The Void of nothing

Originally posted by KellyJay
You saying the point before the BB is meaningless doesn't make it so.
You may as well say the singularity itself is meaningless.
Kelly

You saying it means something doesn't change the laws of physics.

Bring us a new theory of relativity or shut up.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Closed. I'm sure you are going to offer some inane drivel up though.

How do you know that the universe is a closed system?

And would you care to explain how the Second Law of Thermodynamics in the closed system of the universe is compatible with the Theory of Evolution?

Originally posted by dj2becker
How do you know that the universe is a closed system?

And would you care to explain how the second law of thermodynamics in the closed system of the universe is compatible with the Theory of Evolution?

It is the definition of the universe. There can be nothing "outside" the universe, because, if it existed, it'd be part of the universe.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It is the definition of the universe. There can be nothing "outside" the universe, because, if it existed, it'd be part of the universe.

OK fine. So now would you care to explain how the Second Law of Thermodynamics in the closed system of the universe is compatible with the Theory of Evolution?

Originally posted by dj2becker
And would you care to explain how the Second Law of Thermodynamics in the closed system of the universe is compatible with the Theory of Evolution?

I've explained this to you hundreds of times, but you are too stupid to remember, apparently.

The theory of evolution works on the earth, and possibly some other places too. It is contingent upon an energy input. For us, that energy input comes from the sun. The 2nd law allows a localised decrease in entropy (life) provided that the overall entropy of the universe increases (the nuclear reactions in the sun release heat and energy).

Originally posted by dj2becker
OK fine. So now would you care to explain how the Second Law of Thermodynamics in the closed system of the universe is compatible with the Theory of Evolution?

Would you care to go out and read a book. Or buy a brain.

I really worry that you are a teacher. Seriously, you are by a long way the 2nd dumbest person I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Would you care to go out and read a book. Or buy a brain.

I really worry that you are a teacher. Seriously, you are by a long way the 2nd dumbest person I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.

I dread to think who the ultimate idiot is in your experience.

Originally posted by Starrman
I dread to think who the ultimate idiot is in your experience.

Well, I used that one in a fit of exasperation on Knightmeister the other day. I wouldn't want to be inconsistent.

Originally posted by dj2becker
OK fine. So now would you care to explain how the Second Law of Thermodynamics in the closed system of the universe is compatible with the Theory of Evolution?

We have been through that one before.
Please first start by explaining why you think they are incompatible and I will show you where you are going wrong.
Do you at least understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it works? Do you realize that it is not an absolute law of physics but rather a direct result of probability? Do you also realize that the implications of the law - that organized patterns become more random over time - does not result in total uniformity but total randomness which has inherent organized patterns by its very nature. Confusing I know but thats mathematics for you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We have been through that one before.
Please first start by explaining why you think they are incompatible and I will show you where you are going wrong.
Do you at least understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it works? Do you realize that it is not an absolute law of physics but rather a direct result of probability? Do you also realize tha ...[text shortened]... inherent organized patterns by its very nature. Confusing I know but thats mathematics for you.

Let me try and lay it out for you as I see it. Feel free to refute or correct anything I say at any time.

Second law of Thermodynamics:


"Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.
...or...
The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.

(Entropy is a measure of (1) the amount of energy unavailable for work within a system or process, and/or (2) the probability of distribution or randomness [disorder] within a system.)

To help ensure an adequate understanding of what the second law means, consider the following, also from Isaac Asimov:

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.”
[Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]

This is the essence of Classical Thermodynamics. Similarly, the “generalized 2nd law” applies to probability of distribution matters in Information Theory in such a way that, left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began (again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case informational entropy)—and likewise, applied to matters Statistics, left to itself over time, the order or regularity of a system will be less than when it began (and again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case statistical entropy).

Your Evolutionary theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law.

This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the speculations concerning biological life and its origin. The story goes that—again, in violation of the second law—within the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule.

Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and suitably matched molecular “community members” which formed what we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex of integrated machinery called the cell.

Not only did this alleged remarkable random act of self-transformation take place in defiance of the second law, but the environment in which it happened, while itself presumably cooperating with the second law’s demand for increased disorder and break-down, managed (by some further unknown random mechanism) to leave untouched the entire biological self-assembly process and the self-gathered material resources from which the first living organism built itself.

The theory of Evolution takes its greatest pride in applying this same brand of speculation to the classic Darwinian hypothesis in which all known biological life is said to have descended (by means of virtually infinite—yet random—additional increases in organized complexity) from that first hypothesized single-celled organism. This process, it is claimed, is directly responsible for the existence of (among other things) the human being.

For some background info you can read the following:
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

Originally posted by dj2becker
Let me try and lay it out for you as I see it. Feel free to refute or correct anything I say at any time.

Second law of Thermodynamics:


"Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unav
For some background info you can read the following:
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

So where is the closed system that you refer to, certainly it cant be the space that the big bang's universe is still increasing it's expansion rate into.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Let me try and lay it out for you as I see it. Feel free to refute or correct anything I say at any time.

Second law of Thermodynamics:

[b]
"Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unav ...[text shortened]...
For some background info you can read the following:
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

We already refuted this trash.

According to the author though, water cannot be pumped up hill either.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, I used that one in a fit of exasperation on Knightmeister the other day. I wouldn't want to be inconsistent.

By their own words....


"I wouldn't want to be inconsistent" SCOTTY


"there is no evidence for anything HAPPENING "OUTSIDE" the universe" SCOTTY

"The point is that everything that exists, MUST EXIST WITHIN 4 dimensional space, and must have all those dimensions. If something exists for zero seconds, does it exist?"SCOTTY

"Existing for an amount of time is a PRE-REQUISITE for existing, as is possessing mass-energy." SCOTTY


"You just keep plugging away with "but it must have a cause". This is only true of things that exist WITHIN the universe, but not true to the start of the universe, since it was NOT a time dependent EVENT." SCOTTY

"Time exists only as a dimension of the universe, and cannot be used to describe things HAPPENING WITHIN a singularity. "SCOTTY

Originally posted by scottishinnz
...water cannot be pumped up hill either.

😵

Now, there's an author with a lot of credibility.

Originally posted by knightmeister
By their own words....


"I wouldn't want to be inconsistent" SCOTTY


"there is no evidence for anything HAPPENING "OUTSIDE" the universe" SCOTTY

"The point is that everything that exists, MUST EXIST WITHIN 4 dimensional space, and must have all those dimensions. If something exists for zero seconds, does it exist?"SCOTTY

"Existing for a ...[text shortened]... , and cannot be used to describe things HAPPENING WITHIN a singularity. "SCOTTY

I have been entirely consistent. I've also tried to explain simple physics to your stupid a** as many different ways as I can think of, using a language that is unfortunately clearly unsuitable for the task.