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

CC sent.

Fix yours.


|
| --
| Bob.

On Apr 3, 3:14*am, raven1 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.

Your criticism is not as conclusive as your remark suggests.
He is right in that science forbids any means of either creating
energy, in whatever entropy state, out of nothing, or decreasing
the entropy of the universe as a whole by any natural means
whatever. The original, lower entropy state of the universe therefore
remains without any natural scientific explanation, and no
explanation can therefore be suggested that is not beyond
what science recognises as 'natural'

Alen

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism
Alen wrote in
:
On Apr 3, 3:14*am, raven1 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.

Your criticism is not as conclusive as your remark suggests.
He is right in that science forbids any means of either creating
energy, in whatever entropy state, out of nothing, or decreasing
the entropy of the universe as a whole by any natural means
whatever.

So what?

The original, lower entropy state of the universe therefore
remains without any natural scientific explanation, and no
explanation can therefore be suggested that is not beyond
what science recognises as 'natural'

It would help if you didn't add your own mistaken understanding of
entropy or cosmology to the mix.

On Apr 2, 7:33 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.

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 the subject of creationism.
One of the things I don't understand is why religious people tend to
overlook the obvious about the claim god did it, but ignores the
difficulty of explaining how a being with a fully functioning mind
just happened.Like they say,just happened like a fully assembled jet
plane
just by the actions of wind and chance.But yet evolution is somehow
easier to explain by saying god did it.Its as if explaining how god
was created would not be important because its religious.

Anyhow see my other most recent posting on this subject for the best
possible argument for the possibility of god or at least something
like it.
But adman look up my other postings for an actual mechanism for space
time creation that makes since and yes it does also argue how the
Laws of thermodynamics can be bypassed, when new universes are
created.See
www.alttheories.com just remember its under construction and you can
find more about this on my postings than on the site.
Dale

On Apr 3, 9:03 pm, "adman" wrote:
"Ye Old One" wrote in messagenews:eve9v35hbdpjrpbt1v9km2rls5durv9srb@4ax .com...
| 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.

Do you no good. He's not the interloper spouting off-topic drivel
here.

PDW

On 2 Apr, 16:33, "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.

There are three systems associated with the laws of thermodynamics;
open, closed and isolated.

And a closed system can vary in its energy content, as the boundary
between it and its surroundings is only impermeable to matter.

2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.

Define "usable energy".

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

What evidence do you have for this assertion?

4. The creation model conforms to the data.

Does it?

Evolution proposes only natural explanations.

All science deals purely with natural causes.

Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law.

What law does it contradict?

Models that contradict data are unscientific.

The creation model is unscientific.

Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific

Evolution only deals with what has happened since life began, it
doesn't deal with the origin of life.


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

On 2 Apr, 16:33, "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

Here are a few facts for you:

1) Closed system boundaries allow the transfer of energy.
2) Evolution doesn't deal with origins.
3) Science deals with observable causes and effects.
4) Invoking the supernatural as a cause is not scientific.

Perhaps you should go to mainstream science websites rather than the
ones you currently access.

On 6 May, 15:41, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008 03:48:37 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
spake thusly:





On 2 Apr, 16:33, "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

Is your understanding of thermodynamics really that limited?

And this is what they think equals proof of evolution,
folks! *An insult! *But that's all they have, not facts!
If they had facts, this debate would have ended
many, many years ago!

Here are some facts for you.

There are three types of systems described in thermodynamics.

Open - a system that can gain or lose both matter and energy.

Closed - a system that can gain or lose only energy.

Isolated - a system that cannot gain or lose either matter or energy.

And the poster called "adman" seems to have got the properties of the
closed and isolated systems all mixed up.

So the most logical conclusion is that "adman" has a limited
understanding of thermodynamics.

Now tell me, how did you reach your conclusion that I have insulted
"adman".


--

"For the day is near, even the day of the LORD is near,
a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen. *And
the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall
be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, and
they shall take away her multitude, and her foundations
shall be broken down." - Ezekiel 30:3-4 (prophecy about
Egypt, fulfilled in 480 B.C.)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 6 May, 18:46, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008 10:00:55 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
spake thusly:





On 6 May, 15:41, Pastor Dave wrote:

On Tue, 6 May 2008 03:48:37 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
spake thusly:

On 2 Apr, 16:33, "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

Is your understanding of thermodynamics really that limited?

And this is what they think equals proof of evolution,
folks! *An insult! *But that's all they have, not facts!
If they had facts, this debate would have ended
many, many years ago!

Here are some facts for you.

I am well aware and educated regarding the sciences.

There are three types of systems described in thermodynamics.

Open - a system that can gain or lose both matter and energy.

Closed - a system that can gain or lose only energy.

And you pick whichever one you can run to,
to try to make your claim work and we both
know it! *You will call the entire universe
either open, or closed, because of whatever
you need to claim at the moment, to avoid
admitting your religion doesn't work!

How can you say you are well educated in the sciences and then make a
comment like that?



--

What part of 'THOU SHALT NOT' don't you understand?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pastor Dave wrote on Tue, 06 May 2008 10:41:48 -0400:

On Tue, 6 May 2008 03:48:37 -0700 (PDT), "Devil's Advocaat"
spake thusly:


On 2 Apr, 16:33, "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

Is your understanding of thermodynamics really that limited?

And this is what they think equals proof of evolution, folks! An
insult! But that's all they have, not facts! If they had facts, this
debate would have ended many, many years ago!

I have corrected several common misunderstandings about the second law,
thermodynamics and life in blog article

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com...hermodynamics-
living.html

I promised this post time ago but i was busied with blog technology for
rendering maths which i have updated again today:

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com...-of-style-and-
technology.html

Best Regards.

--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...uidelines.html