Have scientists become fantasists...

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

[b]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 y ...[text shortened]... scuss Einstein Theory of Relativity without using the words 'time' or 'velocity'.

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

"your repeated claims about the second law which despite being rather vague were nevertheless clearly wrong."
According to you, and your entitled to your opinion.

We are going to have to agree to disagree my friend as we don't see eye to eye on so many things. Let alone the interpritation of others writing.
I'm happy to keep going but I seem to have picked up a rash that is going to follow me from post to post and eventually need creaming.

LOL I wasn't always peace love and mungbeans

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 can understand instead of making yourself look all knowing.

Peace to you and yours

…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.
...… (my emphasis)

The word “IF” in the above instantly debunks your suggestion that the entropy law means evolution cannot work -what IF there IS something hindered from doing so?
-such as cell metabolism!

The rest of your following comments are erroneous because they just ignore this fact.

….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 FACT because it is deducible from what the entropy law does NOT say!

If the entropy law was broken in ANY field of science, this would be major headline news for it would be considered to be an astonishing fact! (at least within the world of science ) . It would be a widely discussed scientific mystery within the scientific community -but it isn’t! -why not? -because those that have fully understood the law know that it doesn’t logically contradict ANY field of science -have you got an alternative explanation for this that doesn’t rely on ignorance of what the law means?

Originally posted by fishin27
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.

indeed. that is a good advice, try to follow it yourself.

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

how does the latter follow the former?

Originally posted by fishin27
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.

"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 ...[text shortened]... rrect. This is a discussion board not a spelling b.

Look within to find your PEACE[/b]

it is not about spelling nor have i ever said that. i said the sentences do not connect with each other in a logical way nor do they make sense even after the spelling and grammar are corrected (which i haven't even noticed it needs correcting)


"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."

what do they need to give back and why? is it the nobel prize because someone else found a different beginning and thus the first is wrong? or what exactly? because twhite already told you that cosmic background radiation(one of your examples) doesn't mean he found the beginning of the universe.

again, i don't care much about spelling. as long as you make sense. a statement and a conclusion construct must be logical and the conclusion must follow from the statement

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

that is what i meant. no matter how long you walk on the earth you will never reach an ending. no matter how long you travel through space you will never reach a border.

the statement that the track of a human walking on the surface is only infinite if he had an infinite amount of time to do it implies that the real numbers axis can only be infinite if we had an infinite amount of time counting from -infinity to infinity. so it is kind of illogical. care to explain if you meant another thing.

Originally posted by fishin27
How can a POSSABLITY be a fact?

We seem to have misunderstood each other. My claim is that it is a known and obvious fact that it is possible for a local increase in entropy to occur in a closed system. To prove a possibility merely requires a single example - the refrigerator. I hope that clarifies what I was saying.

I'm happy to keep going but I seem to have picked up a rash that is going to follow me from post to post and eventually need creaming.
Then lets get down to the basics. Are you able to summarize what your claim about the second law is? I suspect that we have all simply assumed that you are repeating the old creationist garbage about the second law violating the Theory of Evolution but we could easily be wrong and you might have a totally different argument.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that is what i meant. no matter how long you walk on the earth you will never reach an ending. no matter how long you travel through space you will never reach a border.

Nevertheless space is finite in the known spacial dimensions (but not necessarily in the time dimension).

the statement that the track of a human walking on the surface is only infinite if he had an infinite amount of time to do it implies that the real numbers axis can only be infinite if we had an infinite amount of time counting from -infinity to infinity. so it is kind of illogical. care to explain if you meant another thing.
The real numbers axis is infinite, but if you were to count the integers you would need an infinite amount of time to do it in.
I track on the surface of the earth can be infinite, but the surface itself is finite.
Your original statement that the surface of the earth is infinite is equivalent to claiming that a dice has an infinite number of sides just because it can be thrown an infinite number of times.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nevertheless space is finite in the known spacial dimensions (but not necessarily in the time dimension).

[b]the statement that the track of a human walking on the surface is only infinite if he had an infinite amount of time to do it implies that the real numbers axis can only be infinite if we had an infinite amount of time counting from -infinity to ...[text shortened]... dice has an infinite number of sides just because it can be thrown an infinite number of times.

I track on the surface of the earth can be infinite, but the surface itself is finite.

exactly. so unless you know of a third dimension, would you realize it is finite? if you do not have any way of measuring the "length of the universe" how can you figure it is finite?

we are digressing a bit. i was merely trying to ask him to clarify why would an infinite universe mean infinite energy? i don't see a connection.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We seem to have misunderstood each other. My claim is that it is a known and obvious fact that it is possible for a local increase in entropy to occur in a closed system. To prove a possibility merely requires a single example - the refrigerator. I hope that clarifies what I was saying.

[b]I'm happy to keep going but I seem to have picked up a rash tha ...[text shortened]... eory of Evolution but we could easily be wrong and you might have a totally different argument.

repeating the old creationist garbage....Not knowing what this garbage is so I cannot say if I am or not. I'd like to think most of my ideas are the tapistry of wonderful world of knowledge, nature, science and spirituality that I have begain to weave for myself and my family. Keeping all doors open is not easy but it ensures nothing is missed.

However after reading all of our posts I think we are talking on cross issues on a few things and totally miss understanding each other on other things. This would be easyer over a cup of coffee as I don't think I'm making myself clear and I'm not sure I can't without going into alot detail about this guy says this and this guy says that, this makes sence to me this doesn't, this idea seems to contradict itself etc etc.

I'm sure I have alot to learn on alot of issues and I will continue to investigate things of a spritual and scientific nature, but due to the nastieness of some posts this is obviously not the place of learning for me, I'm happy to walk away from the small minded few on this thread. But would like to thank those that at least tried to discuss this issue with me seriously and I assure you your information has made me look at a few things from a different angle (it hasn't changed my mind yet, but thank you for the food for thought),

If this means I've lost to the few small minded, wear your badge with pride, as your closed mindedness will I'm sure be your undoing. I can only take so much negative input.

Love, Peace suround you all.

Signing out
Fishin27

Originally posted by fishin27
.... I think we are talking on cross issues on a few things and totally miss understanding each other on other things.

I think so too. I and others assumed that you were talking about certain arguments that we have heard before that we know to be false. You must forgive our misunderstanding though as you did not as far as I can tell clarify what it was you were talking about.
I have heard a number of times creationists claim that evolution is impossible due to the second law of thermo dynamics. When I they have explained their reasoning it has always become clear that either they do not know what they are talking about, or they are deliberately trying to deceive. Whenever I see someone say 'second law' and 'evolution' in the same sentence I automatically assume that it is yet another creationist who has just been told the same argument by their pastor or looked it up on a creationist website and has not bothered to think it through. I apologize for making that assumption about you.

I would be interested however if you could at least before you go give a rough summary of what you were claiming.

Originally posted by fishin27
repeating the old creationist garbage....Not knowing what this garbage is so I cannot say if I am or not. I'd like to think most of my ideas are the tapistry of wonderful world of knowledge, nature, science and spirituality that I have begain to weave for myself and my family. Keeping all doors open is not easy but it ensures nothing is missed.

However a ...[text shortened]... take so much negative input.

Love, Peace suround you all.

Signing out
Fishin27

the chase is better than the catch. only robbie brags and rejoices when catching a fish that everyone else threw in, packed their fishin poles and went home.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the chase is better than the catch. only robbie brags and rejoices when catching a fish that everyone else threw in, packed their fishin poles and went home.

Lol, yes Zahlanzi, but all the fishermen were crying out, look at the kings new clothes! look at the kings new clothes! when in fact, the king was buff naked!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, yes Zahlanzi, but all the fishermen were crying out, look at the kings new clothes! look at the kings new clothes! when in fact, the king was buff naked!

i can't hear you screaming by the pond, i have already arrived at home, turned on the tv and started cooking dinner.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i can't hear you screaming by the pond, i have already arrived at home, turned on the tv and started cooking dinner.

Ok then Big Z, turn off the TV and start workin after the dinner, for you are a judge and you have works to do😵

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If, by christians, god is the creator of the universe and everything, he must also be the creator of the laws of physics, right? So by doing research of physics, then this is the ultimate research about god, right? To know the inner essence of god must be to know the whats and whys of phsycis, right?

And the opposite, by denying physics in every detail ...[text shortened]... To believe in intelligent design and, at the same time, distrust the evolution - is an oxymoron.

If, by christians, god is the creator of the universe and everything, he must also be the creator of the laws of physics, right?

Right

So by doing research of physics, then this is the ultimate research about god, right?

Absolutely not. God and His creation are separate entities.

"3) It is contrary to faith to assert that God is essentially identified with the world (pantheism) (DS 3023)."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860129en.html


To know the inner essence of god must be to know the whats and whys of phsycis, right?

No.

And the opposite, by denying physics in every detail, and further, to to ridicule physicists, ...

Denying physics in every detail is a stupid irrational thing to do ... God advises us to investigate things and use our reason doing this, but to claim that this equals denying God in His entirety is a bit over the edge I'm afraid.

is to deny the knowledge of the true god and his intentions with his creation, shortly to deny god in his entirety.

Not really .....

So wanting to know about the constants of nature, is wanting to know god.

Not really ... als I have stated before, God and his creation are separate entities.

If this god is not the one described in the bible, then the god of the bible must be an invention by ignorant people, who not want to know about the real god, the one who actually created the universe, right?

Not really ... I hope you get my point by now.

Everyone believing in intelligent design must agree with me here.
To believe in intelligent design and, at the same time, distrust the evolution - is an oxymoron.

Nice try ... but it is a faulty conclusion ... because you do not make a clear distinction between God and His creation. Knowing the creation does not necessarily mean knowing God and vice versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron

... by the way ... I do accept the theory of evolution as a scientific theory ... and so does the Roman Catholic Church.

I googled the Vatican.va site on "theory of evolution" :

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm

http://gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=Theory+of+evolution&x=26&y=9