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

How can it be "territory" when it defies the laws of physics.

|
| Therefore the big bang is moot.
|
| What does the Bible predict for the ratios
| of the non-metals?

I do not understand the question. Can you elucidate please?



|
| -- cary
|
|

"willow" wrote in message
...
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.


Yes. Thank you for this post. I did not understand the question.

But with a big bang (no pun intended) this current universe is going to
melt and transmogrify into something new.



-- cary- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
| 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?


I see nowhere in the model where it assumes same size and density.


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

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

Works fine. Fix yours.



|
| --
| Bob.

On Apr 2, 11:33 am, "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.

From Charles Dodgeson, writing as Lewis Carroll.
1) No cat has eight tails.
2) Each cat has one more tail than no cat.
3) Each cat has nine tails.

May I add two more lines.
4) The no cat postulate (#1) is experimentally observable.
5) Therefore, the nine cat model (#3) conforms to the data.

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:12:17 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


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

Works fine. Fix yours.



|
| --
| Bob.


Abuse report filed.

Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.

On 3 Apr, 21:11, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...
| On 2 Apr, 19:29, "adman" wrote:
| "Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
|
| ...
| | In article "adma 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?

I see nowhere in the model where it assumes same size and density.

Your comment here has no relation to my comment, but appears to be a
response to the previous poster's comment.

But how about you present the "creation model" either in your own
words or by presenting us with a link so we can read it for ourselves?



|
|
| |
| |
| | -- 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 Apr 3, 12:03*pm, John Baker wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 00:07:55 -0700 (PDT), Tiktaalik





wrote:
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.

And the jackass is a hell of a lot smarter than arseboy.

And prettier.

"I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the
better for it". (Abraham Lincoln).





"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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

CC to: http://netreport.virginmedia.com




|
| --
| Bob.

"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
| On 3 Apr, 21:11, "adman" wrote:
| "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
|
| ...
| | On 2 Apr, 19:29, "adman" wrote:
| | "Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
| |
| | ...
| | | In article
"adma
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?
|
| I see nowhere in the model where it assumes same size and density.
|
| Your comment here has no relation to my comment, but appears to be a
| response to the previous poster's comment.
|
| But how about you present the "creation model" either in your own
| words or by presenting us with a link so we can read it for ourselves?

I'll present an creation model to "You" but i will not present a creation
mode to an "us".

Why do you make yourself sound "ass" if you represent the many and not just
yourself?

Do you speak for all of usenet? Do you so readily discount others opinions
and decide only you can speak for them?

How dishonest of you to make your opinions and questions seem as if they
represent everyone with questions and ALL of usenet


Admin
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And he shall speak great words against the most High,
and shall wear out the saints of the most High,.
and think to change times and laws... -
Daniel 7:25

Adman.






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