The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by dj2becker
Functionality can be equivalent to functional. A calculator with greater functionality will be more functional then a calculator with less functionality.

As I said, you simply don't understand English that well. A calculator with large buttons, may be more functional than another calculator that has tiny buttons but more functions.

According to Webster:
functional
3 : performing or able to perform a regular function.

Notice how the number of functions is irrelevant.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I mean that you are not using it in the common usage of the word so I would be wasting my time looking it up in a dictionary as you are obviously not using the standard English meaning.

So you would not say that life is more functional than non-life?

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I said, you simply don't understand English that well. A calculator with large buttons, may be more functional than another calculator that has tiny buttons but more functions.

According to Webster:
functional
3 : performing or able to perform a regular function.

Notice how the number of functions is irrelevant.

You obviously did not read the other definitions of the word, only picked out #3 to suit ya huh?

2.capable of operating or functioning

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/functionality

A programmable calculator is more functional than a normal calculator if a function requires the calculator to be programmable because a normal calculator would not be capable of doing that function.

Talk about not understanding the English language. 😛

Originally posted by dj2becker
You obviously did not read the other definitions of the word, only picked out #3 to suit ya huh?

2.capable of operating or functioning

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/functionality

A programmable calculator is more functional than a normal calculator if a function requires the calculator to be programmable because a normal calculator would not be capable of doing that function.

Talk about not understanding the English language. 😛

No, when talking about the function of programming the normal calculator would not be less functional it would just be non-functional. Notice though, that you have specified a specific function (that of programming) and have not shown that the normal calculator is less functional in general as, if they were used as hammers the programmable one might just loose out.
So, the number of (known) functions still does not determine how functional something is. You can only truly talk about how functional something is when the desired functions are known or stated.

Anyway we both know this is just a side argument that you created to avoid admitting that you are wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, when talking about the function of programming the normal calculator would not be less functional it would just be non-functional. Notice though, that you have specified a specific function (that of programming) and have not shown that the normal calculator is less functional in general as, if they were used as hammers the programmable one might just ...[text shortened]... e both know this is just a side argument that you created to avoid admitting that you are wrong.

Something which is non-functional is less functional than something which is functional.

You are the one having a hard time admitting that you are wrong. 😛

Originally posted by dj2becker
Something which is non-functional is less functional than something which is functional.

You are the one having a hard time admitting that you are wrong. 😛

I guess you could say that. So I admit I am wrong on that point. However you are still wrong that the number of functions is equivalent to whether or not something is functional. How functional something is is entirely dependent on the function in question. Complexity is not related to functionality.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I guess you could say that. So I admit I am wrong on that point. However you are still wrong that the number of functions is equivalent to whether or not something is functional. How functional something is is entirely dependent on the function in question. Complexity is not related to functionality.

I can see you are having a hard time to grasp what I was saying so let me try and simplify this.

Is a programmable calculator more complex than an ordinary calculator?

If programing is the function in question, is the programmable calculator more or less functional than the normal calculator?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you are saying that life developed from complex (ocean) to less complex (bacteria)?

These threads are useless. You never present any coherent arguments and ALWAYS fall back to snotty, idiotic rhetorical questions and/or equally idiotic cut and paste jobs.

Either deal with the point I've raised i.e. that life is not necessarily more complex than non-life or concede that your entire argument is based on a incorrect assumption. I won't continue to respond to the type of asinine verbal jerking off that your last post demonstrates.

Originally posted by no1marauder
These threads are useless. You never present any coherent arguments and ALWAYS fall back to snotty, idiotic rhetorical questions and/or equally idiotic cut and paste jobs.

Either deal with the point I've raised i.e. that life is not necessarily more complex than non-life or concede that your entire argument is based on a incorrect assumption. ...[text shortened]... ontinue to respond to the type of asinine verbal jerking off that your last post demonstrates.

As you are the one that has come up with the weird idea that non-life is more complex than life you are the one who has to back up the claim or concede to the fact that you have made a poor argument.

Is there any respectable scientist that shares your view?

Your argument would only hold if you were to back up the claim that the materials from which life was made were more complex than life itself and thus that the formation of life was not a violation of the 2nd law.

Thus my question is not a snotty, idiotic rhetorical question.

I would like to know how the ocean could possibly form a bacteria by random processes, if that is what you are arguing.

Originally posted by dj2becker
As you are the one that has come up with the weird idea that non-life is more complex than life you are the one who has to back up the claim or concede to the fact that you have made a poor argument.

Is there any respectable scientist that shares your view?

Your argument would only hold if you were to back up the claim that the materials from which ...[text shortened]... w the ocean could possibly form a bacteria by random processes, if that is what you are arguing.

Yes, there are "respectable scientists" who hold to the view that the ocean is more complex than a bacteria.

You know as well as I do that early life developed in the ocean and wasn't all that different from various forms of non-life. You also know the basic mechanics as they have been explained to you dozens of times on this site. That because of your retarded religious beliefs you refuse to accept it is your problem.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, there are "respectable scientists" who hold to the view that the ocean is more complex than a bacteria.

You know as well as I do that early life developed in the ocean and wasn't all that different from various forms of non-life. You also know the basic mechanics as they have been explained to you dozens of times on this site. That because of your retarded religious beliefs you refuse to accept it is your problem.

Yes, there are "respectable scientists" who hold to the view that the ocean is more complex than a bacteria.

One or two quotation will do just fine, thanks.

You know as well as I do that early life developed in the ocean and wasn't all that different from various forms of non-life.

What?? How do I KNOW this??? How do you KNOW this?

You also know the basic mechanics as they have been explained to you dozens of times on this site.

Yes. I know exactly how faulty they are.

That because of your retarded religious beliefs you refuse to accept it is your problem.

Oh I see, so now my beliefs are retarded because you cannot defend your own beliefs.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Yes, there are "respectable scientists" who hold to the view that the ocean is more complex than a bacteria.

One or two quotation will do just fine, thanks.

You know as well as I do that early life developed in the ocean and wasn't all that different from various forms of non-life.

What?? How do I KNOW this??? How do you KNOW this ...[text shortened]... .[/b]

Oh I see, so now my beliefs are retarded because you cannot defend your own beliefs.[/b]

I give up. Stay the moron you are the rest of your miserable life.

I'll look for that quote from scientists in the same spot where they say water is wet or the sky is blue.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I give up. Stay the moron you are the rest of your miserable life.

I'll look for that quote from scientists in the same spot where they say water is wet or the sky is blue.

I am a moron because you cannot tell me how you KNOW that life developed in the ocean.

Your logic is astounding.

And the sky might look blue to you, but that does not mean that the actual color of the sky is blue. The only reason why the sky might appear blue to you is because of Rayleigh scattering.

It seems you are the crown prince of asinine verbal jerking...

Originally posted by dj2becker
You are comparing sticks and stones.

A Swiss army knife is more complex and more functional than an ordinary pocket knife.

Not at all. My point is that functionality and complexity do not necessarily equate.

You would do well to remember that some exceptionally complex machines, for example nuclear reactors, only have a single function. Likewise, some exceptionally simple mechanisms have multiple functions, for example, a can opener.

Originally posted by dj2becker
How do you know that life was simpler in the past than it is today?

Fossil evidence.