@city:
Finsternis, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is called a law for a reason… it has never in a lab been broken. Where does the “pseudo” come in?
This is preudo science because it is deforming a law. Read carefully the second law, look how it work and then try to claim it is in conflict with Evolution ! Like i don’t remember who said that; Evolution is as much in contradiction with Thermodynamic as a bird is in contradiction with gravity. Please get information of the subject then make a counter argument but I and F_alk explain that it clearly, if you have an objection, just make it but read what we have already answered please.
Congratulation ! You are the first i know from america who spell Nietzsche the rigth way.quote]
AH HA!
FinsterniS IS INCORRECT.
I shall put it another way.
FinsterniS IS WRONG!I, an American, spelled Nietzsche on this website[two months ago] the way Nietzsche spelled Nietzsche during his whole Pre-Neitzschean, Neitzschean, and Post-Nietzschean life( :oops: Oops! Sorry, he couldn’t spell it Post-Nietzschean. He is dead during the Post-Nietzschean Era!).
I have a witness. I must ask the court to declare this a hostile witness.
My witness is FinsterniS! He complimented me upon noting my quoting Friendrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900).
Therefore, cc, I regret to inform you that you are not the first. In addition, you will note that I do not claim to be the first either. I am not sure, numerically, where I fit in FinsterniS’s life on the “i know from america who spell Nietzsche the rigth way.” list. Nor would I presume to take any position of which I am undeserving. However, cc, I do know I rank ahead of you on this most honorable of occassions. So, :raspP
–------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYAH! NYAH! NYAH! NYAH! BOO! BOO!,etc. - Xi
Hey,
Duds & Dudettes,
Isn’t this string like two rabbits, with blinders on, trying to discuss whether the hunter(s) about to shoot them is God(s). Get it? Limited communication skills, limited view, and limited intellect! :lol: :wink:
–------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll close by saying ’ prove ” go — yourself! - Xi
Also i have a question; god “give us a purpose” in life, but what of the animals ?
Depending on the animal…
in various parts of the world…
it’s called a ride…
or dinner…
or both. However, please, keep in mind that if it must be both…
the ride is recommended first. It’s a little rough the other way around! :P
NYUK! NYUK! - Xi
Congratulation ! You are the first i know from america who spell Nietzsche the rigth way.
AH HA!
FinsterniS IS INCORRECT.
I shall put it another way.
FinsterniS IS WRONG!
Guilty ! :)
I was challenged by a guest to read carefully the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and then make a case that it is in conflict with evolution. Merry Christmas.
“In terms of entropy the second law states that the total entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.”
–xrefer.com “Thermodynamics”
Entropy as an adjective is most easily described as disorder. To say that disorderliness, apart from outside intervention, cannot decrease, is saying this: Unless YOU personally do something, your messy room won’t get any cleaner.
So let me ask you this, if we evolved from single-celled organisms, didn’t we need, according to this law, some OUTSIDE INTERVENTION in order to become more complex beings?
@city:
I was challenged by a guest to read carefully the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and then make a case that it is in conflict with evolution. Merry Christmas.
“In terms of entropy the second law states that the total entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.”
–xrefer.com “Thermodynamics”Entropy as an adjective is most easily described as disorder. To say that disorderliness, apart from outside intervention, cannot decrease, is saying this: Unless YOU personally do something, your messy room won’t get any cleaner.
So let me ask you this, if we evolved from single-celled organisms, didn’t we need, according to this law, some OUTSIDE INTERVENTION in order to become more complex beings?
in order to save us Christians some embarrassment COAH, i will suggest that one kind of outside intervention might be the sun. It, via various organic and biochemical reactions, pulls CO2 together to produce glucose. From glucose we get our energy.
I fully agree that “outside intervention” makes more sense (to me) than the blind watchmaker hypothesis subscribed to - including the “non-reducible complexities” found in animal physiology.
At the same time, before you go down these roads, you might check out some earlier posts such as the “Prime factor” one, and others involving the “God exists” vs the “God does not exist” people (although i admittedly enjoy the posts from the agonistics the most . . . ).
Entropy will TEND to increase in a CLOSED sytem, the earth is NOT A CLOSED system. We have plenty of energy from the sun. Also if you look at the mathematical law of thermodynamic you will find it is VERY clear; entropy will tend to increase, but will decrease sometime. The creationist are making a very big deformation that is only getting to more confusion; they certainly do bring entropy in science :)
Also this pseudo argument is very strange, because we can have tons of exemple where entropy decrease without looking at evolution. When you are growing, when a plant is growing, when a cloud is forming, when a thunder is forming, when a snowflake is forming; we have tons of exemple where entropy decrease (i am sure CC can give you lot of biological exemple). This is only the overall entropy of a system that will increase, not everything in it ! (another deformation).
City, ask a creationist why we grow and reproduce, thing their vision of entropy and thermodynamic would not allow; they will answer you (well most of them) that there is a special “energy conversion mechanism” that allow living system to counter the effect of thermodynamic … And that is just some part of their special law to explain why their own idea of entropy does not apply to X, and Y, and also Z…
in order to save us Christians some embarrassment
A very noble objective; the Thermodynamic argument, you will admit, is using deformation of science law. This does not prove god does’nt exist but this argument is a nonsence. With all these deformation, creationist are just giving scientist and atheist/humanist like me good reason to think they are dangerous. I really wish we could live in a world were religion could be personnal, with a clear separation between Religion / Science / Politic.
you know FinsterniS, i believe that the presence of creationists is actually quite useful in regards to the persuit of better science etc. Many of them ask excellent questions, some that can’t (yet) be answered by evolutionists. In fact, i wonder that if not for creationists continually asking questions etc. if the research on evolution might not have stalled and been considered an “unproven fact” long ago.
Certainly many Christians are unscientific - as are many atheists. Big deal? If they were blowing up labs and archeological digs, that would be one thing, but the fact that some Christians want further proof before accepting something as fact which (to them) appears to conflict with the scriptures is something you may not need to knot your panties with.
Anybody here (seen my old friend, John?) read Forbidden Archeology regarding some of the gaps and flaws in the written records? It’s a very good indictment of the current belief system and supporting cast. No Christian viewpoint for some to find fault with the results.
How about Scientific Creationism ? It strats with 15 chapters of science conflicting with itself. then brings in Christianity in the last chapter as a simpler solution to the conflict(I’ll paraphrase here - e.g., 10,000 years ago, G_d made a star 10 billion light years from Earth. G_d put the light that shines from that star to the Earth in place. Big Bangers say “If God created the world 10.000 yrs. ago the light wouldn’t be there.” But that’s leaving G_d impotent, not omnipotent.) Read the book! It makes more sense than my paraphase.
Man evolved from gorilla(ape) ? Come on! Get it right! Man and Ape evolved from the same ancestors. :o :lol: Get educated, you Neanderthals! Read Forbidden Archeology and question your limited knowledge. - Xi
@cystic:
you know FinsterniS, i believe that the presence of creationists is actually quite useful in regards to the persuit of better science etc. Many of them ask excellent questions, some that can’t (yet) be answered by evolutionists. In fact, i wonder that if not for creationists continually asking questions etc. if the research on evolution might not have stalled and been considered an “unproven fact” long ago.
I disagree, the thermodynamic argument is not to convince scientific but the people, and in the end it only spread confusion ! As some other “logical” argument that make my stomach hurt. There is a lot of different kind of evolutionist, they are generating enough question to keep them busy and alert. Also just try to kind an evolutionist that will do research on how thermodynamic is in conflict with his science… They have more serious complication.
Certainly many Christians are unscientific - as are many atheists.
Try to find me 10 unscientific Atheist. By unscientific i mean they caution their belief with fallacious/unscientific argumentation.
Big deal? If they were blowing up labs and archeological digs, that would be one thing, but the fact that some Christians want further proof before accepting something as fact which (to them) appears to conflict with the scriptures is something you may not need to knot your panties with.
There is a serious problem when a “science” theory is base not on evidence but on 2 000 years old text. And when their only way to prove their theory is by pointing out evolutionist difficulty (evolution is a young science, give it time…)
@Xi:
Anybody here (seen my old friend, John?) read Forbidden Archeology regarding some of the gaps and flaws in the written records? It’s a very good indictment of the current belief system and supporting cast. No Christian viewpoint for some to find fault with the results.
I read it… but it’s not convincing.
How about Scientific Creationism ? It strats with 15 chapters of science conflicting with itself.
As a matter of fact most of the “conflict” are only result of deformation or ignorance, just give me one for fun… It’s always in the same form of the Thermodynamic vs Evolutionist one, they make a deformation, then they claim there is a problem. That’s why it is dangerous.
then brings in Christianity in the last chapter as a simpler solution to the conflict(I’ll paraphrase here - e.g., 10,000 years ago, G_d made a star 10 billion light years from Earth. G_d put the light that shines from that star to the Earth in place. Big Bangers say “If God created the world 10.000 yrs. ago the light wouldn’t be there.” But that’s leaving G_d impotent, not omnipotent.) Read the book! It makes more sense than my paraphase.
Evolutionism is very complex, but it explain very well the world around us. Christian are giving a simple, easy to swallow answer, that does not explain anything. I can give you a simple scenario about earth’s creation; the finnish one with the troll dying; it is not less or more valid than any theory with a mythological being; but it explain nothing. Also to first use god in an argumentation you must show that he does exist, it is not the case… Exept if you want to prove he exist BECAUSE he the existence of a creation; so you will need to prove creationism exist, but first god that need to be prove by creationism that need to be prove by god… well, circular logic.
Then evolutionists mess up their own stories. A couple of years ago astronomers discovered some stars Multiple times older than the cosmos has been calculated as being. :oops: ,silly scientists. My favorite part is that they use half-life theory to prove the age of an item. I’ll believe that when they show me a million years of Proof by the Scientific Method…NOT THEORY!
Science is advanding, unlike Creationism, so it is clear they discover new thing and change their mind; that is science. Also the system to prove the age of an item is very precise, the Half-life system of C14 is a good one and there is several exemple where other geological/historical evidence prove how precise the C14 dating is good.
yeah - i was kind of going there earlier.
to have to submit and be humble in the face of something much greater than ourselves does not leave room for arrogance.
given the fact that i am an arrogant person (according to FinsterniS and my sisters) i might be a bit of an anomaly in this regard . . . .
The concept of superiority and arrogance cannot deny or confirm the existence of the Almighty. Man can be “superior,” yet God could still exist (or not exist). To say human arrogance is a factor in the grand scheme of things is very arrogance.
In christianism the Human race is the center of the creation and of the universe; pure anthropocentrisme!
It’s Anthropocentrism. If you going to use big words like that, at least try to spell them correctly…
What would i need to be a theist again ? Well… not a miracles, i only request a logical argumentation, not a deformation of any physic law, but a real argument i could not refute. Argument from design or the Prime Factor argument does not impress me
Some people need to try harder.
It’s Anthropocentrism. If you going to use big words like that, at least try to spell them correctly…
Well i try but even if i am getting a little better in english, i am still not very good… Also i just add a “e”, like in French…
Just use a spell check next time. :) I don’t mind spelling errors, but it’s hard for people to run into a big word they probably haven’t encountered before and take the time to look it up in a dictionary (or to the lazy Americans -forget it altogether and watch “Friends”), only to found out it wasn’t listed because it was spelled incorrectly! Better luck next time
Everybody,
THIS INCLUDES Y’ALL (AND YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE)!
I really cannot believe you(or me)! We debate topics in which we are NOT EXPERTS. We may be experts in one field (in a few cases two or three). Most people on this website are high school to mid-twenties. Hardly experts in anything.
A brilliant college professor once admitted to his students that he knew less than 1% of all the knowledge in the world. I humbly admit that I know less than eight-tenths of 1%. Yet, I throw out a long, half-assed argument and receive, in return, a long, half-assed response (everyone can take this personally, if they wish, but its the truth, repeatedly)! Rarely proof of expertise and no ground rules of logic or debate! Why do we do this to ourselves ?
–-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"FinsterniS, it amazes me that you keep trying to win an argument with anyone here. After all we are NORTH AMERICANS (which means WE ARE RIGHT ! :lol: :wink: I guess you made a bad choice of places to practice typing English (AMERICAN) ! :lol: :evil: :lol: :lol: :oops: Oops! Did I say that? :wink:
Come on Xi,
the internet is about spreading about one’s opinions as well as learning as much as anything else (porn excepted).
Certainly we are not all as well schooled in philosophy as F_S, however we all have our own style, and most of the time if we throw out BS we’ll get called on it (almost all the time, really - 'cept me, i’m pretty clean :) )
As for your proffessor, i sincerely doubt he knows anything approaching 1% of the known knowledge of the world. One does not even know what one does not know (or for that matter is yet to be known).
@TG:
[[quote]In christianism the Human race is the center of the creation and of the universe; pure anthropocentrisme!
It’s Anthropocentrism. If you going to use big words like that, at least try to spell them correctly…
T6,
Come on! Give the F_S a brake. :P Aftre alle, Englishe isn’t his/her firste languag! :lol:
–----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W’a’d’esay? W’a’d’esay?
c_c_,
Hey! Don’t go knockin’ 85% of the internet! Besides, Where do you think I spend the rest of my time? :evil:
The prof. was not mine. A friend had a#1 in his field, Know-it-all, prof.
My friend asked the Prof. if he knew 1% of all the knowledge in the universe. The prof. replied, “I know less than 1% of all the knowledge in the known world.” Then my friend enjoyed lowering the boom(humbling the prof.) I cannot tell it as well as he can so I won’t try. But, I used the example cuz I’ve had eight (note the eight-tenths of 1%)different careers(and fields) in my life and been damn good at all of them. Please, note the contrast in the examples.
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you’ll excuse me I have to go look at/download/upload alot of dirty pictures. :evil: :wink: - Xi
why invest so much time in something that can never be answered. live your life and focus and the present, not the future! we have to experience the present to arrive at the future. besides, what we believe in about death and afterlife is highly irrelevant, what ever happens WILL happen regardless of wether we think we’ll roast in hell or drink milk and honey in the clouds for the rest of eternity. it is also my opinion to say that god is dead, he/she/they have been dead for a while (although how long i still debate) but god has been replaced with truth and science (although some still cling to thier religion) and pro-choice. i mean think about, we are doing things that were once reserved for gods, mass annihilation (nuclear weapons), genetic alteration, etc. also look around at the people walking in the streets, women wear sexy clothing, people drink and do what they chose to do, sex is highly advertised in the media. people have no need for god anymore. god is deader than dead. the moment god died is when people began to ignore thier religion, engage in whatever they wish, started asking questions, rebelling, and when the universe became an OPEN one instead of a CLOSED universe …
why invest so much time in something that can never be answered. live your life and focus and the present, not the future! we have to experience the present to arrive at the future. besides, what we believe in about death and afterlife is highly irrelevant, what ever happens WILL happen regardless of wether we think we’ll roast in hell or drink milk and honey in the clouds for the rest of eternity. it is also my opinion to say that god is dead, he/she/they have been dead for a while (although how long i still debate) but god has been replaced with truth and science (although some still cling to thier religion) and pro-choice. i mean think about, we are doing things that were once reserved for gods, mass annihilation (nuclear weapons), genetic alteration, etc. also look around at the people walking in the streets, women wear sexy clothing, people drink and do what they chose to do, sex is highly advertised in the media. people have no need for god anymore. god is deader than dead. the moment god died is when people began to ignore thier religion, engage in whatever they wish, started asking questions, rebelling, and when the universe became an OPEN one instead of a CLOSED universe …
Hmm…I disagree.
Not everyone is doing the all the crap that you pointed out. I don’t agree with it, and I sure as hell don’t participate in it.
I completely disagree with your apathy (maybe disregard) for a God. It’s pretty sad (and blatantly obvious) that you have so little humility as to think that you have as much power as God. It’s one thing to not believe in God, but it’s a whole 'nother to think that you have replaced him. Is it that hard to have faith in something? We may not have the scientific evidence that we are all reliant upon for evidence of a higher power, but is it too hard to comprehend that there may be something bigger and more powerful out there…than you?
I feel pretty sorry for you. :-? That’s all I’ve got to say.
