Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

If you want to completely misrepresent the observations then how can we be expected to take you seriously?

Red shift is based on how two objects are moving related to each other.

It has nothing to do with where a center is.

Why don't you get out a tape measure and tell us what the real distance is.

Your only argument seems to be you don't know what the distance is so therefor no one else can figure it out. Your argument is idiotic.

Which law is it defying? Tell us in detail.

The use of bold face does not tell you anything...let alone make something obvious.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The use of bold face does not tell you anything...let alone make something obvious.

     The use of boldface perhaps yes,


...

...but the misuse may tell out very much. Do you want some interpretations:
     The person writing continuously in boldface may not know what is the purpose of use of the boldface fonts in principle.
     Boldface usually is used to express emphasis - exaggeration of words in a text with a font in a different style from the rest of the text, to emphasize them. It is used in titles and items as well.
     When the whole text is in boldface the person is not emphasizing anything in the text, but rather is trying to exaggerate the personal paragraphs and to assign to them some competitive advantage (that they actually don't have as semantics) in terms of the other texts (written from the other people) on the blog - but this is just a personal perception of the things - it is not the real situation.
     If you are curious to get knowing what the real situation is, why don't you make a thread:
'Guys, what do you think about my boldface on the blogs' in order to see the truth in the face in its full glory.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

Another dead end. Derp.

I am perfectly aware of the laws of thermodynamics.

There is no misuse.

I have assured everyone that I am not using it to yell...or to "emphasize." I will now assure you that I am not using it to "gain any competitive advantage." So...get over it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

There is no misuse.

     There is, and even how.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have assured everyone that I am not using it to yell...or to "emphasize." I will now assure you that I am not using it to "gain any competitive advantage." So...get over it.

     Then remains the case of mental inability to switch it off, and that is called how?

FBM wrote:

Another dead end. Derp.

     How much is the present day energy of the Universe - all of it, without any exception, in all of its forms and diversities? How much is the rate of expansion of the Universe ... as a number with the corresponding dimension, pls.?

MIT Physicist Proposes New "Meaning of Life"

by ORION JONES

MIT physicist Jeremy England claims that life may not be so mysterious after all, despite the fact it is apparently derived from non-living matter. In a new paper, England explains how simple physical laws make complex life more likely than not. In other words, it would be more surprising to find no life in the universe than a buzzing place like planet Earth.

What does all matter—rocks, plants, animals, and humans—have in common? We all absorb and dissipate energy. While a rock absorbs a small amount of energy before releasing what it doesn't use back into the universe, life takes in more energy and releases less. This makes life better at redistributing energy, and the process of converting and dissipating energy is simply a fundamental characteristic of the universe.

According to England, the second law of thermodynamics gives life its meaning. The law states that entropy, i.e. decay, will continuously increase. Imagine a hot cup of coffee sitting at room temperature. Eventually, the cup of coffee will reach room temperature and stay there: its energy will have dissipated. Now imagine molecules swimming in a warm primordial ocean. England claims that matter will slowly but inevitably reorganize itself into forms that better dissipate the warm oceanic energy.

The strength of England's theory is that it provides an underlying physical basis for Darwin's theory of evolution and helps explain some evolutionary tendencies that evolution cannot. Adaptations that don't clearly benefit a species in terms of survivability can be explained thusly: "the reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve."

MIT Physicist Proposes New "Meaning of Life"

by ORION JONES

MIT physicist Jeremy England claims that life may not be so mysterious after all, despite the fact it is apparently derived from non-living matter. In a new paper, England explains how simple physical laws make complex life more likely than not. In other words, it would be more surprising to find no life in the universe than a buzzing place like planet Earth.

What does all matter—rocks, plants, animals, and humans—have in common? We all absorb and dissipate energy. While a rock absorbs a small amount of energy before releasing what it doesn't use back into the universe, life takes in more energy and releases less. This makes life better at redistributing energy, and the process of converting and dissipating energy is simply a fundamental characteristic of the universe.

According to England, the second law of thermodynamics gives life its meaning. The law states that entropy, i.e. decay, will continuously increase. Imagine a hot cup of coffee sitting at room temperature. Eventually, the cup of coffee will reach room temperature and stay there: its energy will have dissipated. Now imagine molecules swimming in a warm primordial ocean. England claims that matter will slowly but inevitably reorganize itself into forms that better dissipate the warm oceanic energy.

The strength of England's theory is that it provides an underlying physical basis for Darwin's theory of evolution and helps explain some evolutionary tendencies that evolution cannot. Adaptations that don't clearly benefit a species in terms of survivability can be explained thusly: "the reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve."

Now imagine molecules swimming in a warm primordial ocean. England claims that matter will slowly but inevitably reorganize itself into forms that better dissipate the warm oceanic energy.

"the reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve."

Has science explained life after death?
by Josh Clark

...As many as 18 percent of people brought back from death after a heart attack said they'd had a NDE [source: Time]. While many religious adherents might not be surprised by these accounts, the idea that human consciousness and the body exist distinctly from each other flies in the face of science. A brain-dead person should not be able to form new memories -- he shouldn't have any consciousness at all, really. So how can anything but a metaphysical explanation cover NDEs?
A study from the University of Kentucky has quickly gained ground among scientists as possibly the best explanation for NDEs. Researchers there theorize that the mysterious phenomenon is really an instance of the sleep disorder rapid eye movement (REM) intrusion. In this disorder, a person's mind can wake up before his body, and hallucinations and the feeling of being physically detached from his body can occur.
The Kentucky researchers believe that NDEs are actually REM intrusions triggered in the brain by traumatic events like cardiac arrest. If this is true, then this means the experiences of some people following near-death are confusion from suddenly and unexpectedly entering a dream-like state.
This theory helps explain what has always been a tantalizing aspect of the mystery of NDEs: how people can experience sights and sounds after confirmed brain death. The area where REM intrusion is triggered is found in the brain stem -- the region that controls the most basic functions of the body -- and it can operate virtually independent from the higher brain. So even after the higher regions of the brain are dead, the brain stem can conceivably continue to function, and REM intrusion could still occur [source: BBC].
...