"raven1" wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:25:30 -0500, "adman" wrote:
|
|
| "raven1" wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:33:02 -0500, "adman" wrote:
| |
| | Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of
origins.
| |
| | What, in your understanding, is the 2LoT?
| |
| | 1. There is no natural means to increase usable energy in a closed
| system.
| | 2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.
| | 3. Therefore, the initial energy of the universe must have originated
| | supernaturally.
| |
| | Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, rendering the
| | remainder of your post moot.
|
| I see you finally understand the defination of "Moot"
|
| I've understood it all along. It's good to see that you agree with me
| about its applicability to your post.

Can you show me where i said "i agree"?

If not, it is just more intellectual dishonesty.


|
|
| |
| | 4. The creation model conforms to the data.
| |
| | Evolution proposes only natural explanations.
| | Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law.
| | Models that contradict data are unscientific.
| | Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific
| |
| | http://www.mbbc.us/creation/presentation.htm
| |
|

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
...
| In article "adman"
writes:
| Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins.
| 1. There is no natural means to increase usable energy in a closed
system.
| 2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.
| 3. Therefore, the initial energy of the universe must have originated
| supernaturally.
| 4. The creation model conforms to the data.
|
|
| Assumes that the universe came into being with the same
| size and density we observe today.
|
| It didn't.

You have observable evidence of such?

|
|
| -- cary
|
|
|
|
| Evolution proposes only natural explanations.
| Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law.
| Models that contradict data are unscientific.
| Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific
|
| http://www.mbbc.us/creation/presentation.htm
|
|
|
|

On 2 Apr, 18:31, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...
| On 2 Apr, 16:33, "adman" wrote:
| Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins.
|
| What evidence do you have for this statement?
|
| 1. There is no natural means to increase usable energy in a closed
system.
|
| This is incorrect, the definition of a closed system in thermodynamics
| is one that can exchange energy but not matter with its surroundings.

An exchange is hardly an increase

When the word exchange is used in this context it means that the
movement of energy can go in either direction.

|
| Therefore the energy content of a closed system can vary in either
| direction depending on what the state of its surroundings may be at
| any time.

Incorrect. The energy level stays the same

If you have a closed system energy can cross the boundary in either
direction, only with an isolated system does the total energy content
remain constant, and that is because nothing can cross the boundary in
either direction.

|
| 2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.
|
| Only because it is an isolated system that is not in equilibrium.
|
| 3. Therefore, the initial energy of the universe must have originated
| supernaturally.
|
| You have been adamant that no one can provide evidence for what
| existed before the universe as we know it began.

I have been adamant that the singularity is not proven nor is there evidence
of singularity

Which amounts to the same thing, as the singularity (theoretically)
existed before the universe began.

|
| How about you now provide the evidence that supports your contention
| that the universe had a supernatural beginning.

The facts fit that theory

This theory that the universe had a supernatural origin cannot be
tested or falsified, and so is not a scientific theory.

|
| Make sure that it is sound scientific evidence.

Science is man made. How do you supose to explain the supernatural with a
man made tool?

Well you seem to be trying to shoehorn the supernatural into the
scientific arena, so perhaps you can explain how you expect people to
accept something that cannot be tested and falsified in the proper
manner.

|
| 4. The creation model conforms to the data.
|
| Evolution proposes only natural explanations.
|
| The whole of science proposes only natural explanations.

Exactly. Which does not fit te model for *supernatural model of origins
|
| Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law.
|
| Which natural law is evolution supposedly contradicting?

Can't you read?

I can, but you haven't stated which natural law evolution is supposed
to contradict.

|
| Models that contradict data are unscientific.
| Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific
|
| And as your "model" is not supported by the available data will you
| accept it is not scientific?

Re-Read above. That is the support.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins.

No it does not, your source has misquoted the second law, and has used
the wrong system definition with respect to the nature of the
universe, and has stated incorrectly "There is no natural means to
increase usable energy in a closed system."

I would suggest that you consider examining some other sites that
explain the science of thermodynamics correctly.

And while we are on the subject of science, if science is wrong
because it only uses natural explanations, then how can you (or the
author of the website you cite) use science to support a supernatural
origion for the universe?
.

|
| http://www.mbbc.us/creation/presentation.htm
|

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:28:29 -0500, "adman" wrote:


"raven1" wrote in message
.. .
| On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:25:30 -0500, "adman" wrote:
|
|
| "raven1" wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:33:02 -0500, "adman" wrote:
| |
| | Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of
origins.
| |
| | What, in your understanding, is the 2LoT?
| |
| | 1. There is no natural means to increase usable energy in a closed
| system.
| | 2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.
| | 3. Therefore, the initial energy of the universe must have originated
| | supernaturally.
| |
| | Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, rendering the
| | remainder of your post moot.
|
| I see you finally understand the defination of "Moot"
|
| I've understood it all along. It's good to see that you agree with me
| about its applicability to your post.

Can you show me where i said "i agree"?

By stating that I understand the definition of "moot" you were
implicitly stating that my usage of it was correct.

If not, it is just more intellectual dishonesty.

You wouldn't recognize intellectual honesty if you tripped over it.
Every one of your posts is full of scientific inaccuracies, logical
fallacies, and (as when you posted a link about the meniscus that
contradicted your own point) outright "own goals".




|
|
| |
| | 4. The creation model conforms to the data.
| |
| | Evolution proposes only natural explanations.
| | Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law.
| | Models that contradict data are unscientific.
| | Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific
| |
| | http://www.mbbc.us/creation/presentation.htm
| |
|

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:29:48 -0500, "adman" wrote:

| Assumes that the universe came into being with the same
| size and density we observe today.
|
| It didn't.

You have observable evidence of such?

Yes. It's called "red shift". The universe is observably expanding.

In article "adman" writes:

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
...
| In article "adman"
writes:
| Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins.
| 1. There is no natural means to increase usable energy in a closed
system.
| 2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.
| 3. Therefore, the initial energy of the universe must have originated
| supernaturally.
| 4. The creation model conforms to the data.
|
|
| Assumes that the universe came into being with the same
| size and density we observe today.
|
| It didn't.

You have observable evidence of such?

Just the same dreary list of observational
bases for the Big Bang that so many others have
provided for you over the last few weeks.
You know: confirmation of the ratios
of the non-mentals with theory, overall
galacic motions, large-scale isotropy
and predicted temeprature of the CMB,
very fine-scale anisotropies in the CMB
(except for the absence of the fundamental
in the power spectrum series, of course),
und so weiter...


-- cary

|
|
| -- cary
|
|
|
|
| Evolution proposes only natural explanations.
| Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law.
| Models that contradict data are unscientific.
| Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific
|
| http://www.mbbc.us/creation/presentation.htm
|
|
|
|

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:33:02 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins.

2LT is science, science doesn't recognize the supernatural.

1. There is no natural means to increase usable energy in a closed system.

Correct.

2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.

Incorrect.

3. Therefore, the initial energy of the universe must have originated
supernaturally.

Incorrect.

4. The creation model conforms to the data.

There is no creation model.

Evolution proposes only natural explanations.

No, wrong again! Science accepts only natural explanations.

Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law.

Evolution is a process.

Models that contradict data are unscientific.

The ToE does not contradict data.

Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific

Wrong, yet again. It really has become a habit of yours.

http://www.mbbc.us/creation/presentation.htm

Like your brother McClueless, you do like finding some crap websites.

--
Bob.

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:14:12 -0400, raven1
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:33:02 -0500, "adman" wrote:

Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins.

What, in your understanding, is the 2LoT?

1. There is no natural means to increase usable energy in a closed system.
2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.
3. Therefore, the initial energy of the universe must have originated
supernaturally.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, rendering the
remainder of your post moot.

Moot would be the wrong word.

He rendered his argument invalid as soon as he included the
supernatural in it.

--
Bob.

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:29:48 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
...
| In article "adman"
writes:
| Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins.
| 1. There is no natural means to increase usable energy in a closed
system.
| 2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.
| 3. Therefore, the initial energy of the universe must have originated
| supernaturally.
| 4. The creation model conforms to the data.
|
|
| Assumes that the universe came into being with the same
| size and density we observe today.
|
| It didn't.

You have observable evidence of such?

Yes.


--
Bob.

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:24:26 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:14:12 -0400, raven1
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:33:02 -0500, "adman" wrote:

Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins.

What, in your understanding, is the 2LoT?

1. There is no natural means to increase usable energy in a closed system.
2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.
3. Therefore, the initial energy of the universe must have originated
supernaturally.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, rendering the
remainder of your post moot.

Moot would be the wrong word.

He rendered his argument invalid as soon as he included the
supernatural in it.

He should have stayed mute.