Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

Exactly. YWC is just trolling because he already has all the wrong "answers" from those misinformed creationist websites.

You're agreeing with the biggest troll in this forum and her name is hollie,just ask her mentor ruggedtouch. They are twins.

She is not a troll. She is effectively exposing your dishonesty as are many other people here. Do you lack the capacity to be embarrassed?

No,she falls in the same category as several others here,not mentioning any names.

 

[Youwerecreated]

1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.

Is that how you see it? LOL. In reality, YWC is kicking his own ass.

Hell I only see two people that are responding, and I don't think they have accomplished what you're claiming.

 

[Youwerecreated]

By far the best and most reasonable poster in my thread is Itfitzme.

Sorry didn't mean to leave out Steven_R

 

[HUGGY]

Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.

To do that one must look into the causes of mental illness not science vs non science.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.

Is that how you see it? LOL. In reality, YWC is kicking his own ass.

I doubt you would recognize reality.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.

Well, that was pointless.

I have to assume you have avoided any attempt at addressing any and all comments because you're simply not up to the task.

You have had your ass handed to you so many times. I feel sorry for you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.

having that dream again?

The only ones dreaming are you and Hollie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Befuddled not me. You didn't read this.

"Hannesh, you are correct that the second law of thermodynamics only describes what is most likely to happen in macroscopic systems, rather than what has to happen. It is true that a system may spontaneously decrease its entropy over some time period, with a small but non-zero probability"


"I believe. The point is that even though living beings may appear to temporarily decrease the entropy of the universe, the second law always catches up with you in the end."

thermodynamics - Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics? - Physics Stack Exchange

"I believe. The point is that even though living beings may appear to temporarily decrease the entropy of the universe, the second law always catches up with you in the end."

Who ever claimed living beings decrease the entropy of the universe?

The only thing increasing in this thread is your idiocy.

I believe that was sarcasm directed at people like yourself,You can ask him yourself.



Mark Mitchison

Currently doing a PhD in Controlled Quantum Dynamics at Imperial College and the University of Oxford.

thermodynamics - Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics? - Physics Stack Exchange

None of the silliness, disguised as science, that you have posted was sarcasm.

Have you given up on your 2nd Law stupidity, or do we need to continue bashing you over the head with it?

 

[itfitzme]

1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.

having that dream again?

The only ones dreaming are you and Hollie.

TROLL:

Troll -
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

forum troll -
Someone who gets pleasure by typing annoying/controversial/offensive words at strangers on internet forums, for them to read.

person 1:can someone tell me how to do this?*

troll: you're stupid, i hope you're not as ugly as you are stupid, then you will have problems

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=forum troll

 

[Hollie]

Because I can see the contradiction that either are ignored or tried to be explained away.

Then turn to rhetoric and attack the creationist for bringing it up. Hell even people that are not creationist admit to the problem then they are attacked for agreeing with the problem raised.sorry but that is not how the science community should act if they truly are seeking the facts.

There is no contradiction to be explained away. The people writing those websites you're relying on are crackpots and zealots who are misrepresenting what the science says, either from a lack of their own understanding or deliberately or because they just throw away science in favor of a Bronze Age creation myth. The general public doesn't understand enough about thermodynamics to know the arguments the creationists are putting forth is just nonsensical.

It's not a question of not wanting to "teach the controversy." It's a question of no controversy existing at all.

Sorry but creationists have been pointing it out for many years.

Actually, no. Sorry, but creationist arguments have been reduced to nothing more than attacks on science. The affirmative position always carries the burden of proof. This is why creationist arguments fail. The arguments are configured only to undermine science and cast doubt upon the established biological and historical record.

The arguments for magic and supernaturalism are not valid ones. What creationists expect and what they demand in connection with appeals to supernatural agents means little, if anything, in science. If people refuse to accept scientific consensus because it conflicts with their fundamentalist religious beliefs, that is not the fault of science. I find nothing about the natural processes of evolution which offends my common sense or expectations. It doesn’t fall to the scientific community to explain why intelligent design is not the most reasonable explanation for existence. ID’iots must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why their Christian gods must have been the “designers” of nature. To date, they have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to fear and ignorance.

 

[itfitzme]

Heat is work and work's a curse
And all the heat in the Universe
Is gonna cooool down 'cos it can't increase
Then there'll be no more work and there'll be perfect peace
Really?
Yeah - that's entropy, man!
And all because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which lays down:
That you can't pass heat from the cooler to the hotter
Try it if you like but you far better notter
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler
'Cos the hotter body's heat will pass to the cooler
Oh, you can't pass heat from the cooler to the hotter
You can try it if you like but you'll only look a fooler
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler
That's a physical Law!
Oh, I'm hot!
Hot? That's because you've been working!
Oh, Beatles - nothing!
That's the... Second Laws of Thermodynamics!

 

[itfitzme]

Although it relates to disorder in certain respects, people often become confused about “entropy,” the second law of thermodynamics, as disorder.

So, it is being redefined in many introductory textbooks for physics and chemistry as energy dispersal thanks to retired chemistry professor, Frank L. Lambert.

“Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds from the simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a “spreading out” of energy in all processes.”

–Frank L. Lambert, from the website:
Frank L. Lambert, Professor Emeritus
Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041
Academic and professional biography
[email protected]
September 2012


Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

[Hollie]

You're agreeing with the biggest troll in this forum and her name is hollie,just ask her mentor ruggedtouch. They are twins.

She is not a troll. She is effectively exposing your dishonesty as are many other people here. Do you lack the capacity to be embarrassed?

No,she falls in the same category as several others here,not mentioning any names.

It seems you’re suffering from some paranoia.

After all these pages, we’re still left with you hoping to denigrate science (and science promoters), as a means to further your extremist religious beliefs. All of these pages of posts and still you won’t step up to the plate to defend creationism / ID with some testable data that can be peer reviewed. “Shirley”, there must be something you can offer that will allow a comprehensive examination of your evidence for “the gods did it”.

I was also expecting that at some point, Creationists / ID’iots would finally propose their General Creation Theory...but after these pages of posts, it doesn’t exist. In that sense, how disappointing that creationists /ID’iots have such little faith that their claims to supernaturalism will survive the glaring light of scrutiny.

Just as Einstein’s “General Theory of Relativity” was the subject of relentless peer review, creationists /ID’iots certainly have the right to have their General Creation Theory available for similar review. It only makes sense that creationists /ID’iots have the same opportunities for peer review and testing of their theories as the relevant science community has.

 

[Steven_R]

ID’iots must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why their Christian gods must have been the “designers” of nature. To date, they have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to fear and ignorance.

Come on now. The IDers have a designer in mind, but it most certainly is not God. Sure the ID crowd is tied inextricably to the Fundamentalist Christian movement and the textbook Of Pandas and People changed all mentions of a Creator to Designer right after Edwards v. Aguillard, and Phillip E. Johnson wants to turn America into some pseudo-theocracy and thinks the Wedge Document can accomplish just that, but the Designer is most assuredly not the God from the Bible.

Nope. Not at all. Not a chance. No way.

 

[itfitzme]

This is a nice, long, well written prose description of the meaning of the second law of thermodynamics.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Which really starts here

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (2)

I'm on page four. But I thought I should present it.

 

[itfitzme]

This concept of "dissorder" bothered me because it requires than that order be definable and measurable. This cause a problem because "order" is a psychological process of perception.*

For me, the questions are a) how do I identify the quality distinctly as unique from all other things? and b) how do I count it?

In nature, what we see as order is what we choose to see as order. From stand point of the basic laws of thermodynamics, there is no distinction of states that we would consider "ordered" from other states that we would not. (I'll try to talk about this more later. *There may be complex distinctions, just none so simple that thermo laws will capture it easily)

The support is easier and comes from

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (6)

I've copied far to much, hopefully i'll get away with it. I want to point out how many times this estemed proffessor makes this point.

Paragraph after paragraph, example after example, he repeats two points;

1) Enropy does not measure order or disorder.
2) Entropy measures energy dispersing outward.

"About ENTROPY! Scientifically, qualitatively, entropy is simple -- entropy change is just a way of measuring exactly what we have been talking about, how much change occurs at a specific temperature when energy spreads out according to the second law.

But that word entropy has been so erroneously defined and so misused by so many people that I'm sorry that I got trapped into talking about it when were thinking about what a city looks like after a huge earthquake! That mess of broken buildings and busted bridges would be foolishly called "an example of entropy increase" by many people who aren't scientists -- and even by some chemistry teachers.

Q: What's wrong with that? My chem text says that "Entropy is disorder" and a mess is disorder, isn't it?

A: Your text may be excellent in other topics, but it's just plain dumb wrong where it says that! Entropy only involves energy and its spreading out (and temperature), not appearance or neat patterns. Even when considering molecules precisely arranged in a crystal, any question about entropy must be like "What is the energy distribution here? How is the crystal vibrating and the molecules moving fast but almost staying in one place," not "How orderly is this pattern?" Energy, energy, energy!

Entropy is not "disorder". No way. No how. That's an old 1890s idea that was obsolete after statistical and quantum mechanics became fully developed in chemistry. However, it hasn't yet been eliminated from a few textbooks. They may be good in other parts but they simply don't tell you the straight stuff about entropy if they use that old obsolete definition with "disorder".

Q: Hey! You can't just say a text is wrong and expect me to believe you! You'd better give me solid evidence that "entropy is not disorder" if my chem book says it is.

A: Of course. Your text is out of date because most new editions of college/university general chemistry textbooks have deleted "entropy is disorder" and adopted my approach.

Click on welcome to entropysite to ‘what’s new’ and scroll down to May 2009 to see the list of new editions that have thrown out “disorder” and now define entropy in terms of energy dispersal. (Your professor can check
Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions
This is the article that helped convince textbook authors to delete “disorder”. Also for your professor, the article at
http://entropysite.oxy.edu/entropy_is_simple/index
html describes the bases for interpreting entropy as energy dispersal and an improved approach to microstates.)

Q: OK. What IS entropy, really?

A: It's simple basically because you know about the second law -- that energy spreads out and disperses rather than staying concentrated, i.e., localized in one place. Entropy just measures what happens in that kind of process of energy dispersing. And that's why your text says that entropy is always increasing in the world -- it's because spontaneous reactions/events are what are always happening and they happen because then energy spreads out!. (Actually, we should always say "entropy change" because we're measuring the difference in energy distribution "after" some happening versus the "before".)

More precisely: Entropy (change) in chemistry measures either by

1) how much molecular motional energy has been spread out in a reversible process divided by the constant absolute temperature, T

S = q(rev)/T

[ q is the amount of energy (motional energy, thermal energy, "heat") that is dispersed to a system at T from the surroundings at a very very slightly higher temperature than T, or vice versa, from the system at a tiny bit higher temp than the surroundings at T. Because the temperature differences are so small, this gradual dispersal of motional energy ("heat") in either direction is essentially reversible. This is the case in phase changes, at the melting point or the boiling point. (As some more advanced texts state, when you heat a system - i.e., increasing the "how much" motional energy is in a system - by calculus you can find the S change )];

or (2) how spread out the original molecular motional energy (i.e. no change in q) of a system becomes (e.g, when an ideal gas spontaneously expands into a vacuum and increases in volume or when different ideal gases or liquids mix. (No change in temperature in the processes.)

Entropy change doesn't measure "disorder"! (What are the dimensions of "disorder"? Malarkeys per minute or some such nonsense? The scientific dimensions of entropy change are joules/Kelvin.) Entropy change in chemistry measures the spreading of molecular motional ENERGY. (For more details of that kind of energy of molecules moving ["translating"] and rotating and vibrating, see
Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics
Your professor could check the site for instructors at
ENTROPY IS NOT "DISORDER"
)

Q: If entropy measures how much energy has been dispersed in a bunch of chemicals, and that's q, why bother with dividing by T?

A: Because you don't really have entropy (or entropy change) if you don't include that absolute temperature, T. With entropy properly defined that way you have immense power in understanding how important is any energy change to that "bunch of chemicals". Entropy change, S, doesn't merely measure energy spreading out, it shows us exactly how important to a system is the dispersion of a given amount of energy in that system or substance at a particular temperature.

How's this for an analogy: If a quiet library represents a low temperature system (relatively small number for T), and you yelled "HEY, YOU!" there, everybody would jump and the librarian would turn purple. However, in a football game at touchdown time (like a high temperature system, very large number for T), if you yelled "HEY, YOU!" just as loudly, nobody would notice it. The effect of the "energy spread out in your yelling" is a lot different in a library than in a stadium!

The scientific application is this: an amount of energy dispersed, say a q of 10 joules, from the surroundings (that are just infinitesimally warmer than 100 K) to a cold 100 K system would certainly be important (q/T = 10 J/100 K= 0.1 J/K) while the same amount of 10 joules spread out from different surroundings (just infinitesimally warmer than 1000 K) to a 1000 K system would be relatively trivial. (q/T = 10 J/1000 K = 0.01 J/K)

Now, you know that a hot pan will cool down if the room is cooler than the pan -- we started with that -- it's our lifetime experience -- it's what we called the second law and we interpreted it as energy spreading out if it can. But is there any quantitative way that we can show that the second law "works"? Yes! That's where the power of entropy comes in! Entropy measures energy's spreading out; the larger the entropy increase, the greater the spreading out and the more probable is the event. Just look at that preceding paragraph: If a 1000 K and a 100 K system are in contact and 10 joules of motional energy were allowed to flow from one to the other, which direction would the energy flow? Only if energy flowed from the 1000 K system to the 100 K system would there be any entropy increase -- (the calculation that you will learn from your text and class is not as simple as the arithmetic for the reversible transfer in the preceding paragraph, but the direction of the process is adequately indicated by that easy arithmetic.).

So entropy increases when "heat" (transfer of energy) spontaneously flows from something hot to something colder. (Same as "entropy change is positive in sign.")

Q : So that's all?? Just hot pans cooling down again? And that one little q(rev)/T is entropy change?

A: ALL? HOLD IT now!! That's just like your question "Is that all?" when we first talked about the second law. And then we went on to see the amazing implications of the second law -- that it's the greatest generality in all of science -- that it's incredibly important for your understanding of how the world works -- that it's the greatest good and baddest bad for your own being alive. Ya can't have anything more important than that! Exactly parallel, entropy is of enormous importance in ANY serious understanding of chemistry and chemistry is central to everything in this universe.

The words and meaning of "entropy" and "second law" are so closely related (entropy being the quantitative measure of the qualitative law) that they are often used interchangeably. Never never forget that entropy MUST always be connected with ENERGY in general, and specifically with ENERGY that is being or has been dispersed.

[Entropy is more fully discussed in Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics . In the Appendix to the site you are now reading (accessible from the Last Page) are given some details of processes in which q is zero --i.e., the original ENERGY of the system is unchanged but it is more spread out over more volume; thus entropy increases. Those processes include a gas expanding into a vacuum, or two or more ideal gases or liquids mixing. An ideal solute dissolving in a solvent also involves no change in original ENERGY but the entropy of the solution increases because an added solute allows that energy to be more spread out.]

Q: You sure are yelling LOUD and long about energy being connected to entropy!

A: Absolutely!! THAT'S the big mistake that popular writers and even some teachers make about entropy. They've heard that antique erroneous statement about "entropy is disorder" so often that they too say that anything you can see in the world as mixed-up or messy is an example of an entropy increase. Nonsense. Total nonsense. You have to focus on how much and how widely is energy dispersed in their examples. When and how and what kind of energy got spread out has to be the first question in any example they talk about or we think about. Here, look at some horrible actual quotes.

In a textbook, there is a picture of Einstein's desk taken the day he died. Like most desks where scientists have been working hard, it looks messy. But the textbook says "Desktops illustrate the principle that there is a spontaneous tendency toward disorder in the universe..." Wow! Stay away from desktops -- you don't ever want to get caught by the scary spontaneous tendency that happens there! Here's a quote and a photo that really deceives a reader by the first four words that I've italicized: "If left to themselves, the books and papers on the top of my desk always tend to the most mixed-up, disordered possible state." (And that was written by a scientist!) Wasn't he ever near that desk of his? Some mysterious alien force from outer space did it? Another, from a book about entropy that sold over a million copies: "Anyone who has ever had to take care of a house, or work in an office, knows that if things are left unattended, they soon become more and more disorderly..." Unattended means that nobody is around, doesn't it?. Isn't that writer implying that things all by themselves cause this disorderliness, rather than people? (He should be told that King Tutankhamen's tomb was left unattended -- really unattended -- for 3274 years and its arrangement of things was found to be seemingly unchanged, though dusty, when the tomb was finally opened in 1922.)

You get the point. The messy appearance of a bunch of visible objects (and even the neat molecular order in an x-rayed crystal) have nothing to do with entropy. The only questions are "what is the energy process that made the objects that way? In what way was energy dispersed and how much energy change at what T occurred? In the usual dumb examples like those quotes in the paragraph above, it is in the ATP of the muscles of the people who pushed the papers/books/clothes/pizza plates around where energy has been dispersed and so only there has the entropy increased.

 

[Youwerecreated]

what an odd thing for you to say everything you've ever posted is conjecture...fucking specious too ,not to mention based on a false premise ..

The very post you quoted I stated a fact you really are clueless.

your favorite lie !

You mind pointing out the lie ?


Idiocy the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat. The sun does not directly give us the energy we need it comes through plants and things that need the sun that we eat.

I would like to know how early life survived with no food unless we are gonna make up another story. So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?

What would be your example of this evidence,organisms getting more complex because they eat ? I thought that was done through copying errors called mutations. Did you forget your mechanisms for evolution ? Here let me help you with this. Mutations and natural selection over large spans of time is that not your theory in a nutshell ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Then you don't understand what science is. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

The best part is if those ideas are wrong, science will fix itself. Wrong ideas get kicked to the curb, period. It might take a while but the truth will out. So far there has been nothing within the scientific communities to overturn those ideas, only from zealots from outside the scientific community. Even the scientists like Behe aren't publishing peer-reviewed papers in support of their ideas, but rather are appealing to a scientifically illiterate general public with claims that the science is wrong; a public that doesn't understand the technical aspects of science.

Look at you. You're defending creationist arguments about physics, using their ideas, yet you yourself have said you don't understand the physics in the first place. You're arguing without being able to judge your own evidence for itself.

I was converted from your side, and it was a very easy transition.

people are only converted because they have never really broken free of their religious indoctrination.
you were only playing at non belief .
like any addict you fell off the wagon...

Are you speaking for yourself or for everyone daws ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.

To do that one must look into the causes of mental illness not science vs non science.

The ol mental illness answer when you have no answer for something,like demonic possession or belief that there is a designer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"I believe. The point is that even though living beings may appear to temporarily decrease the entropy of the universe, the second law always catches up with you in the end."

Who ever claimed living beings decrease the entropy of the universe?

The only thing increasing in this thread is your idiocy.

I believe that was sarcasm directed at people like yourself,You can ask him yourself.



Mark Mitchison

Currently doing a PhD in Controlled Quantum Dynamics at Imperial College and the University of Oxford.

thermodynamics - Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics? - Physics Stack Exchange

None of the silliness, disguised as science, that you have posted was sarcasm.

Have you given up on your 2nd Law stupidity, or do we need to continue bashing you over the head with it?

Come on now,you really think a man with a solid education is gonna say "
living beings decrease the entropy of the universe"

That looks like sarcasm about the ones promoting Misinformation.