"Ye Old One" wrote in message
...
| 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.

Say that 3 times and wish real hard to see if it comes true.



|
| --
| Bob.

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 20:28:31 -0500, "adman" wrote:


"raven1" wrote in message
.. .
| 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.

Only a WOMAN would ASSume that.

Reduced to sexist insults now? Pathetic.

| 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".

Incorrect.

Totally correct.

you frequently show the world your dishonest posting tactics.

Outright lie on your part. Citation or retraction, please.

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

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.

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

Right click.

Scroll to filters.

Click on kill.

Click on subject

Click OK.

Done.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

"raven1" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 20:28:31 -0500, "adman" wrote:


"raven1" wrote in message
. ..
| 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.

Earth is not a closed system. It constantly
receives energy from the sun.

| | | 2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.

Not so. Define 'usable' and 'unusable' energy. I'll
bet you can't.

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

As raven1 says, your premis is incorrect, therefore
your conclusion is incorrect.
| | |
| | | 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.

Only a WOMAN would ASSume that.

Reduced to sexist insults now? Pathetic.

| 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".

Incorrect.

Totally correct.

you frequently show the world your dishonest posting tactics.

No, he doesn't, but you always do. You've been dishonest since
before you started using this nym.

Outright lie on your part. Citation or retraction, please.

On Apr 3, 2:50*am, "arseman" smirked:
"Ye Old One" wrote in messagenewsfn7v31tt51reg5m1a671rp3hmf87327p4@4ax .com...
| 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.

I'm all ears..

So's a jackass.

"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being." (Abraham Lincoln).


Do tell?

|
|
| --
| Bob.

adman wrote on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:33:02 -0500:

Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins.

Almost sure does not.

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

That is not right.

2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.

That is not known.

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

That is unscientific.

4. The creation model conforms to the data.

That is not true.

Models that contradict data are unscientific.

That is reason science abandoned faith-based explanations several
centuries ago.

Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific

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

I did not know that site, but it is not proving you believe it is.

As stated in

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/

Next Micro-thought is about Second laws and living organisms.

In that future Micro-thought i will correct several misunderstandings
about the second law of thermodynamics often used by creacionists against
science.

For example, I revise several wrong technical claims being done at

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp

I have delayed publication on the blog because I changed the underlying
technology of the blog. I am bussy now but i wait to submit it next week.
I will notice on same newsgroups you used now.

You may find also useful the next viewpoint

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/r...odynamics.html

Last advances in thermodynamics may explain why the second law of
thermodynamics is compatible with generation of structures without
invoking neither new laws (Kauffman. fourth law) not supernatural
elements.

The generation of epsilon structures at nanoscale has been verified by
many independent researchers using different formulations of
nanothermodynamics.

Now the work is being extended to giga scale, where large scale
correlations guided by gravity may also explain evolution of the cosmos.
However, this cannot be done in the framework of General Relativity, thus
the current emphasis is on an *extension* of the relativistic theory of
gravity.


--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

On Apr 2, 8:33 am, "adman" wrote:

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

Creationism isn't a model of origins, since it simply says that
something was created by something else. Saying god created the
universe is a model of origins is just as absurd saying as saying that
my mother gave birth to me is a model of origins.

If you do not accept a natural model of origins, you are left with no
alternative. As far as I know, nobody has proposed a supernatural
"something from nothing" theory of origins. Feel free to try. Perhaps
you could start your own religion with it.

DS

"adman" wrote in
to alt.atheism on 03
Apr 2008:


"John Baker" wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:48:05 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
| wrote:
|
| On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:43:21 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
| wrote:
|
| On Apr 2, 3:43 pm, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
| 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.
|
| We should be so lucky...
| Sigh
|
| PDW
|
| I simply don't understand these idiots. What do they imagine they
| achieve by being so in-our-face stupid?
|
| It's like you've said yourself on more than one occasion. Idiots
| never think they *are* idiots.

cc to:



Does your social worker know you're using the internet?

--
David Silverman D.B.E.
BAAWA
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
Holder of rights to the stage musical "The Shining".

Not authentic without this signature.

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 20:47:20 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
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.

A redirection of your original meaning.

nuff said.


|
| 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.

What boundry? This is a "closed" system we are talking about.

|
| 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.

You cannot be this dumb as to say the singularity existed before anything
existed.

Which is what you said above, You claim in another post not to play word
games, yet here you are playing games.

Why is that? Too ashamed to admit i am correct?


|
| 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.

Backward thinking..

Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins.


|
| 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.


Not so. I simply try to explain what science theorizes about.



|
| 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.

Yes i have. The Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural
model of origins.



|
| 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?

It does not. It uses science to DISprove science's claim that the
supernatural is invalid.
Which is why the definition of a closed system in thermodynamics is one that
can exchange energy but not matter with its surroundings.

Why are you so stubbornly refusing this information?






.

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


Abuse report filed.

--
Bob.

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 20:49:34 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
...
| 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...

I expected someting more from you. I was wrong.

The singularity is a moot issue.

Wrong.

Therefore the big bang is moot.

Wrong again.




|
|
| -- 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
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|


Fix your newsreader or earn abuse reports.

--
Bob.