Have scientists become fantasists...

Originally posted by twhitehead
It would suit his argument. Unless we are all talking at cross purposes which is entirely possible as you have not yet explained what you believe to be the connection between the second law and evolution. I suspect you simply do not know much about either of them.

Just in case you didn't know, the second law does not in any way rule out the possibility ...[text shortened]... ntropy inside a closed system - it is merely a statement about the total entropy in the system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Woodrow_Wilson
Fields Physics
Known for Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation which served as important confirmation of the Big Bang theory.
Notable awards Nobel Prize in Physics (1978) along with Arno Allan Penzias

Originally posted by fishin27
Zahlanzi,

The information is there in that wika site you guys use. I thought I'd made it clear were I found my info. As for you thinking I'm blabbing

I state what is on my mind if you can't keep up....sorry for your lose.

Mellow thoughts

you are right. we should all debate like that. you post a site and the information is there. i post a site in response. and so on. and the RHP forums, instead of this incredible clutter of posts and replies, some good some bad, will turn into a wonderful orderly list of links. and life shall be good.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I find that hard to believe. I am yet to meat a creationist who was a creationist for any reason other than the Bible. I doubt that you are the exception.

[b]The universe must be closed or infinate and as science has found a beginning it must be finite as no other resources are being pour into it therefore it must have an end. Ooups the second law of t ...[text shortened]... ion as to how you think any of what you have said regarding the Second Law relates to evolution.

he could be a creationist because of the Koran😀

Originally posted by fishin27
Lets hope your right.

We have yet to discover anything that is perpetual in motion.

Love to you and yours

It is not necessarily finite just because it has a beginning.

leads to

We have yet to discover anything that is perpetual in motion.


how in the high heavens do you find any connection between the two, any relevance as to say that a nice reply to palinka's statement would be that completely off topic useless statement?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you give me a link to a Nobel prize winner that claimed to have found the beginning of the universe? (I realize that the 'Peace' bit was a typo).
There are a number of theories surrounding the big bang, no reputable scientist claims to have solid evidence that their pet theory is the correct one, some of them include the possibility that the universe is not finite.

i don't think the peace was a typo. i simply think he thinks he made some sense. can you think of anything that would make that statement meaningful?

"The nobel peace prize winners need to give it back then because they found the beginning and the science community agreed with them. "
if we remove peace, and retain only nobel prize winners like you say, there are still a number of things that seem to be taken from an abstract painting.
the beginning to what? who found that beginning, the nobel peace prize or the science community? who agrees with what and whom? why do they (the nobel [peace] prize winners) need to give it back?


Fishin is proof that there is a god and that god has a sense of humor. Just when we thought that there cannot be anyone more obtuse and incorrect in his thinking than robbie, along comes fishin who doesn't even express an opinion, simply puts statements that have absolutely no sense. At least robbie uses sentences that do connect in a fairly logical amount.

Originally posted by fishin27
Mmm never heard of a Muslum, Morman, Bahi and I'm sure there would be may more people who would take offence to you calling them Christian, there are a who bunch that don't beleive the bible and still look at creation and think creator.....Or are you just a Christian basher (as opossed to a bible basher..{grin}..get it )

Well as for an explination of how ...[text shortened]... en I must put your thoughts in the area of faith.

Peaceful thoughts and meditations

…I can't work out how to get the italics going sorry.
...…

Try typing in:

[ i ] ….text that you want in italics inserted here … [/ i ]

But without the spacers either side of the two “i” s above.

….However, they neglect the fact that life is NOT a closed system. (THIS IS A LIMITED POINT OF VIEW AND REFLECTS THE WRITERS DESIRE TO PROVE A POINT BY NOT LOOK AT THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE WHICH.….

-suppose we include the sun as well as the biosphere as a closed system -that would simply mean that, as Diodorus Siculus has already said, “increase in complexity (order or negative entropy) observed on earth in biological systems arises from photosynthesis sequestering energy from increase in disorder (entropy) in the sun”

Thus the OVERALL entropy still increases and the second law of thermodynamics is not violated.
Thus you totally miss the point which is REGARDLESS of whether we consider just the biosphere as a open system OR if we consider the biosphere + sun together as a closed system (well -near enough closed) the second law of thermodynamics is STILL not violated.
Do you deny this FACT?

….The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.
(ONCE AGAIN A POOR ATTEMPT AT DIVERTING FROM THE TRUTH THAT OVERALL THE UNIVERSE IS A CLOSED SYSTEM) .…

Irrelevant! As I just explained before above, you can have local increases in complexity in a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics is STILL not violated.
-and besides, the second law of thermodynamics does NOT say nor imply that the complexity of a closed system will INEVITABLY decrease!!!
-so that is two reasons why this is irrelevant!

….However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature;
I WOULD LIKE THE GUY TO EXPLAIN THIS 'SNOWFLAKE =WATER + A DUST PARTICLE GET ZAPPED IN FREEZING COLD FALL TO EARTH AS A PRITY SNOWFLAKE (I TAKE IT THAT IS THE ORDER) BUT THEN MELT ON
..…

It is at the “BUT THEN MELT ON..…” bit where you go wrong here for whether or not the complexity is destroyed after its creation is irrelevant here. Maybe nothing will last forever but the universe itself but, the fact still remains, complexity can easily increase for a finite time and without second law of thermodynamics being violated.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It would suit his argument. Unless we are all talking at cross purposes which is entirely possible as you have not yet explained what you believe to be the connection between the second law and evolution. I suspect you simply do not know much about either of them.

Just in case you didn't know, the second law does not in any way rule out the possibility ...[text shortened]... ntropy inside a closed system - it is merely a statement about the total entropy in the system.

Sorry last post was linked to the wrong post.

You said "which is entirely possible as you have not yet explained what you believe to be the connection between the second law and evolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Order_and_disorder
"In many branches of science, entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. A simple and more concrete visualisation of the second law is that energy of all types changes from being localized to becoming dispersed or spread out, if it is not hindered from doing so. Entropy change is the quantitative measure of that kind of a spontaneous process: how much energy has flowed or how widely it has become spread out at a specific temperature."

Basicly says thing brake down due to the dispersal of energy. The kind of energy required for big bag evolution.

You said, "I suspect you simply do not know much about either of them."
So just because I don't use those hyferluting words that some people use to make themselves sound important you presume a lack of knowledge. Well only a fool could assume such a thing when you don't know me from Adam. Remember to assume is to make an (ASS out of U and ME).

You said "Just in case you didn't know, the second law does not in any way rule out the possibility of a local decrease of entropy inside a closed system - it is merely a statement about the total entropy in the system."[/b]

Is the possibility a fact or your own theory?
You seem to like using the word entropy, I would like to think your smart enough to use terms everyone can understand instead of making yourself look all knowing.

Peace to you and yours

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
It is not necessarily finite just because it has a beginning.

leads to

We have yet to discover anything that is perpetual in motion.


how in the high heavens do you find any connection between the two, any relevance as to say that a nice reply to palinka's statement would be that completely off topic useless statement?

if it were infinite it would be perpetual. Energy that never ends.

I try to keep my replies sort, sorry for not making it clearer. I thought it was a good cross but you think different

Love ya

Originally posted by fishin27
Sorry last post was linked to the wrong post.

You said "which is entirely possible as you have not yet explained what you believe to be the connection between the second law and evolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Order_and_disorder
"In many branches of science, entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. A simple and more concrete ...[text shortened]... can understand instead of making yourself look all knowing.

Peace to you and yours

still waiting for a point. what is the point? where did you explain the connection between the second law and evolution?

since you still didn't do that, it is quite reasonable to ASS-U-ME that you know nothing about this subject, you do not understand any of the concepts and do not have the intellectual capacity to learn either. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by fishin27
if it were infinite it would be perpetual. Energy that never ends.

I try to keep my replies sort, sorry for not making it clearer. I thought it was a good cross but you think different

Love ya

why would an infinite universe involve perpetuality(whatever you mean by it) why would it involve energy that never ends? if you consider the surface of the earth, it is infinite. no matter which direction you go, you shall not find a barrier beyond which you cannot go. so if you apply that same reasoning to the universe, why would it mean the energy of an infinite universe is also infinite?

Originally posted by fishin27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Woodrow_Wilson
Fields Physics
Known for Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation which served as important confirmation of the Big Bang theory.
Notable awards Nobel Prize in Physics (1978) along with Arno Allan Penzias

Now provide evidence that he claimed to have found the beginning of the universe.
Note that the Big Bang theory does not claim that the big bang is the beginning of the universe.

Originally posted by fishin27
Basicly says thing brake down due to the dispersal of energy. The kind of energy required for big bag evolution.

No it doesn't.

And what is 'big bang evolution' anyway? I've not heard of it before, so I had wrongly assumed you were talking about the Theory of Evolution.

So just because I don't use those hyferluting words that some people use to make themselves sound important you presume a lack of knowledge. Well only a fool could assume such a thing when you don't know me from Adam. Remember to assume is to make an (ASS out of U and ME).
I did not base my guess on your lack of use of hyferluting words but on your repeated claims about the second law which despite being rather vague were nevertheless clearly wrong.

You said "Just in case you didn't know, the second law does not in any way rule out the possibility of a local decrease of entropy inside a closed system - it is merely a statement about the total entropy in the system."

Is the possibility a fact or your own theory?
It is a known and rather obvious fact.

You seem to like using the word entropy, I would like to think your smart enough to use terms everyone can understand instead of making yourself look all knowing.
I am not sure what you mean by that. I could hardly carry on a discussion about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics without using the word 'entropy' that would be like trying to discuss Einstein Theory of Relativity without using the words 'time' or 'velocity'.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if you consider the surface of the earth, it is infinite.

No it isn't. The surface of the earth is decidedly finite. The track of a human walking on it could theoretically be infinite if he had and infinite amount of time to do it in.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't think the peace was a typo. i simply think he thinks he made some sense. can you think of anything that would make that statement meaningful?

"The nobel peace prize winners need to give it back then because they found the beginning and the science community agreed with them. "
if we remove peace, and retain only nobel prize winners like you say, ...[text shortened]... olutely no sense. At least robbie uses sentences that do connect in a fairly logical amount.

So now your miss quoting me and trying to make me look silly,
It's a shame you can't use your interlect to be possitive.

[/b]"simply puts statements that (MAKE) absolutely no sense. At least robbie uses sentences that do connect in a fairly logical (WAY).[/b]

I've corrected your spelling and grammar seeing how it is so important to you.

I've said it once and it appears you need to be told twice. if you can't keep up sorry.

"The nobel prize winners need to give it back then, because they (the prize winners) found the beginning and the science community agreed with them.(the prize winners)" Hope this makes it easyer for you 'Zahlanzi'

I have given you a link to the nobel prize winners it tells you who they are and what they found and if you use your brain and do some research you'll find the implications of their discovery. A beginning to the universe.

Do I need to keep spoon feeding you.
everyone ealse overlooks each others typos and reads between the lines to get the jist of the discussion.

I think you need to look at yourself when looking for someone obtuse and incorrect. This is a discussion board not a spelling b.

Look within to find your PEACE

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
why would an infinite universe involve perpetuality(whatever you mean by it) why would it involve energy that never ends? if you consider the surface of the earth, it is infinite. no matter which direction you go, you shall not find a barrier beyond which you cannot go. so if you apply that same reasoning to the universe, why would it mean the energy of an infinite universe is also infinite?

Why would I consider the surface of the earth??? Or an infinite universe when I've already stated that I beleive it is finite.

You missed the point everyone else has been following you can't struggling that much.

Ask someone to help you.