Post by aaaPost by Blue Ringed 8Post by aaaPost by Blue Ringed 8Post by aaaPost by unknownPost by aaaPost by unknownPost by aaaPost by unknownPost by aaaPost by unknownOn Friday, June 16, 2017 at 4:05:50 PM UTC-7,
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 04:55:46 +0800, Peter
Post by unknownThe Second Law of Thermodynamics has been
replaced with the Second Suggestion of
Thermodynamics.
***********begin
SSoT************************ Nothing can
happen without causing disorder and
deterioration of the universe, except
refrigerators or other manmade
intelligently designed appliances, and
living things, but even those can only go
against this Suggestion but not violate it.
Anything that looks disorderly & untidy is
called entropy.
This Suggestion applies to the whole
universe, and since everything is part of
the whole universe, it applies to them too,
whether they are open or closed systems.
Unless they are manmade or living, or
unless God wanted it that way.
Errors cannot be made in copying DNA,
unless they are beneficial changes, which
will then reduce the entropy of the
organism. The organism has intelligence
built into it to know when to beneficially
change its DNA. If the organism's
intelligence isn't sure, it will pray for
guidance. Even bacteria can pray.
Organisms with less entropy are special.
All this is called intelligent design.
Evolution is not allowed, except God can
cause evolution, but then it's not called
evolution.
Things with less entropy will float. This
is because anti-entropy has anti-gravity
properties. That is why hot air balloons
go up instead of falling. Things with more
entropy will sink. Entropy is heavy.
Sunlight and other energy cause entropy.
Entropy particles are exported from the sun
to the earth in cargo containers.
Only manmade or living things can preserve
energy, even though some dead things can
store energy. Storing and preserving
energy are different, but you don't need to
know the difference. It's just different.
This Suggestion is proven by the Spiritual
Evidence of love, peace, truth, bunnies &
strawberry ice cream.
All things are Suggested to comply
immediately, or Jesus will pay you a visit.
That will be all. *************end
SSoT************************
Is that about right?
An excellent summation. And easily as coherent
as the source.
I pretty much threw in the towel when he
informed me that a peacock with a bigger
flashier tail is a peacock in a lower state of
entropy, and that's why the peahens dig him.
Well, that and when he firmly told me that my
mother wasn't actually horribly, piteously
frustrated by being unable to find her words
due to her Wernike's aphasia, it just looked
that way to us on the outside.
BR-8
I'm afraid our mascot has gone on hiatus for a
long time. The cult leader finally wised up and
pulled her from the atheist outreach ministry.
Maybe we will see her reincarnate with a new nym
taking a more thoughtful tack.
Your willful misinterpretation only shows your own
confusion. However, I suspect that a large part of
it is artificial just to confuse the issue instead
of the other way around. You should have understood
the second law as well as I, but you chose to be
stupid. The same for BR-8 for his mother's mental
inability.
Nonsense. I only summarized what you have already
said about your version, the 2nd Suggestion.
Of course i have some understanding of the 2nd law.
Your level understanding, otoh, is negative, since
you "know" more wrong stuff about it than right
stuff.
Does your cult leader know you snuck back onto the
computer?
You never once discussed the application of the second
law on life. In fact, you are quite good at avoiding
it. Why?
You are trying to change the subject. With what in my
summation of the 2nd Suggestion do you disagree?
I will say that i don't know much biochemistry, tho i
have corrected you on the 2nd law in relation to it.
If you want to know more biology or biochemistry,
especially in relation to thermodynamics, you should have
listened to BR-8. You don't, so you didn't.
The subject is about applying the second law on life. There
is no other subject. Those other subjects are all your
distractions to avoid the real issue.
The subject is your kooky theories. Did I summarize your
2nd Suggestion well? If not, please point out where you
disagree.
So far you have not been able to discuss any science with
anyone. What does that leave us with?
I have no theories. I only have my simple logic that proves
evolution wrong.
Actually, no.
What you do have is your having declared evolution is wrong.
That, and nothing more.
More specifically, you have pointed to structures and processes
wherein local decreases in entropy are driven by overall
increases in entropy of the world as a whole, structures and
processes in which a portion of the energy is stored -- and then
declared, by fiat and ex cathedra and with no supporting
evidence, that such cannot arise by natural means.
No. I proved why such local decrease of entropy should not happen
automatically and randomly under the second law.
Actually, you did not. You stated it as if it were a fact. Not only
is it merely your opinion, it is your unsupported and unevidenced
opinion. If you want to talk physics -- and thermodynamics is nothing
other than physics -- then support your claim using physics.
I have shown with examples of energy preservation where reduced local
entropy is accomplished by the work of human intelligence.
Good for you. That has nothing to do with whether such situations
can or cannot also arise naturally.
Post by aaaWithout a
designed process that can go against the second law, such energy
preservation is not possible.
Ah, here we go again. Opinion as proof...
(and by the way, nothing -- NOTHING -- "goes against the second law")
Post by aaaThis is just a simple fact for people to
see and realize.
I do see your point. And I do realize what you are saying.
And it is incorrect, for reasons given endlessly here.
Post by aaaEnergy preservation does not happen in the lifeless
natural world.
But it does. And you have been given examples of such.
But those simple examples do not go to the larger point,
which is this: you claim that life cannot spontaneously
arise. That is nothing more than your opinion. It
can, and it has (see, there's my opinion. oddly enough the
same opinion of most of those who actually, unlike you -- or me --
work in this field). And if life did arise purely by natural means,
then any example of biological "energy perservation" you come up
will be an example that came about naturally, no Sky Wizard necessary.
Post by aaaAll energy in nature will only increase the entropy to
become used energy. Such used energy would not be used again unless it
is released or freed by reducing the entropy it has increased.
Good grief. Sciento-babble much? Stored energy, whether in
a human device or a mitochondrion, is not energy that somehow
gets "used again". I don't think you understand the flow of
energy involved in these processes at all.
Post by aaaPost by Blue Ringed 8Post by aaaIt can only happen within a designed process.
Ditto.
Battery is the result of human design. So are power plants and
refrigerators.
Yep. And bacteria are not. What you have to show, what you have
not shown -- and cannot -- is that bacteria did not evolve, eventually,
way down the chain of increasing complexity, from non-living matter and
naturally occurring energy gradients.
All you have done to date is to say "CAN'T HAPPEN CAN'T HAPPEN CAN'T HAPPEN""
while throwing in some pseudoscientific babble along the way.
In other words: your opinion.
Post by aaaPost by Blue Ringed 8Post by aaaRefrigerator has to be designed. Power station has to be man-made.
Nature does not have the ability to accumulate energy except in
life.
Nature has many ways of accumulating energy. You were given several
examples.
They are false examples.
Oh? A bold statement.
Tell you what: list those examples, and for each item, specify exactly,
in terms of the thermodynamics involved, why you call them "false examples".
Post by aaaThe energy absorbed by things in nature are
used to increase entropy.
Everything increases entropy. Everything.
Post by aaaIt's used energy. It not an available energy
unless the human intelligence can create a process to free such energy
again by reducing the entropy.
Battery or bacterium, it does not "free the energy" that was spent
storing it.
You really don't understand thermodynamics at all. Or if you do,
your words don't reflect it.
Post by aaaIt is not the preservation of energy. The
preservation of energy is about the part of the work done by the human
intelligence.
Completely lifeless processes also "preserve energy". Would
you like to go through some examples yet again?
Post by aaaPost by Blue Ringed 8Post by aaaIt is what makes life unique and special.
Which in no way demonstrates that these processes cannot arise
naturally, one small step at a time.
There is no energy preservation happening in the lifeless nature because
energy preservation requires moving against the second law.
Nothing "moves against the second law".
Post by aaaIt's the
same as objects don't just fly up into the sky to stay up there by
simple random chance.
Water molecules in fact do "fly up into the sky" due to convection
currents ultimately created by energy from the sun. And they do
"stay up there" unless the encounter a number of specific conditions.
No "simple random chance" required.
And the stored energy they represent is easily calculated: (G * M * m) / r^2.
Units are a matter of choice.
Post by aaaThe force of gravity will keep objects stay on the
ground. The force of the second law will keep energy used as increased
entropy.
Post by Blue Ringed 8There are people who know infinitely more than you do about such
matters who are actively researching pathways by which these could
arise naturally. Nick Lane and Bill Martin are two who come to mind
immediately. Lane has put out quite a longish book laying out in
great detail the thermodynamics, chemistry, and biology of his
ideas. And is currently conducting experiments testing those ideas.
This is what we call "science".
If it's real science, it should not contradicts with the second law.
Gee, did you not see where I said Lane discusses the thermodynamics of his proposal?
Do I need to repeat it yet a third time?
Very well:
Lane has proposed a process by which life might have arisen in
alkaline cold seeps, and he has worked out the energetic requirements
of his proposal, arising from a naturally occurring proton gradient found
in such environments.
Lane has proposed a process by which life might have arisen in
alkaline cold seeps, and he has worked out the energetic requirements
of his proposal, arising from a naturally occurring proton gradient found
in such environments.
Lane has proposed a process by which life might have arisen in
alkaline cold seeps, and he has worked out the energetic requirements
of his proposal, arising from a naturally occurring proton gradient found
in such environments.
Got it now? He would be the first person to admit it if his proposal
"contradicts the second law".
But since you're the guy who bragged that he "understood evolution without reading a
single sentence from any book or article about evolution", maybe you are also going
to tell us you similarly understand Lane and Martin's proposal while not
actually having read a single sentence of it as well?
Post by aaaEnergy preservation is quite possible, but it has to move against the
second law which would not happen without intelligence involved.
Happens all the time. And neither intelligence nor life is necessary.
And nothing "moves against the second law", did I not mention that before?
To put it as bluntly as I possibly can: I understand the simple physics
involved, and you, obviously and clearly, do not.
BR-8