak in allegory and don't consider myself knowledgeable about every subject but I am willing to discuss my reasons for believing what I believe.




Wow, you have a really hard time having your mistakes corrected. Yes, we were talking the 2nd law, that's why I used the word "nitpick". When I see people in a science discussion producing mistakes I tend to correct them, so they can learn from it.

I have a hard time having my answers misunderstood and then judged afterward. I still don't mind discussing the second law. I'm new to this thread thing and yes I don't fair well with the complex answers and am learning to keep it simple. We can start from the beginning if you prefer.

If you're not talking about scientific theories I'm not sure what your statement was about in the first place. That said, your posts has parroted several creationist arguments, misunderstandings and strawmen. They have been picked up from creationist websites, whether you realize it or not.

The good old straw men argument, I hate it as much as you. Forgive me if I have used it. But it seems you yourself have a biased opinion towards evolution as much as I do for creationism. I have found just as much useful information from "creation websites" as I have from non creationist. Ever heard of Brian green. I've been trying to portray his ideas of the 2nd law but have done it ever so poorly. It seems that you are quick to judge and dismiss my entire belief structure already. I'm willing to be corrected but once correction turns into judgment that does seem to go over to well with anybody I'd think. Once again we could start our discussion over again. I would love to keep it simple. After all most people have become confident in their reasons somehow. I trust you have become confident in your ideas too and I respect that.




Then accept your mistakes and learn from it, instead of feeling offended. It sounds to me like your ego is getting in the way of your aim for understanding and truth.

Why are you telling me to accept my mistakes. But to be told when and how to do anything especially is quite irritating in the lest. I have not posed any judgment against you yet have I. I do accept my mistakes in fact I consider myself a pretty humble person but to be told how to handle my writing is quite offending. Are you not using the straw man yourself in making me out to be offended when in reality I have been frustrated.




That you deny evidence exists because of your own confirmation bias doesn't make it go away. You earlier said you aimed for understanding and truth. I suggest you live up to that statement and try to listen when people tell you that there is vast amounts of evidence. You can start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Once again I am willing to look at and talk about 2nd law and how I feel it does not promote evolution. Could I not say to you the same thing about a confirmation bias. I don't feel the need to throw any links towards you immediately dismissing your point of view. I have not directed my points directly at you but about how I feel about evolution. And yes I believe we could argue about talk origins biases as well. If your so interested at showing me the truth I think there is a more cordial approach than what you have taken with me.


Another example of you parroting creationist websites. The bastardization of scientific words (as creationists do with micro- and macroevolution) is typical. You've funnily enough changed the meaning of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, yet you still insist calling it the 2nd law, even though it's not. Don't skew scientific words to fit your own agenda and then pretend you're talking science. I advice some honesty.

Wow honesty. I'm trying to express ideas which are clearly not being understood and am now being once again judged for it. On top of it I'm being blamed for skewing scientific words to fit my agenda. Holy crap. Have you not picked up one cue about my honesty. Yes I am a willing learner but there comes a point when I need to keep my own respect. Come on we can amiable no? I am willing to start over to better state my ideas.



That you find reality insane is your problem, not mine.

Looks like you can get just as passionate in your writing as I. I now find reality insane? What happened to our congenial discussion? Nice earning the respect points.

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

Aceofspades,

I know you feel like you are being persecuted by people saying you do not understand the 2nd Law and that they just misunderstand you, but you must understand, we've all heard this argument before, and every one who understands thermodynamics, particularly physicists like myself, have laughed at it.

I will state unequivocally: nothing proposed by biologists regarding the theory of evolution that I have ever read is in any way in conflict with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I know this because I understand what the 2nd Law actually says and how it is derived. If you want to contradict this, I recommend you be specific. Also, if you are successful, you would no doubt win the Nobel prize. (You should understand this last sentence to mean that I am very, very confident you will not be successful in showing that the theory of evolution contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermo).

By the way, please use Greene's explanation of the 2nd Law - I have attended several of his lectures and met him socially and I am pretty sure I can guarantee he disagrees with you...

Cheers

 

[Aceofspades77]

Nobel prize? Now that would be something worth looking into. My question for you Mr. Joe, is where did all of the intial energy the entire universe contains come from? Even mathematically it seems that there had to have been a high amount of low entropy at the beginning of the universe. Is this not the case please correct me if I'm wrong. And I will not laugh at your answer with my team of like minded non-scientist. Yes I'm not a P.H.'d holding scientist but I'm not afraid to ask questions. Btw speaking of the Nobel Prize- Al gore winning the Nobel prize is a mockery. What does global warming have to do with world peace.

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

Where did all the energy of the Universe come from? We don't know - maybe it was "borrowed" through a quirk of quantum mechanics from "nothingness" (this isn't as crazy as it sounds BTW). Maybe some supernatural being (i.e god or even the Abrahamic God) created it. Regardless, however, this question has nothing to do with the either the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or the the Theory of Evolution.

It seems you have a bigger problem with the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant. Even this law, however, doesn't work well with the creation of the Universe because it is derived from time translational symmetry and there can be no symmetry across time=0.

Now, the most interesting question about the 2nd Law and the early stages of the Universe is that the entropy of the Universe at its initial state needed to be low, but not too low. Entropy in particle physics has to do with the distribution of particles within a volume, and if the entropy was too low initially, the Universe would have collapse back on itself immediately. If it was too high, the particles would have been to dispersed to clump together into galaxies, stars, planets and really matter in general.

As for the Nobel Prize, you must remember there are too types of Nobel Prizes - the academic awards for Physics, Medicine, Economics, etc. and the Peace prize. The first set are given by the Sweden. the second by Norway and is not an original Nobel. Gore won the second, along with Yasser Arafat earlier...

 

[Aceofspades77]

Where did all the energy of the Universe come from? We don't know - maybe it was "borrowed" through a quirk of quantum mechanics from "nothingness" (this isn't as crazy as it sounds BTW). Maybe some supernatural being (i.e god or even the Abrahamic God) created it. Regardless, however, this question has nothing to do with the either the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or the the Theory of Evolution.

It seems you have a bigger problem with the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant. Even this law, however, doesn't work well with the creation of the Universe because it is derived from time translational symmetry and there can be no symmetry across time=0.

Now, the most interesting question about the 2nd Law and the early stages of the Universe is that the entropy of the Universe at its initial state needed to be low, but not too low. Entropy in particle physics has to do with the distribution of particles within a volume, and if the entropy was too low initially, the Universe would have collapse back on itself immediately. If it was too high, the particles would have been to dispersed to clump together into galaxies, stars, planets and really matter in general.

As for the Nobel Prize, you must remember there are too types of Nobel Prizes - the academic awards for Physics, Medicine, Economics, etc. and the Peace prize. The first set are given by the Sweden. the second by Norway and is not an original Nobel. Gore won the second, along with Yasser Arafat earlier...

Now this is the type of answer I not only respect but appreciate. Methodical, informative and helpful. Good on you sixpack. Actually the begining of "all things" is important to my belief structure for it is where all of my ideas originate. In standard quantum mechanics, physics if you had the capicity, could one not only calculate the wherabouts, the comings and goings and history of every particle that has existed? With this in mind could one not trace the path and effects of the second law has on these particles to the begining of history?

R,
ACe

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Now this is the type of anwer I not only respect but appreciate. Methodical, informative and helpful. Good on you sixpack. Actually the begining of "all things" is important to my belief structure for it is where all of my ideas originate. In standard quantum mechanics,physics if you had the capicity, could one not only calculate the wherabouts, the comings and goings and history of every particle that has existed? With this in mind could one not trace the path and effects of the second law has on these particles to the begining of history?

R,
ACe

You'd probably need a supercomputer the size of a planet to do that...

 

[Aceofspades77]

You'd probably need a supercomputer the size of a planet to do that...

Yeah but just think of the kind of chess game you could come up with.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah but just think of the kind of chess game you could come up with.

The Evergreen Game? The Pearl of Zandvoort? The Immortal Game? Fischer's Game of the Century?

 

[Cabal]

Now this is the type of anwer I not only respect but appreciate. Methodical, informative and helpful. Good on you sixpack. Actually the begining of "all things" is important to my belief structure for it is where all of my ideas originate. In standard quantum mechanics,physics if you had the capicity, could one not only calculate the wherabouts, the comings and goings and history of every particle that has existed? With this in mind could one not trace the path and effects of the second law has on these particles to the begining of history?

R,
ACe

Again, not sure why you're bringing the second law into this, but unfortunately quantum mechanics implies an inherent uncertainty which prevents us from knowing the "comings and goings and history" of every particle (never mind ANY particle). Pre-QM, scientists did think something like you describe would be possible, as they had no reason at that point to otherwise think the laws of physics were 100% deterministic.

Throw relativity into the mix, the lack of a universal reference frame plus the inconstancy of spacetime, combined with the fact that QM and relativity haven't been united yet, and you're in for an even bumpier ride...

 

[Split Rock]

I have not had a chance to describe my understanding of the 2nd law without you disagreeing or chastising me for my horrible writing. I could pull out the exact definition as stated in the Webster dictionary and we could move from there if you prefer. I do speak in allegory and don't consider myself knowledgeable about every subject but I am willing to discuss my reasons for believing what I believe.[/B]


I have a hard time having my answers misunderstood and then judged afterward. I still don't mind discussing the second law. I'm new to this thread thing and yes I don't fair well with the complex answers and am learning to keep it simple. We can start from the beginning if you prefer.



The good old straw men argument, I hate it as much as you. Forgive me if I have used it. But it seems you yourself have a biased opinion towards evolution as much as I do for creationism. I have found just as much useful information from "creation websites" as I have from non creationist. Ever heard of Brian green. I've been trying to portray his ideas of the 2nd law but have done it ever so poorly. It seems that you are quick to judge and dismiss my entire belief structure already. I'm willing to be corrected but once correction turns into judgment that does seem to go over to well with anybody I'd think. Once again we could start our discussion over again. I would love to keep it simple. After all most people have become confident in their reasons somehow. I trust you have become confident in your ideas too and I respect that.



Once again I am willing to look at and talk about 2nd law and how I feel it does not promote evolution. Could I not say to you the same thing about a confirmation bias. I don't feel the need to throw any links towards you immediately dismissing your point of view. I have not directed my points directly at you but about how I feel about evolution. And yes I believe we could argue about talk origins biases as well. If your so interested at showing me the truth I think there is a more cordial approach than what you have taken with me.


Wow honesty. I'm trying to express ideas which are clearly not being understood and am now being once again judged for it. On top of it I'm being blamed for skewing scientific words to fit my agenda. Holy crap. Have you not picked up one cue about my honesty. Yes I am a willing learner but there comes a point when I need to keep my own respect. Come on we can amiable no? I am willing to start over to better state my ideas.

A few points:

1. Your problems with evolution seem to be associated with your understanding of thermodynamics. I suspect it has more to do with your religious convictions, but let's assume not for now.

2, You seem to also think our (mainstream science) understanding of thermodynamics is wrong, and it is thermodynamics that shows how evolution (or in particular common descent of humans and other apes) is wrong.

3. You are therefore puting the cart before the horse. You first must show us why the accepted understanding of thermodynamics is wrong, before you can use this "new version" of thermodynamics to dispute evolution.

Good luck. You have a tough job ahead of you.