ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Religion Atheism vs Theists for those that can't read. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=285598)

Dave Lane 08-09-2014 11:10 PM

Atheism vs Theists for those that can't read.
 
Here have a play pen to post comments about:

1) those that can read but choose to post in the other thread anyway

2) those that can't read and choose to post multi-posts that are distracting just cuz

3) those that can not read and accept not posting there...

ITS ALL SEMANTICS!!!

Ok have you fun here. The Eric and Dave thread will end up 70,000 posts long otherwise. Have a quick one line point in the other thread feel free to post it. Let's just not have 7 conversations going at once in the other thread. Put em here.

Pawnmower 08-09-2014 11:19 PM

why dont you pillowbiters use PM and post a summary of the results

Pawnmower 08-09-2014 11:21 PM

Nice freudian slip by the way, moron


Atheism VS THEISTS


Notice how dave "the millionaire .01%er" lane sees it as him versus PEOPLE who believe in God....and not a battle of concepts


VERY insightful typo there, genious

Dave Lane 08-09-2014 11:26 PM

You inspire me everyday. Thank you.

teedubya 08-09-2014 11:32 PM

I don't know any of the backstory on this post, but WTF is CP Varsity?

http://www.holehigh.com/cp.png

Dave Lane 08-09-2014 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teedubya (Post 10807051)
I don't know any of the backstory on this post, but WTF is CP Varsity?

http://www.holehigh.com/cp.png

CP mafia. But you probably know the first rule of CP varsity club.

HonestChieffan 08-10-2014 05:23 AM

CrazyDavelane is at it again

Prison Bitch 08-10-2014 08:43 AM

Dave Lane needs thread starting privileges reduced to 1 per week. That's the most any sane human among us can take.

tiptap 08-10-2014 09:09 AM

My reading of the debate goes like this. If you are discussing Complexity as an argument for a god than you are making a physical observation of the present world and drawing a conclusion, premised by appealing to an understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You are stating that complexity only comes from something more complex. That an increase in complexity is directly and absolutely, blocked by the 2nd Law. This places the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as more fundamental than even Quantum Mechanics as someone alluded to in one of their posts.

And whether you are talking about abiogenesis or Single cell or Eukaryotic Biological Evolution you are required to provide an explanation for the increase in complexity in lieu of the 2nd Law. This is the reason why Theist jump around between the beginning of life and modern strict definitions of Biological Evolution. This argument even includes Celestial observations as complexity seems to arise within those studies that seem in violation of 2nd Law.

So I think this thread could be used to talk about 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as it understood in science. I would first like to point out there are many jumping off points for discussing the 2nd Law. But we can find things that they all have in common. The first item can most easily be discerned by asking the question "Is there a Conservation Law of Entropy." The First Law of Thermodynamics (or Quantum Mechanics or Celestial Mechanics or Newtonian Mechanics, etc) is stated as Energy is NEITHER created or destroyed. This is not true for the fundamental measurement involved in 2nd Law, called Entropy. Indeed the usual statement is that Entropy can only increase. That infers that Entropy is being created.

This has two immediate implications for the present discussion compared to the Concepts around Energy. First Entropy is not fundamental (indeed we will find it is inherently statistical) and second it is a source for creation (this being the surprise part of the 2nd Law.)

WhiteWhale 08-10-2014 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiptap (Post 10807469)
My reading of the debate goes like this. If you are discussing Complexity as an argument for a god than you are making a physical observation of the present world and drawing a conclusion, premised by appealing to an understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You are stating that complexity only comes from something more complex. That an increase in complexity is directly and absolutely, blocked by the 2nd Law. This places the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as more fundamental than even Quantum Mechanics as someone alluded to in one of their posts.

And whether you are talking about abiogenesis or Single cell or Eukaryotic Biological Evolution you are required to provide an explanation for the increase in complexity in lieu of the 2nd Law. This is the reason why Theist jump around between the beginning of life and modern strict definitions of Biological Evolution. This argument even includes Celestial observations as complexity seems to arise within those studies that seem in violation of 2nd Law.

So I think this thread could be used to talk about 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as it understood in science. I would first like to point out there are many jumping off points for discussing the 2nd Law. But we can find things that they all have in common. The first item can most easily be discerned by asking the question "Is there a Conservation Law of Entropy." The First Law of Thermodynamics (or Quantum Mechanics or Celestial Mechanics or Newtonian Mechanics, etc) is stated as Energy is NEITHER created or destroyed. This is not true for the fundamental measurement involved in 2nd Law, called Entropy. Indeed the usual statement is that Entropy can only increase. That infers that Entropy is being created.

This has two immediate implications for the present discussion compared to the Concepts around Energy. First Entropy is not fundamental (indeed we will find it is inherently statistical) and second it is a source for creation (this being the surprise part of the 2nd Law.)

I'm not sure I understand...Are you saying the 2nd law should preclude pockets of increasing order in the universe?

Dave Lane 08-10-2014 11:01 AM

The easy answer is the second law only describes a closed system. We don't live in one of those.

tiptap 08-10-2014 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale (Post 10807566)
I'm not sure I understand...Are you saying the 2nd law should preclude pockets of increasing order in the universe?

It is formally impossible to have a continuously totally homogeneous dispersion of energy. That too violates the 2nd Law. But usually this discussion is at quantum levels of energy dispersion.

What I am also referring to is the macro effects. For example there is a build up of energy in the atmosphere and that energy is not evenly distributed simply because the matter involved that carries the energy is basically a sphere and the energy source is a circle/plane. This plus the conservation of rotational momentum recruits the solar energy to produce weather.

We can also see the two sides by two actors. First there is an engineer wanting to build a tower. (Water, broadcast, doesn't matter) What is taken as the goal is a structure which can withstand what its environment might sling at the tower that would disrupt its function. That function is narrow, specific and therefore most events tend to be deleterious to that function. Engineers see this as entropy moving away from intent (Murphy's Law).

On the other hand the traditional picture of a chemist is one huddling around a bunsen burner distilling or refluxing materials. And what this is using energy to drive events to fill all the entropic possibilities and create something new and novel. Yes once acrylics or new polypetide is produced then you hand off the new substance to a engineering chemist to find the best way to make the substance but its discovery lies in energy flow filling entropic space creating something new.

RedNeckRaider 08-10-2014 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiptap (Post 10807808)
It is formally impossible to have a continuously totally homogeneous dispersion of energy. That too violates the 2nd Law. But usually this discussion is at quantum levels of energy dispersion.

What I am also referring to is the macro effects. For example there is a build up of energy in the atmosphere and that energy is not evenly distributed simply because the matter involved that carries the energy is basically a sphere and the energy source is a circle/plane. This plus the conservation of rotational momentum recruits the solar energy to produce weather.

We can also see the two sides by two actors. First there is an engineer wanting to build a tower. (Water, broadcast, doesn't matter) What is taken as the goal is a structure which can withstand what its environment might sling at the tower that would disrupt its function. That function is narrow, specific and therefore most events tend to be deleterious to that function. Engineers see this as entropy moving away from intent (Murphy's Law).

On the other hand the traditional picture of a chemist is one huddling around a bunsen burner distilling or refluxing materials. And what this is using energy to drive events to fill all the entropic possibilities and create something new and novel. Yes once acrylics or new polypetide is produced then you hand off the new substance to a engineering chemist to find the best way to make the substance but its discovery lies in energy flow filling entropic space creating something new.

Look dude I am sick and tired of your crap. I am going to school for 10 or 20 years and come back and square you up...or agree with you. Wait here I will be back~

Dave Lane 08-10-2014 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RNR (Post 10808569)
Look dude I am sick and tired of your crap. I am going to school for 10 or 20 years and come back and square you up...or agree with you. Wait here I will be back~

We are still waiting.........





Actually good to see you back dude!

Priest31kc 08-11-2014 11:37 PM

1 Attachment(s)
:thumb:


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.