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

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?

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.

John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:48:05 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
wrote:

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.

That's almost a defining feature of being an idiot.
If they were competent enough to judge their own
competence properly, that would be a big step toward
not being an idiot.

Jim Burns

Dunning-Kruger effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
: The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon wherein
: people who have little knowledge tend to think that
: they know more than they do, while others who have
: much more knowledge tend to think that they know less.
: Dunning and Kruger were awarded a 2000 Ig Nobel prize
: for their work.[1]

Unskilled and Unaware of It:
How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence
Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
; Across four studies, the authors found that participants
; scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar,
; and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and
; ability. Although test scores put them in the 12th
; percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:05:38 -0400, James Burns
wrote:

John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:48:05 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
wrote:

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.

That's almost a defining feature of being an idiot.
If they were competent enough to judge their own
competence properly, that would be a big step toward
not being an idiot.

It's worse than that - no matter how seriously they take their
bull**** (and I'm not entirely convinced they do), they know it is
unwelcome here.

Jim Burns

"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.

|
| 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. you frequently show the world your dishonest posting tactics.

"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:







|
|

"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
|

"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.Therefore the big bang is moot.




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

"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?



|
|
| --
| Bob.