The second law of thermodynamic

[pretzelperson]

Gee whiz, may I enquire as to whether "pretzel" has reference to one's actual name or to one's modus operandi? Whatever, I'll be quite pleased then to rest my case on 1 out of 10^340,000,000 (to the 340 millionth power) on the side of the Creator-God. THAT'S more preferable, is it not, than that ever offered by Vegas oddsmakers, no?

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please carefully read what I wrote. I did not disagree with you. I stated that it is not possible to prove that the universe is the result of actions of God. It is not possible to prove evolution either. You are free to rest your case on what ever statistic you put forth. But you still can't successfully argue against the experience of the evolutionist: the existance of the universe. The evolutionist will always say "yep, the odds are slim, very silim, but I can look around me and see that the odds resulted in the existing universe".

One of the reasons I use the name "pretzelperson" is to make ad-hominim easy. It is interesting to me to see who takes the "shot". I found your comment inappropriate and disrespectful.

Edited December 20, 2004 by pretzelperson

[traveller]

Authur - you do not have to personally attack everyone. Common courtesy, please!

[Bread_of_Life]

traveller

Authur - you do not have to personally attack everyone. Common courtesy, please!

Well quite - at least I know now it's not just me, or just unbelievers, but even people who agree with him but in a qualified manner.

Arthur Duncan

I see you have skillfully neglected to actually answer any of the substantive points I have made. Your negligence to either post a reposte or correct your original statement is noted - but I can't help wandering what the point is in arguing with someone who, when proven wrong by someone more knowledgeable than he simply changes the subject - are you open to correction at all Arthur, even when offered in friendship?

We stand to be reminded that it is He who tried to "connect" the Middle Ages' Crusades with Christianity albeit in a very quik, off-the-cuff fashion. The "Crusaders," (mostly if not all Roman Catholics) were for the large part, essentially thieves, roustabouts, kidnappers & killers.

I have explained this perfectly well in my last post, and in posts before this, to the satisfaction of everyone but yourself. I do not wish to tar a religion by the actions of the religious, or nominally religious. I have said this before, but unfortunately you have not been paying attention, perhaps you will this time.

Also, just to remind you, this is completely off-topic, I posted a reply on thermodynamics, which has little or nothing to do with the actions of Catholics or the church or Rome.

He is also the one who attributes "scientific" to the word "atheist," but fails to rationally connect the terms.

The terms are not rationally connected, I just happen to be a scientist and an atheist. Also, is it simply customary for everyone to justify their name to you - or is it a legal requirement in your state?

Our opponent neglects to tell us how he can emply the term "atheist", much less "scientific atheist," when, for example, he has not dealt with the problem of his having journeyed to Alpha Centauri or Star 3457 or wherever else in order to show that a Creator-God definitely does not exist there...or anywhere else in whatever galaxies.

If you wish to discuss this epistemological point, I will happily do so on another thread, although it should easily be dealt with in a couple of posts.

To think, for example, that the DNA code comes from pure randomness is, to this particular observer, wholly irrational.

I have never claimed this, on this thread or otherwise. Are you going to answer my substantive points about thermodynamics, or are you going to attribute all sorts of strawman beliefs to me, and knock them down in series, for you could quite easily do this on your own, I needn't even take part!

I am also extremely interested in his quik portrayal of Islam as opposed to New Testament Christianity, of Muhammad therefore versus Jesus Christ. All if not most of current global terrorism is performed in warrior-general Muhammad of Yathrib's name. Surah 9:29-31 is especially revealing re Islam's true intent. Surely any "atheist," whether claiming to be "scientific" or not, will not accede to Muhammad's call to massacre "infidels" and "renegades."

What on earth does this have to do with thermodynamics? Also, where have I commented on Sura 9:29-31 elsewhere - where have I even mentioned it - where have I analysed it and said that I agree?

Dr. Harold Morowitze, professor of biophysics at Yale (of all places) estimates that the probability of the chance formation - again which is where I draw the name of his god-Chance from - of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000 - one out of ten to the 340 millionth power is unimaginable odds.

What does this calculation have to do with thermodynamics? Indeed, this calculation doesn't even have anything to do with abiogenesis, because no biologist believes that this is really what happened - so it'd be irrelevant even on a topic to do with the beginning of life, far less thermodynamics!?

Should observers follow Professor Antony Flew, for one of a long list of examples, or should they retain their "Scientific" alongside "Atheist" designation? Excellent query. A votre sante!

Congratulations on your regard for the French language, I was actually born in France - have you ever visited?

And what on earth does any of this have to do with thermodynamics?

Anthur, I have met many people on this board, some nice, some stern, some comic and some obnoxious - but without a doubt you are the worst example of Christian proselytising I have ever met. Christ is lucky that he has followers of good character and kind heart to make up for people like you - who are insulting, arrogant, nasty and whose actions and words speak against Christ more than any argument or evidence could ever do.

I hope that one day Arthur, you see the error of your ways and open your heart to become a better and more loving person - and frankly a whole lot more likeable with it. Until then, I'm afraid that I will be forced to ignore every post you make, whether on or off topic. I am usually very patient, but I'm afraid that you've managed to use my patience up very quickly.

Apologies for being so open about this traveller, but you are free to close down this thread if you wish, it no longer serves any purpose.

[John3;16]

scienctificAtheist

I am not a scienctist and do not possess a degree in thermal dynamics, I do have a degree in electronics, and took a couple college level biology cources, so I do have a rudimentary understanding of physics, you have been giving examples of exchange of energy, and conversion of energy, but the question which atheist can't answer is, where did the electrons, protrons, and neutrons, come from? what actually causes these to have properties that cause attraction of the neutrons and protrons?, what put electrons in motion? what compositions make up these elements, and give them thier properties? if you can answer how electrons, neutrons, and protrons, came into existance it would give weight to your faith system, as far as Darwin there is no evidence of any link between any species ever found in any fossle records, which there would be, if it were fact, so you either have flying saucers or spontaneous advanced life forms coming into existance.

[JLW001]

I'm a chemical engineer and I've spent a lot of time on these ideas, in class, at work, and in my personal attempts at understanding our Lord's creation.

1st-just because something has a minute probability of happening doesn't mean it will ever eventually happen.

2nd: We know that entropy in our closed system universe gives us a direction of heat flow (hot to cold) and because heat transfer takes time. a direction in time. If you take the modern view against a created universe, then you must admit that our little universe will slowly drift off into an every closer approach to absolute zero. In addition, we know, because of the work done by many astronomers over time (Hubble and a telescope named for him), that the universe will not collapse back on itself under the force of gravity.

In our universe, events have an order in time. Due to entropy. By the way, entropy is a term and an idea that extends well beyond what you might acquire in a thermodynamics book. Unless that book touches on astronomy, heat dynamics, and of course quantum physics. The idea of entropy requires there to be a beginning at a finite time before now for us to view the universe in the current state. There's nothing to debate about that question. Now, the debate must be around what caused the big bang or start of time or entropy. Minimum entropy and time zero are the same thing in our current view of the universe.

So, what made the big bang? What has the necessary power to create all of this matter and energy that we have and to spew it forth from a dot that has no size. Now I can give you the odds on that happening by chance in our universe - "0". That's right nothing, nadda, no scientifically trained individual would tell you that could happen. Do you know why? Because it would take an infinite amount of energy to make all that we see in the universe compress down to nothing. Infinite!

Now who or what kind of thing, being, entity can use infinite quantities of energy? Humans can not understand infinite quantities? So how can we understand a being that can wield them? He reveals himself to us in a manner we can understand. He is our Lord Jesus and our Father God. I meant the singular in that sentence. That entity is Jesus and God the Father. How do we know this? Because his book or words have told us. Now I feel some much better believing in my God, than I do busting my head against the "wall" of infinity.

In the USA or other free countries you are free to chose what you believe. Do you believe in something that doesn't make sense or do you believe in a creator who made us and the physical laws that we observe. Just because something like infinity is predicted by our understanding of nature's laws, doesn't mean that we can know or understand what it means.

Can you experience infinity in your life? Can you experience God in your life? Answer those two questions and you will know without a doubt where you stand.

[Bread_of_Life]

We know that entropy in our closed system universe gives us a direction of heat flow (hot to cold) and because heat transfer takes time. a direction in time.

It's the other way around I'm afraid. Entropy is thus defined in order to include the a priori knowledge that heat flows from hot to cold.

In other words, we didn't "discover" entropy and thus find out that heat flowed from hot to cold - we invented entropy as a state variable and defined it given our knowledge that heat flows from hot to cold.

then you must admit that our little universe will slowly drift off into an every closer approach to absolute zero.

Again, a common misunderstanding. The universe will not ever reach absolute zero, because energy within it is not destroyed or created. What it will reach is a state of total equilibrium where everything is the same, cold, temperature. With no heat differentials, no useful work will be possible.

In addition, we know, because of the work done by many astronomers over time (Hubble and a telescope named for him), that the universe will not collapse back on itself under the force of gravity.

Not so, the closed/open universe debate is still largely undecided - although open universe is more popular at the moment. We still have a lot to learn before making this particular judgement.

Because it would take an infinite amount of energy to make all that we see in the universe compress down to nothing. Infinite!

Not so. Black holes do this all the time, but do not expend an infinite ammount of energy. Furthermore, this also assumes that everything was seperate and then brought together, before exploding again in the big bang, which is likely false.

Also, philosophically speaking, what is the difference in positing an infinite ammount of energy and an infinite ammount of God - why are the chances of one 0 and the chances of the other 1?

[JLW001]

1st things first.

It's the other way around I'm afraid. Entropy is thus defined in order to include the a priori knowledge that heat flows from hot to cold.

However you want to desribe the reason heat flows from hot to cold its still a phenomenon that we call entropy. Your "correction on my quote is a matter of semantics.

Again, a common misunderstanding. The universe will not ever reach absolute zero, because energy within it is not destroyed or created. What it will reach is a state of total equilibrium where everything is the same, cold, temperature. With no heat differentials, no useful work will be possible.

Note that I did not say reach absolute zero, but that it would approach absolute zero. Please read more carefully. What happens when you take a finite amount of energy and you start decreasing its quality (increasing its entropy)? Its temperature starts to decrease. What will be the approach limit of that temperature? absolute zero.

Not so, the closed/open universe debate is still largely undecided - although open universe is more popular at the moment. We still have a lot to learn before making this particular judgement.

This quote shows your lack of knowledge of the current literature in astronomy and cosmology. Try a few for a good read.

Not so. Black holes do this all the time, but do not expend an infinite ammount of energy. Furthermore, this also assumes that everything was seperate and then brought together, before exploding again in the big bang, which is likely false.

A couple of comments on this. You think we understand the formation of black holes, but that we can't easily measure the speed at which galaxies are moving apart to determine the end function of this universe? Black hole formation is a topic very much in its infancy. Hubble showed how to determine if the universe would keep expanding or eventually contract in the early half of the 20th century.

Black holes are indeed singularities that appear in regions of space. Theorized to occur from the collapse of a star of huge proportions. These stars exhibit a finite gravitational "energy" or amount and therefore a finite mass. Now, take all the mass and energy and put it in a black hole. Let's see you get it out again! There are ways in which a black hole emits energy. They emit high energy x-rays, not a soup of sub atomic particles in a spectacular explosion. Please note that this is why the big bang singularity is MUCH different than a black hole. If it were similar, then we would see black holes in the universe explode into many new little universes. Doesn't happen and so comparing black holes to the big bang is not scientifically sound.

Your second comment about the doubtful process of all the universe being laid out and then brought back together as likely false reveals something. First, anything you say about time before the big bang is conjecture. Your decision on this being "likely false" reveals your bias and lack of an open mind. You see I could say that the universe before the big bang was all chicken soup and it would be just as likely any other state before the big bang. We can't make judgements about those states because our current "mortal" understanding extends only up to many fractions of a second before the big bang and tthen all that we know stops working.

Its not what the universe looked like before the big bang took place that concerns me, its that the big bang happened at all. What are the chances that all this matter and energy was compacted at a singularity and then suddenly exploded on chance. That's the probability that I'm calling zero and that's why I believe that there was some force other than chance that brought this into being and that force I choose to call God. You can call it whatever you like, but you can not call it nothing!

Edited January 22, 2005 by JLW001

[JLW001]

I would like to make a reply to some comments above.

So here you are in you room of science, you open a door and take a flying leap into theology, did you wave bye-bye? It's humorous how you went so quickly from No chance of the universe 'happening' to 'God did it'. What event created God? And if you say God always was then of course we can say the energy to create the universe also always was, couldn't we?. You seem perfectly willing to attribute this event to God for lack of a better theory (although I think the big bang is a better theory than some all powerful diety who is ageless and then one day 6000-8000 years ago decided to create everything).

I don't mean to laugh but...

Do you know why you must say good-bye to science when you try to go to and a little before the big bang? Its because our great and lofty logic doesn't work anymore. If science could tell me what went on at 10^-34 seconds before the big bang then I would keep following its trail, but it stops. The trail runs cold for our logic and understanding it is beyond anything we know. In mathematics, we call it infinity, but even the math doesn't go beyond it. So, whatever it is that you choose to believe in before the big bang it is just that a belief! So, that why I said I "feel" better in choosing God. God fits my logic better. I don't "feel" a fear, I "feel" a comfort in my logical mind. Now, you may "feel' comfort in throwing your hands up saying "I don't know" or you may "feel" a comfort in saying I wait until the scientists figure it out. Either way you are having faith in something. You can put your faith in the science or you can put it in God, but it will be the same thing, "faith".

I know you don't know me personally, so I will simply say that death is something I look forward to. It will be when I am changed and become spirit only, no longer fettered by this physical body. Death is the great equalizer. It reaches high born and low, believer and aetheist, good and bad. One day it will come for both of us. You may face it with the idea of fading to nothing and I will face it as a transformation. Then on the other side I will pat you on the shoulder and say, "Do you remember me from the internet".

I don't know if you realize this, but I never said that the universe was created 8-10 thousand years ago. God can do what he wills. So if from our perspective it took 10 thousand or 20 billion years it doesn't matter. In either case its us finding the foot steps of the Almighty.

[JLW001]

ScientificAtheist,

I'm interested in hearing your replies to my arguments...but you seem to have abandoned this thread in preference to the "homosexuality" thread. Do you concede my points or are you just not interested in discussing the scientific evidence for our creator?

[Bread_of_Life]

Abandoned is a strong word for a thread that I have not responded to in 2 days. I will respond tonight when I get home from work.