RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (638) < ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevaroni

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,16:30   

<blockquote>Thermodynamics causes all matter (organized energy) to disintegrate (disorganize) over time.</blockquote>

And that would mean what? That you've been disorganizing since the day you were conceived.

That you're less organized than you were when you were a clump of 8 cells.

Sheesh! all that time spent sitting through first grade wasted, since you know less now than you did then! Shoulda played hookey.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go pray in my pagan Galapagos shrine, the turtles await.

steve s

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,16:30   

<quote>LOL

Collin, learn some thermodynamics, or shut up. Your ignorant rants serve no purpose.</quote>

Au contraire! They amuse me.

The problem with Collin's comments is he doesn't make enough of them, in that AtBC thread we made for him.

Popper's ghost

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,16:30   

<quote>Thermodynamics causes all matter (organized energy) to disintegrate (disorganize) over time. </quote>

So which of the following is true?

a) plants don't grow from seeds
b) thermodynamics doesn't govern the growth of plants
c) all plants eventually wither and die, all species eventually become extinct, "over time" means "in the long run", not "monotonically", and therefore the 2LOT has no bearing on evolution

Popper's ghost

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,16:30   

<quote>Perhaps a discussion of Information Theory might be appropriate to this thread…</quote>

According to information theory, a sequence of random events has high information content.  Evolution transfers information from the environment to the genome.  The genome is a lossy encoding of the sequence of environments of the ancestors of the organism, which is why the organism is "fit" with respect to those environments, and why organisms reflect characteristics of ancestors that existed in quite different environments, characteristics that may not be optimal or even effective with respect to the organism's current environment.

Anonymous_Coward

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,16:30   

<quote>How can entropic forces be organizational forces? Isn’t that like expecting a pile of rust to slowly become a Cadillac?

Thermodynamics causes all matter (organized energy) to disintegrate (disorganize) over time.</quote>

That is very true.

Once, when I put a bowl of water in the freezer, the water evaporated.

<quote>Isn’t that like expecting a pile of rust to slowly become a Cadillac?</quote>

And the fact that iron rusts due to iron and oxygen organising into molecules of rust does nothing for you?

The "pile of rust into a Cadillac" uses a naive understanding of "order", which in itself is an inaccurate and dishonest understanding/misinterpretation of thermodynamicism.

Popper's ghost

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,16:36   

<quote>And the fact that iron rusts due to iron and oxygen organising into molecules of rust does nothing for you?</quote>

The chatbot should add <url href="http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03046.htm">this</url> to its database:

<quote>All the "rusting" reactions are exothermic to the tune of from about -60 to -190 kcal/mol That is they all liberate a substantial amount of heat.</quote>

Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,16:46   

"Dennis O'Leary as she is most fondly remembered, as Snaggletooth in Star Wars Episode IV."

Wow, that's actually pretty uncanny!   :O

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Michael Suttkus, II

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,19:05   

<quote author="Anonymous_Coward">Once, when I put a bowl of water in the freezer, the water evaporated.</quote>

Actually, it will.  All solids evaporate at a certain rate.  Ice in a freezer evaporates relatively quickly (as solids go), though this is largely caused by opening and closing the freezer door.  The cooling elements draw moisture out of the air, which leaves the air to hydrate itself from water sources further away from cooling elements.

Put a bowl of water in the freezer, it will freeze, then evaporate as it drives the ice to build up on the walls.  I've seen it happen to ice cubes nobody used for ages, they were just little ice balls sitting in a cube tray.  Kinda neat, actually.

All of which goes to show that thermodynamics is MUCH more fun than the simplistic nonsense Colin spews as holy writ.  Next up on Neat Thermodynamics Tricks with Water:  <url href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercooling">Supercooling:  How to freeze water by adding energy!</url>

Michael Suttkus, II

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,19:05   

Eeek!  I was posting that before the material it's a response to was removed, but the server conked out (or something did).  I did something else for a few minutes and then reposted, not realizing it was all in vain!  Please don't moderate me, I'll be good!  :-)

Anonymous_Coward

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,19:05   

Nice, Suttkus v2.0.

I mean, even the subject of heat transfer takes up at least a whole semester to teach the fundamentals (at least at the university I go to).

Collin DuCrane

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

Perhaps we should consider what Lysenko, Von Haekel, and Darwin have in common. Their evolutionist aplogectic doctrines were each adopted by policital regimes who believed them to be foundational in terms of explaining powers which control the fate of human destiny.

Lysenko was adopted by the Soviets, Von Haekel was adopted by the Nazis, and Darwin is the reigning darling of the politically correct. Apologetics is fundamental to all faith-based doctrine.

From Webster's dictionary religion is:
"A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny"

Evolutionary science is then a religion. The constitution forbids teaching articles of faith in publically funded schools. Teaching Darwinian apologetics in schools in then unconstitutional, since it is an article of faith.

Once again, Wells is in the ballpark, and Leonard is his Nikolai Vavilov reference.

Steviepinhead

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

Collin, congratulations!  You've just dropped out of the "troll" category.

Straight down to "maroon."

Collin, say hi to Larry.  Mr. Farflungdung, please shake hands with Mr. DuCrane.

Darth Robo

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

"Evolutionary science is then a religion. The constitution forbids teaching articles of faith in publically funded schools. Teaching Darwinian apologetics in schools in then unconstitutional, since it is an article of faith."

Please EXPLAIN which part of Evolution is 'super-natural' other than the fact that you're too dumb to get your head 'round it or too ignorant to even care, since it conflicts with your narrow world-view.  

"Lysenko was adopted by the Soviets, Von Haekel was adopted by the Nazis, and Darwin is the reigning darling of the politically correct."

And every Christian nation was as nice as pie.  You really have been ignoring every critique of Well's book, haven't you?

stevaroni

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

<blockquote>Perhaps we should consider what Lysenko, Von Haekel, and Darwin have in common. </blockquote>

No, lets consider the differences. Now lessee, what immediately comes to mind? Oh yeah! I remember - Darwin was right.

If you find that politically inconvenient, I'm sorry, but one plus one <i>does</i> equal two, the earth <i>is</i> round, and stuff evolves.

If you believe that God, for reasons not adequately explored, requires you to pretend that a simple, readily observable law of nature does not exist, well, I respectfully submit that you might just misunderstand some divine intent somewhere.

Doc Bill

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

A dictionary definition does not determine what is constitutional.

I believe it was McLean vs the Ark. Board of Education where the Supreme Court ruled that creationism is a religious tenet.

The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is not.  It does not require belief, faith-based or otherwise.  The theory of evolution is the general acceptance of the results of scientific study from a number of scientific disciplines, not only biology.

You don't have to "believe" the results of all this work.  You can spend 5 years on a boat in South America and do the observations yourself.

Popper's ghost

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

<quote>Please EXPLAIN which part of Evolution is ‘super-natural’ other than the fact that you’re too dumb to get your head ‘round it or too ignorant to even care, since it conflicts with your narrow world-view.</quote>

He may be interpreting it as "“A strong belief in a supernatural power or a strong belief in powers that control human destiny”; that would not be inconsistent with his perspicacity as previously demonstrated.

stevaroni

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

<blockquote>Collin said...
Apologetics is fundamental to all faith-based doctrine.</blockquote>

And while I'm at it, aren't all the major religions faith based doctrines, or does faith-based-doctrine only apply to non-faith-based science?

Coin

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

I wonder, do you think gravity would qualify as a "power which controls human destiny"?

GuyeFaux

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

<quote>Since sentences within his posts seem to rarely, if ever, have any obvious connection to either the thing he is responding to or other parts of the post in which they appear, we likely would not be able to tell the difference.</quote>
So you're saying this guy doesn't pass the Turing test.

Collin DuCrane

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

Wells' world-view challenges the policitally correct scientific world-view. Anyone who challenges the materialistic world-view of the Darwinian narrative is subjected to ad hominems, like Mr. Leonard (and certainly Mr. Wells)

The Darwinist world-view however is founded upon the unproven claim of gradualism. Since gradualism does not proveably exsist in nature, and requires faith to accept, it qualifies as supernatural.

In fact, gradualism then disqualifies evolution as a scientific theory. The only question remains then whether Darwinism belongs in the supernatural realm of truth or the supernatural realm of lies.

My world-view truly is the narrow gate, but at least there is light at the end of the tunnel. The broad Darwinian world-view is the same abyss into which the Soviets and the Nazis fell.

At least my posts can serve as examples of good conversation, without engaging in ad hominems.

Steviepinhead

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

But it's perfectly all right with you, Collin, to trot out every tired, recycled <i>ad theorems</i> ever crafted by forked-tongued demagogues.  Your (rather retarded) brand of religion is A-OK, so jah say.  Evolution is mucho bad mojo because, well, Wells says so.

Truth must bow before "the Truth."  Lies are fine, just so long as the Son shines.

Maroon.

Coin

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

<quote author="The Bathroom Wall Incarnate">Wells’ world-view challenges the policitally correct scientific world-view.</quote>
Wells' world-view is founded entirely on political correctness; he wants the scientific world-view, which is currently politically agnostic, to bend so that it is more correct from the perspective of Wells' politics.

But, of course, that doesn't matter, since similar to the way that we have seen words like "materialism", "postmodernism", "monism", etc, being used in your previous posts, the word "political correctness" here is not being used because it means anything, but only for the emotional response it provokes.

<quote>At least my posts can serve as examples of good conversation</quote>
As was just being discussed (see GuyeFaux's last post), it is debatable whether your posts serve as examples of conversation at all.

gwangung

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

<i> At least my posts can serve as examples of good conversation, </i>

To a naive viewer, perhaps.

But you lack knowledge to back up your points, you substitute blind assertion for fact (really, who made YOU God to decide what does and does not constitute salvation) and you parrot points without understanding them.

There are examples of really, bad, really poorly thought out conversation, when what is being demanded is rigorous rhetoric.

GuyeFaux

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

<quote>At least my posts can serve as examples of good conversation, without engaging in ad hominems.</quote>

No they don't. Ignoring other people's comments/criticisms/points while rehashing every creationist argument under the Sun does *not* count as good conversation. In fact it's incredibly rude.

And thus far there have been zero ad-hominems. Insults, yes.

Coin

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

<quote author="gwangung">To a naive viewer, perhaps.</quote>
That's probably the intended audience.

Darth Robo

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

"My world-view truly is the narrow gate, but at least there is light at the end of the tunnel. The broad Darwinian world-view is the same abyss into which the Soviets and the Nazis fell."

Weren't the Romans a Christian nation when they fell?

I too am seeing a shade of maroon.

Popper's ghost

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

<quote>At least my posts can serve as examples of good conversation, without engaging in ad hominems.</quote>

BWAHAHAHA!  Let's just grab your first post in this thread:

<quote>Their evolutionist aplogectic doctrines were each adopted by policital regimes who believed them to be foundational in terms of explaining powers which control the fate of human destiny. Lysenko was adopted by the Soviets, Von Haekel was adopted by the Nazis, and Darwin is the reigning darling of the politically correct.</quote>

What could be more ad hominem than that?  These gentlemen's doctrines were apparently wrong, not because of their content, but because of who adopted them.  And what is "the politically correct", if not pure ad hominem?

stevaroni

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

<blockquote>Collin opined....
The Darwinist world-view however is founded upon the unproven claim of gradualism. Since gradualism does not proveably exsist in nature, and requires faith to accept, it qualifies as supernatural.</blockquote>

Nope, you don't get that one. To some extent, what you say is true. No scientific theory is ever "proven". It's more a matter of "this is the best we've got right now".

But it's completely disingenuous to lump evolution with religion and say neither has "proven" it's case so both are equally valid.

Evolution has boxes and boxes of hard physical evidence behind it. True, we cannot definitively say that x happens <i>exactly</i> this way or that way, but we know absolutely, positively that we're in the right ballpark because all the physical evidence says so.

Against this, religion has, what, exactly?

Old books?

Fond hopes?

Good intentions?

<i>Warm, fuzzy feelings</i>?.

Not good enough when you're going up against science because <i>science has all the friggin' dead bodies</i>. Dead bodies are about as un-super-natural as it's possible to get.

And you can't just point to the dead bodies and say "Nope, that doesn't exist. Proves nothing", because guess what? The dead bodies don't spontaneously go away, no matter how hard you argue. Noooo, if you want them to go away, you have have to <i>explain</i> them away. Go ahead, I'm waiting. I've been waiting two decades.

So no, Collin, it's not the same. You don't get to use the "neither side has 'proved' it's point" argument. Science has put a lot of evidence on the table and still admits it has things to learn, but ID has provided <i>nothing</i>.

Popper's ghost

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

<quote>Wells' world-view challenges the policitally correct scientific world-view.</quote>

This is true if one ignores the meaningless string of letters "policitally".

<quote>The Darwinist world-view however is founded upon the unproven claim of gradualism.</quote>

The geological "world-view" was also founded on gradualism, but geology is not supernatural.  As with Darwin, science have moved on from the initial conception as new evidence was acquired and old ideas were challenged.

<quote>Since gradualism does not proveably exsist in nature, and requires faith to accept, it qualifies as supernatural.</quote>

Nice try, but neither gradualism nor any other "ism" is accepted by science when the evidence contradicts it, and it is no more supernatural than pan-americanism.

<quote>The broad Darwinian world-view is the same abyss into which the Soviets and the Nazis fell.”</quote>

There's no such thing as "the broad Darwinian world-view", neither the scientific theory of evolution nor any other scientific theory is an "abyss", and the problems of the Soviets and Nazis had nothing to do with evolution, and certainly nothing to do with "gradualism".

RLC

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,17:27   

<quote author="Collin DuCrane">The Darwinist world-view however is founded upon the unproven claim of gradualism.</quote>

Huh? What the bejeebus does he mean by gradualism and how is the "Darwinist" world-view depend on it? Does punctuated equilibrium depend on whatever gradualism is? How does the Permian debacle fit into a gradualism world-view; or the Cretaceous extinction? Or am I just feeding the trolls?

Oh, and DuCrane doesn't engage in <i>ad hominem</i> attacks, he just says that anybody who accepts the overwhelming evidence for evolution is a devotee of Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler. No ad hominems there, no siree!

  19136 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (638) < ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]