wandeljw wrote:Farmerman once expressed this opinion:
Quote:Im convinced that real life is a "beta tester" for outrageous Creationist thinking (or lack thereof).
He has been convinced, but without evidence.
maporsche wrote:real life wrote:TheCorrectResponse wrote:Is that the best you can do, take an obvious typographical error and use that a pretense to ignore the question? He meant of course that you said it does violate the 2nd law.
So I will give you one more chance to answer the question, show me where thermodynamics disproves evolution. Show me the math, it is a simple question. Don't keep mischaracterising the pros of the term closed system. Show me the math.
You apparently are so unfamiliar with thermodynamics that you can't see you've got yourself in a corner. You now say you have no problem with thermodynamics but are redefining what a closed system is. You cannot do that without negating ALL of thermodynamics. It all fits together, again, anyone who has ever had to do the math knows this. So what is it... is all of thermodynamics wrong or not? You can pull out one leg without it all falling apart.
I don't know if it was a typo, or if he simply doesn't understand my reply.
He also (as you do) mischaracterizes my position when he says 'show the math errors' when I've never claimed any exist.
What I have consistently said is that you selectively apply the 2nd Law.
All I've received in return is strawmen , 'show us the math errors'.
Is that the best you can do?
Please restate
how "evolutionists" are selectively applying the 2nd law.
When they say it doesn't apply to open systems, (which would be basically any naturally occurring system that you can name).
However , science actually does use the 2nd law in numerous practical applications . Obviously , it DOES apply after all.
OK so show us in ANY thermodynamics text book where any naturally occurring system is an open system. By your definition, not that of science of course, there could be NO closed systems anywhere in the universe. By your definition of closed system name me one artifical closed system?!
SO how can thermodynamics be applied. You have yourself in another corner...seems to be your specialty.
TheCorrectResponse wrote: By your definition of closed system name me one artifical closed system?!
Red herring.
What have artificial systems to do with a discussion of evolution?
Nothing it has to do with thermodynamics. By your definition of a closed system there are none, anywhere, artifical let alone natural, so how can you say thermodynamics can be applied? You can't have it both ways.
real life wrote:maporsche wrote:real life wrote:TheCorrectResponse wrote:Is that the best you can do, take an obvious typographical error and use that a pretense to ignore the question? He meant of course that you said it does violate the 2nd law.
So I will give you one more chance to answer the question, show me where thermodynamics disproves evolution. Show me the math, it is a simple question. Don't keep mischaracterising the pros of the term closed system. Show me the math.
You apparently are so unfamiliar with thermodynamics that you can't see you've got yourself in a corner. You now say you have no problem with thermodynamics but are redefining what a closed system is. You cannot do that without negating ALL of thermodynamics. It all fits together, again, anyone who has ever had to do the math knows this. So what is it... is all of thermodynamics wrong or not? You can pull out one leg without it all falling apart.
I don't know if it was a typo, or if he simply doesn't understand my reply.
He also (as you do) mischaracterizes my position when he says 'show the math errors' when I've never claimed any exist.
What I have consistently said is that you selectively apply the 2nd Law.
All I've received in return is strawmen , 'show us the math errors'.
Is that the best you can do?
Please restate
how "evolutionists" are selectively applying the 2nd law.
When they say it doesn't apply to open systems, (which would be basically any naturally occurring system that you can name).
However , science actually does use the 2nd law in numerous practical applications . Obviously , it DOES apply after all.
I think you're oversimplifying the use of the 2nd law in pratical applications. Please show me some example.
He can't, of course. Besides the obvious fact, based on innumerable posts, that he has no clue of even basic science, he has defined closed systems in such a way that by definition they can't exist. Something that doesn't exchange energy with its surroundings; good luck coming up with an example of that!
When I named a light bulb, a beaker of water with a stopper in it, and a fertilizer plant as closed systems he didn't call me on it; his response was that these weren't natural systems and that he was talking about natural systems. All of the systems that I named exchange energy with the environment and so by his definition are NOT closed systems. Of course in thermodynamics we can treat them as such. Had he the first clue he would have pointed that out.
Once you corner him he uses the terms: circular logic, red herring, and strawman. Humorously, he often uses these terms incorrectly. It was a bit fun to get him in a corner, as "ROS" likes to do, when I thought he had some basic knowledge, but it has lost its appeal since I've finally come to the conclusion that he really just doesn't understand these topics.
That became clear when, after repeated attempts to get him to respond, he refuses to even tell how he comes to his conclusions. Obviously he just spouts whatever pops into his head. Any science he disagrees with is wrong for him and that's the start and end of it. At least Spendi is a great source of comic relief.
baddog1 wrote:
parados:
In attempting to understand your position (and RL's, & et al) on this matter - please clearly state your definition of the 2nd law and the mathematical relation. This thread has become a little convoluted for my limited abilities to follow and I would very much appreciate some clarity.
Thanks.
The math I posted was here -
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm
The math equation for the second law is DeltaS = Q/T
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
The basic idea is that over time no system can increase in energy. The problem with the argument that evolution violates that law is that the earth gets energy from the sun. The earth gets so much energy that life on this planet can't violate the 2nd law.
RL is arguing that I am not applying the Second law correctly because I don't count the earth as a closed system with no input or output. The Second law REQUIRES that I include all input and output to check entropy in a given system. Q = Energy absorbed. I can't solve the equation if I don't have Q.
real life wrote:TheCorrectResponse wrote: By your definition of closed system name me one artifical closed system?!
Red herring.
What have artificial systems to do with a discussion of evolution?
What does the 2nd law of thermodynamics have to do with evolution other than your red herring rl?
The Second law does apply to everything but in order to measure a system you have account for all energy gained and lost from that system. You "close" the system by accounting for the gain and loss of the system itself which then allows you to look at what is happening in the "closed" system.
parados wrote:
RL is arguing that I am not applying the Second law correctly because I don't count the earth as a closed system with no input or output.
Incorrect. I've said it is an open system.
Then you can't apply the second law without being able to accurately equate all of the energetic inputs and outputs--if seen as an open system, you can't use the second law to invalidate a theory of evolution--which is what everyone has been trying to hammer through your thick skull.
Setanta!! Where you been, homey?
Chillin', home slice . . . hadda get shut of the weirdos for a while . . .
I know. But are ye back for a spell now?
What Set said but with a bigger hammer.
snood wrote:I know. But are ye back for a spell now?
I dunno . . .
Parados . . . you want this 16 lb. sledge?
Funny, I only started this post as an experiment - I never intended to debate with spiritually blind Creationists for more than a short time - I just had to get the reaction going. The title was deliberately provocative, and I chose a topic which I thought would be the most successful in producing the highest number of posts. Evidently, my experiment has been successful - this thread has replace Evolution - How?, although it doesn't even come close to the wopping 11918 posts that that produced. I had previously created an evolution thread, and when that one failed, I learned from the results and created this one. I do not expect people to react well to this post.
I, for one, am glad you started the thread.
I was disappointed when the Evolution How? thread was locked (still not sure why it was).
It's always interesting and informative to discuss with folks who hold different points of view. How boring it would be if we all agreed.
All the posts would read:
Quote: You got that right.
Quote: Uh huh, say it again.
Quote: I was just thinking that myself.
TheCorrectResponse wrote: he has defined closed systems in such a way that by definition they can't exist. Something that doesn't exchange energy with its surroundings; good luck coming up with an example of that!
No, I didn't.
This has been my point in this discussion.
Evolutionists say 'well, the 2nd Law doesn't apply because the Earth gets lots of energy from the sun, more than enough to overcome entropy'.
When evolutionists do so, and thus define everything as an open system (based on input of energy), then they put themselves in the ridiculous position of implying that the 2nd Law applies to absolutely nothing.
Glad you're finally seeing it my way. (Though you'll hate to hear that.)
Most people on this site view you as an ignorant liar. I view you more as an ignorant coward. But based on this response I can see their point.
Unfortunately for you while you can run and hide from answering questions your posts are there for everyone to see.
I'm done with your pathic drivel. If others want to keep showing you for the a## you are more power to them.
