On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 20:50:20 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


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


Do tell?

Our part of the universe, the part we can observe, which is a tiny
fraction of the total universe, used to be smaller than an atom. Today
it is a sphere with a diameter of at least 78 billion light-years.

The universe has expanded since the BB, therefore the density is far
lower now than it was then.



|
|
| --
| Bob.


Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 20:53:07 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"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.


It is true, unlike you I don't feel the need to tell lies.


|
| --
| Bob.

Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.

On Apr 2, 3:48*pm, 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?


I'm convinced it's some kind of martyr/persecution complex, since
their behaivor here is counter to any "conversion" they may be trying.

PDW

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 06:37:06 -0700 (PDT), Syd
wrote:

On Apr 2, 3:48*pm, 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?


I'm convinced it's some kind of martyr/persecution complex, since
their behaivor here is counter to any "conversion" they may be trying.

We know they almost orgasm from being reviled, but surely it's an even
bigger sin to reinforce people's dislike of their religion?


PDW

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:43:42 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
enriched this group when s/he 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.

Tooooooo much to hope for.

--
Bob.

On Apr 3, 5:33*am, David Schwartz wrote:
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

yeah but what does any of this have to do with evolution?

In article "adman" writes:

"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.

"Sufficient" is always adequate, in my experience.


The singularity is a moot issue.

The singularity it totally unknown territory.

Therefore the big bang is moot.

What does the Bible predict for the ratios
of the non-metals?


-- cary

On Apr 3, 8:39*am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 06:37:06 -0700 (PDT), Syd
wrote:





On Apr 2, 3:48*pm, 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?

I'm convinced it's some kind of martyr/persecution complex, since
their behaivor here is counter to any "conversion" they may be trying.

We know they almost orgasm from being reviled, but surely it's an even
bigger sin to reinforce people's dislike of their religion?



You and me would think so. There's no telling what goes through the
"mind" of a fundy...

PDW

On Apr 3, 12:54*pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article "adman" writes:

"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.

"Sufficient" is always adequate, in my experience.



The singularity is a moot issue.

The singularity it totally unknown territory.

Therefore the big bang is moot.

What does the Bible predict for the ratios
of the non-metals?

But the day of the Lord will come as
a thief in the night, in which the
heavens will pass away with a great
noise, and the elements will melt with
fervent heat; both the earth and the
works that are in it will be burned
up. Therefore, since all these things
will be dissolved, what manner of
persons ought you to be in holy
conduct and godliness, looking for
and hastening the coming of the day
of God, because of which the heavens
will be dissolved, being on fire,
and the elements will melt with
fervent heat? Nevertheless we,
according to His promise, look for
new heavens and a new earth in which
righteousness dwells. II Pet. 3:10-13

Just passing through, Cary. It doesn't
look like ratios are going to matter at
some point in time.

-- cary- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 2 Apr, 19:29, "adman" wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message

...
| In article 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?

How about the painfully obvious evidence, that the red-shift of
distant galaxies show that the universe is expanding?



|
|
| -- 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
|
|
|
|