Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Toddsterpatriot]

You might want to add genetics to that list. Listen it is basically this simple would just energy produce the order and complexity that you keep harping about or would those organisms need gene and the genetic information for the energy to do work ?

Now you're claiming that genetics proves that the 2nd Law means things can't get more complex, more ordered?

would just energy produce the order and complexity that you keep harping about

Harping? It's the clowns who claim complexity cannot increase.
I keep showing that it can, with no violation of the 2nd Law. Try this:
A pile of coal and a pile of iron ore are turned into a skyscraper.

Is that a violation of the 2nd Law? Why or why not?

That skyscraper would need a blueprint and planning. why do you avoid the obvious ? For evolution and for organisms to get more complex as they supposedly did through evolution they needed the same thing plus new beneficial genetic information.

The life cycle is ran through a cycle of needs. Would an organism that lacked the coding be considered disorder and randomness ?and would that organism exist if not for that coding,energy and all the other elements needed ?

What does that skyscraper look like over many years ? The important issue you're leaving out is what I have been pointing out. The skyscraper when completed is at the maximum order. That sounds like creation to me. Things once they were created were at maximum order and through the 2nd law they gained disorder and they break down.

Until you recognize my point and Dr. Wieland's point you won't fully understand creation makes more sense according to the evidence.

Things getting more complex are doing so because of the blueprints and the genetic information. Nothing get's more complex through random processes that would violate the 2nd law. Only through order do things get more complex.

I think I have said it enough even daws and hollie can understand it now.

That skyscraper would need a blueprint and planning.

Obviously. Now the fact that locally things got more complex and more ordered does not violate the 2nd Law.

Everything you said after this is meaningless.
Your claim and Dr Wieland's is wrong.

Until you recognize my point and Dr. Wieland's point

I recognize your point.
And I mock it.

Things getting more complex

Thanks for admitting your error. Now deny it some more.

 

[Hollie]

That skyscraper would need a blueprint and planning. why do you avoid the obvious ? For evolution and for organisms to get more complex as they supposedly did through evolution they needed the same thing plus new beneficial genetic information.

The life cycle is ran through a cycle of needs. Would an organism that lacked the coding be considered disorder and randomness ?and would that organism exist if not for that coding,energy and all the other elements needed ?

What does that skyscraper look like over many years ? The important issue you're leaving out is what I have been pointing out. The skyscraper when completed is at the maximum order. That sounds like creation to me. Things once they were created were at maximum order and through the 2nd law they gained disorder and they break down.

Until you recognize my point and Dr. Wieland's point you won't fully understand creation makes more sense according to the evidence.

Things getting more complex are doing so because of the blueprints and the genetic information. Nothing get's more complex through random processes that would violate the 2nd law. Only through order do things get more complex.

I think I have said it enough even daws and hollie can understand it now.

Even by your standards of absurdity, that comment sinks to new levels of silliness.

Have you not been able to understand that mechanical devices and biological organisms are... you know... different?

Typical stupidity on your part.

Whether animate or inanimate complex things are built and designed through instruction.

You're obviously trying to make some connection with your designer gawds. You haven't.

Yet another of your failed attempts at proselytizing.

 

[Hollie]

Which source did you plagiarize this time ?

Impress us with some more phony "quotes" from your creation ministries. I'll be pleased to expose more of your lies.

Do you ever grow weary of me kicking your butt.

Self congratulations for nothing. Come on, cut and paste some more of your phony "quotes".

For a self-entitled religionist, it is surprising that you take no objection to lies and deceit to press your fundamentalist agenda.

 

[Steven_R]

As I understand it, classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into “being” after Planck time... 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

Pretty much.

So, a somewhat discredited theory of an oscillating universe (a “big crunch” compressing matter followed by TBB), is a minor possibility

No so much, or rather given that the universe is not only expanding, but expansion is accelerating, it seems more likely that we end up with the Big Freeze, where the temperature asymptotes towards Absolute Zero. The Heat Death of the Universe is similar, but is the result of entropy being equal everywhere. Time effectively stops because there will be no change anywhere, for ever.

Other ideas like the Big Rip, the Big Crunch, and the Big Bounce are all possible, but right now the generally accepted idea is that the universe gets cold and dies.

Unlike many storybooks, mythologies, and fables, in the real world there is no happy ending.

 

[eots]

As I understand it, classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into “being” after Planck time... 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

Pretty much.

So, a somewhat discredited theory of an oscillating universe (a “big crunch” compressing matter followed by TBB), is a minor possibility

No so much, or rather given that the universe is not only expanding, but expansion is accelerating, it seems more likely that we end up with the Big Freeze, where the temperature asymptotes towards Absolute Zero. The Heat Death of the Universe is similar, but is the result of entropy being equal everywhere. Time effectively stops because there will be no change anywhere, for ever.

Other ideas like the Big Rip, the Big Crunch, and the Big Bounce are all possible, but right now the generally accepted idea is that the universe gets cold and dies.

Unlike many storybooks, mythologies, and fables, in the real world there is no happy ending.

You think you comprehend the universe from its beginning to its end ...lol...talk about myths and fables...

 

[itfitzme]

But superconductivity provides a philosophical way out. *The note that the whole "heat death" is asymptotic means it never happens.

The age of the universe is actually quite young, if my impression of the numbers is correct, it is a long ways off.

Dark matter and dark energy are a huge hole in our understanding. *All we know is there is something there that we can measure only indirectly. *And, curiously, dark energy seems to be created out of nothingness as space is created out of nothingness.

I remain a bit unconvinced that the whole expanding universe is actually correct. *My lack of conviction may be ignorance or, in fact, well founded. *I can't say for sure because, I am, unfortunately, really a bit ignorant.

Still, the basis for the changing size of the universe is that as we look back into time, across the great expanse of space, we use certain objects of standard brightness. *We also know the wavelength of certain emmisions, like hydrogen atoms. *We also know that light disperses with distance.

As we know that the speed of light is constant, then we can determine the distance to these objects based on their brightness. As we can determine the initial frequency of the emited light, we can determine that it has been red shifted. *This is accounted for by the objects velocity, away from us, being greater at greater distances. *And, if I am to understand this correctly, refined measurements have determined that the rate of change of the velocity (acceleration) varies with distance.

In the balance of all this, the interpretation is that space has expanded at different rates since the beginning of the initial acceleration.

Still, the entire thing is grounded in how we measure distance amd frequency of an electromagnetic wave, a huge mass of photons, as they pass by.

If we place two detectors, at some distance D, and then adjust that distance until they both peak at the exact same time, the distance between them is the wavelength. *We use some standard clock, a repeating cycle of something, that ticks of seconds, and the number of ticks between peaks of the wave is its frequency. *We would use, fundamentally, another electromagnetic wave like that emited from our local hydrogen atom transition.

This whole process of comparing things in nature to each other then yields the result that, no matter what we do, the speed of light is invarient regardless of how fast we are moving relative to it.*

c=dx/dt.

Here is the the thing. *dx/dt is constant. *But, fundamentally, dt is, in fact, a measurement of distance. *We are setting up a devise that is dependent upon a standard wave of "known" distance and time between peaks.

So all you have, really, in standard units, is that dx/dt=1. When we are "flying" our contraption, for measuring an electromagnetic wave, along the longitudinal direction of the wave, all we are really saying is that we cannot fundamentally distinguish between time and length. *Time and length are changing simultaneously to get dx/dt to work out. *In our measurement, as the change in x goes, so goes the change in time. *

If I'm to understand it correctly, Einstein had a paradigm shift that changed our concept of time and space, based on Maxwell's proof that that the speed of electromagnetic waves in free space is constant. *Measurements of light matched this speed and we correctly concluded, along with the body of other scientific evidence, that light is an electromagnetic wave. Einstien leveraged this to the invariance of light in all reference frames, proved special relativity, and moved on to general relativity.

Others took the special relativity results, along with the constant speed of light, and used it to work out the expanding universe. *There is, though, some additional stuff in the hypothesis which is more than just doppler shifting. Remember, not only are far away galaxies doppler shifted due to difference in speed, but actual space itself is being created between them. Not only is the distance changing because of the velocity, but also because there is actually more distance being created.

But there is this additional issue that, in fact, the presence of mass and energy also affects the shift in wavelength. *

dx/dt is constant, wavelength is shifted, dx, this allows time to be held constant, as wavelength is the reciprocal of frequency, so frequency changes without changing time, except for as accounted by relativity and new space. *In order to get everything to balance out appropriately, additional dark energy and dark matter is inferred. *

Now we have time, space, energy, and mass all this variability in frequency and wavelength to adjust dx with respect to dt in order to hold dx/dt constant.

It may very well be that, in fact, when all is said and done, that the current rate of expansion and acceleration of the universe are not what they are interpreted to be. *Rather, when this whole dark matter and energy thing gets sorted out, another paradigm shift occurs and it turns out that light is being stretched and compressed in some other fashion as it traverses time and space.

The last paradigm shift was the result of a patent clerk, a quiet genius, working in some nondescript but technical position, and studying physics at some nondescript state university. *He was, in fact, unaware of much of the most recent developments in physics simply because the library was not open when his time was free. He was independently building his own theories of physics with no one to tell him differently. *Had he been more embedded with the main stream, working out the details of string theory, under the watchful eye of his graduate adviser, he may have never devised relativity. *In fact, Einstein resubmitted his thesis a couple of times because his graduate adviser kept rejecting them. Of his four landmark papers of 1905, his thesis was the least controversial of his papers, the brownian motion paper.

It may take another such, marginally attached, but sufficiently immersed individual. *Perhaps next time, it will be some guy, or gall, studying at a nondescript university, sequestered all night in some lone observatory.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But superconductivity provides a philosophical way out. *The note that the whole "heat death" is asymptotic means it never happens.

The age of the universe is actually quite young, if my impression of the numbers is correct, it is a long ways off.

Dark matter and dark energy are a huge hole in our understanding. *All we know is there is something there that we can measure only indirectly. *And, curiously, dark energy seems to be created out of nothingness as space is created out of nothingness.

I remain a bit unconvinced that the whole expanding universe is actually correct. *My lack of conviction may be ignorance or, in fact, well founded. *I can't say for sure because, I am, unfortunately, really a bit ignorant.

Still, the basis for the changing size of the universe is that as we look back into time, across the great expanse of space, we use certain objects of standard brightness. *We also know the wavelength of certain emmisions, like hydrogen atoms. *We also know that light disperses with distance.

As we know that the speed of light is constant, then we can determine the distance to these objects based on their brightness. As we can determine the initial frequency of the emited light, we can determine that it has been red shifted. *This is accounted for by the objects velocity, away from us, being greater at greater distances. *And, if I am to understand this correctly, refined measurements have determined that the rate of change of the velocity (acceleration) varies with distance.

In the balance of all this, the interpretation is that space has expanded at different rates since the beginning of the initial acceleration.

Still, the entire thing is grounded in how we measure distance amd frequency of an electromagnetic wave, a huge mass of photons, as they pass by.

If we place two detectors, at some distance D, and then adjust that distance until they both peak at the exact same time, the distance between them is the wavelength. *We use some standard clock, a repeating cycle of something, that ticks of seconds, and the number of ticks between peaks of the wave is its frequency. *We would use, fundamentally, another electromagnetic wave like that emited from our local hydrogen atom transition.

This whole process of comparing things in nature to each other then yields the result that, no matter what we do, the speed of light is invarient regardless of how fast we are moving relative to it.*

c=dx/dt.

Here is the the thing. *dx/dt is constant. *But, fundamentally, dt is, in fact, a measurement of distance. *We are setting up a devise that is dependent upon a standard wave of "known" distance and time between peaks.

So all you have, really, in standard units, is that dx/dt=1. When we are "flying" our contraption, for measuring an electromagnetic wave, along the longitudinal direction of the wave, all we are really saying is that we cannot fundamentally distinguish between time and length. *Time and length are changing simultaneously to get dx/dt to work out. *In our measurement, as the change in x goes, so goes the change in time. *

If I'm to understand it correctly, Einstein had a paradigm shift that changed our concept of time and space, based on Maxwell's proof that that the speed of electromagnetic waves in free space is constant. *Measurements of light matched this speed and we correctly concluded, along with the body of other scientific evidence, that light is an electromagnetic wave. Einstien leveraged this to the invariance of light in all reference frames, proved special relativity, and moved on to general relativity.

Others took the special relativity results, along with the constant speed of light, and used it to work out the expanding universe. *There is, though, some additional stuff in the hypothesis which is more than just doppler shifting. Remember, not only are far away galaxies doppler shifted due to difference in speed, but actual space itself is being created between them. Not only is the distance changing because of the velocity, but also because there is actually more distance being created.

But there is this additional issue that, in fact, the presence of mass and energy also affects the shift in wavelength. *

dx/dt is constant, wavelength is shifted, dx, this allows time to be held constant, as wavelength is the reciprocal of frequency, so frequency changes without changing time, except for as accounted by relativity and new space. *In order to get everything to balance out appropriately, additional dark energy and dark matter is inferred. *

Now we have time, space, energy, and mass all this variability in frequency and wavelength to adjust dx with respect to dt in order to hold dx/dt constant.

It may very well be that, in fact, when all is said and done, that the current rate of expansion and acceleration of the universe are not what they are interpreted to be. *Rather, when this whole dark matter and energy thing gets sorted out, another paradigm shift occurs and it turns out that light is being stretched and compressed in some other fashion as it traverses time and space.

The last paradigm shift was the result of a patent clerk, a quiet genius, working in some nondescript but technical position, and studying physics at some nondescript state university. *He was, in fact, unaware of much of the most recent developments in physics simply because the library was not open when his time was free. He was independently building his own theories of physics with no one to tell him differently. *Had he been more embedded with the main stream, working out the details of string theory, under the watchful eye of his graduate adviser, he may have never devised relativity. *In fact, Einstein resubmitted his thesis a couple of times because his graduate adviser kept rejecting them. Of his four landmark papers of 1905, his thesis was the least controversial of his papers, the brownian motion paper.

It may take another such, marginally attached, but sufficiently immersed individual. *Perhaps next time, it will be some guy, or gall, studying at a nondescript university, sequestered all night in some lone observatory.

I suspect that you are correct about where the next breakthrough might come but the isolation will be self imposed. The nature of the internet is such that all ideas, good, bad and indifferent are exposed to the light of day. As a rank amateur I find the concepts to be fascinating and thought provoking. The very concept of "dark matter" makes me wonder if the reason why we are witnessing an expanding universe is perhaps because the sheer volume of energy generated by billions of stars are "heating" that dark matter and thereby causing it to expand and "push" the universe apart. Pure speculation on my part but one can't help wondering.

Then there is the background radiation. What if those "hot spots" are universes just like our own but so far away that all we can register from them is that minute variation in temperature? Are the colder "spots" where new singularities are forming? Is our universe as we observe it just a small part of a greater "tidal" mass of universes that are akin to weather high and low fronts here on earth but on a cosmic scale?

We have no way to measure any of these ideas so they are just as much fantasies as anything written in the bronze age. But it was only 500 years ago that the true nature of the solar system was discovered and only 2 decades ago that the first extrasolar planets were discovered. If we don't ask questions like these we won't ever find out if they are wrong or right. The process of discovery is what is important. To continue to explore and find out more about the universe is perhaps what gives real purpose to our lives.

 

[itfitzme]

The problem with the internet is that there is simply to much noise and no way for the uninitiated to sort the brilliance from the bs. What a university professor gets paid to do, is just that, present only the brilliance. And, for those that have ever been through it, they know that most professors are required to prove it. Students are a critical bunch and professors are well aware of it. They don't get to simply rest on their laurels.

It creates a fine balance where the student is sufficiently immersed in the material, material that has been well vetted, that it keeps building to a marvelous gestalt, for lack of a better term. For most of us, it is enough to just grasp the material, let alone go beyond it. For those that do go beyond it, the opportunity for advancement in academia and industry is likely to keep them busy on someone elses project.

I knew one brilliant mathemetician who complained that graduate work left him no opportunity to follow his own ideas as he was to busy under the thumb of his graduate advisor. Another couple of curious instances include;

the pair of guys that discovered the doubke helix molecule of DNA. The textbooks said what they had produced wasn't possible. Fortunately, they were lousy students, prefering to spend their time in the lab and getting "C"s on exams. Brilliant experimenters, lousy students. And when their thesis was reviewed, one of the more learned PhD's pointed out that, yes, as a matter of fact, he was well aware that the standard textbooks were wrong. (I can't seem to corroborate this story though.)

Another case is, well damn it, now I forget....

 

[itfitzme]

There is the case of the young man in India, who was working out mathematics, teaching himself, and having some trouble with a proof. So he writes to a professor of mathematics at a prominent university for help. They immediately flew to India and brought him back to the university sonl he could explain the proofs that he had developed to even get to the place where he was stuck, proofs that solved numerous age old unresolved mathematical quandries.

Unfortunately, that's not the one I forgot...

 

[itfitzme]

The Indian mathematician was easy enough to find

Srinivasa Ramanujan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it notes him having sent sample proofs, but not why.

 

[itfitzme]

Of course, for every one of these people, there are a million more crackpots and probably a hundred more geniuses that go unrecognized.

 

[itfitzme]

I'm becoming more suspicious of the DNA boys story as I read that they apparently stole the discovery from a female collegue;

Daily Kos :: Who Really Discovered the Double Helix?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now you're claiming that genetics proves that the 2nd Law means things can't get more complex, more ordered?

would just energy produce the order and complexity that you keep harping about

Harping? It's the clowns who claim complexity cannot increase.
I keep showing that it can, with no violation of the 2nd Law. Try this:
A pile of coal and a pile of iron ore are turned into a skyscraper.

Is that a violation of the 2nd Law? Why or why not?

That skyscraper would need a blueprint and planning. why do you avoid the obvious ? For evolution and for organisms to get more complex as they supposedly did through evolution they needed the same thing plus new beneficial genetic information.

The life cycle is ran through a cycle of needs. Would an organism that lacked the coding be considered disorder and randomness ?and would that organism exist if not for that coding,energy and all the other elements needed ?

What does that skyscraper look like over many years ? The important issue you're leaving out is what I have been pointing out. The skyscraper when completed is at the maximum order. That sounds like creation to me. Things once they were created were at maximum order and through the 2nd law they gained disorder and they break down.

Until you recognize my point and Dr. Wieland's point you won't fully understand creation makes more sense according to the evidence.

Things getting more complex are doing so because of the blueprints and the genetic information. Nothing get's more complex through random processes that would violate the 2nd law. Only through order do things get more complex.

I think I have said it enough even daws and hollie can understand it now.

That skyscraper would need a blueprint and planning.

Obviously. Now the fact that locally things got more complex and more ordered does not violate the 2nd Law.

Everything you said after this is meaningless.
Your claim and Dr Wieland's is wrong.

Until you recognize my point and Dr. Wieland's point

I recognize your point.
And I mock it.

Things getting more complex

Thanks for admitting your error. Now deny it some more.

I know you're more intelligent than this. Really ? mocking reality. Sorry you resort to a desperate attempt at making a point. You're are using a cycle that has coded instructions as the basis of your point. It really is a poor analogy.

 

[itfitzme]

There is the case of the young man in India, who was working out mathematics, teaching himself, and having some trouble with a proof. So he writes to a professor of mathematics at a prominent university for help. They immediately flew to India and brought him back to the university sonl he could explain the proofs that he had developed to even get to the place where he was stuck, proofs that solved numerous age old unresolved mathematical quandries.

Unfortunately, that's not the one I forgot...

Now I remember...

So the story goes... The guy who discovered that the brain produces its own compounds that are opiate like substances. He had the idea for years but waited till the end of his career to pursue it so that it didn't hurt his reputation.

Now, before YMC gets to excited, there is a big difference between the advancement of science as new developements challange and refine current understanding or completely ignoring basic science, as does Carl Weiland, in an attempt to prologate complete nonsense.

Creationism has absolutely no basis in reality, is not some new development that will revolutionize science. As presented here, it is obviously designed to completely ignore science by litterally lying about the most fundamental rules of probability and statistics, as well as taking established science, glossing over the fundamentals, taking them completely out of context, and misinterpreting them in them most gross fashion.

It is equivalent to Hitler's use of Eugenics.

Everything I have learned here demonatrates to me that, quite ironically, Fundamentalist Christian Conservatist Creationism is grounded in everything that is evil in this world.

Thanks to social psychology, and the likes of Milgram, Zimbardo, and many
others, evil is ordinary, identifiable, and measurable. And by every measure, I see that, in fact, Creationism and those that adhere to it are clearly evil.

There are two types of people in this world, those that divide the world into to types of people, and those that don't.

There are conspiracy theorists, and everyone else.

If you find yourself saying, "You people..." or "Your people...", well, you figure it out.

If you think your part of some special group, the chosen few... well, there you go... so did Nazi Germany, and we all know how that turned out, don't we.

I'm just saying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That skyscraper would need a blueprint and planning. why do you avoid the obvious ? For evolution and for organisms to get more complex as they supposedly did through evolution they needed the same thing plus new beneficial genetic information.

The life cycle is ran through a cycle of needs. Would an organism that lacked the coding be considered disorder and randomness ?and would that organism exist if not for that coding,energy and all the other elements needed ?

What does that skyscraper look like over many years ? The important issue you're leaving out is what I have been pointing out. The skyscraper when completed is at the maximum order. That sounds like creation to me. Things once they were created were at maximum order and through the 2nd law they gained disorder and they break down.

Until you recognize my point and Dr. Wieland's point you won't fully understand creation makes more sense according to the evidence.

Things getting more complex are doing so because of the blueprints and the genetic information. Nothing get's more complex through random processes that would violate the 2nd law. Only through order do things get more complex.

I think I have said it enough even daws and hollie can understand it now.

That skyscraper would need a blueprint and planning.

Obviously. Now the fact that locally things got more complex and more ordered does not violate the 2nd Law.

Everything you said after this is meaningless.
Your claim and Dr Wieland's is wrong.

Until you recognize my point and Dr. Wieland's point

I recognize your point.
And I mock it.

Things getting more complex

Thanks for admitting your error. Now deny it some more.

I know you're more intelligent than this. Really ? mocking reality. Sorry you resort to a desperate attempt at making a point. You're are using a cycle that has coded instructions as the basis of your point. It really is a poor analogy.

Yes, I'm mocking your misunderstanding of the 2nd Law.

Coded instructions mean the 2nd Law works? Or that it doesn't work?

 

[DarkLion]

Amen. Why must some, if not most, divide people up into little groups? People these days are obsessed with labels. I believe to label something is to become closed minded to it

 

[itfitzme]

Amen. Why must some, if not most, divide people up into little groups? People these days are obsessed with labels. I believe to label something is to become closed minded to it

Personally, I can't say. I've never been part of a group. I take everyone as unique, on their own terms. And when you read the scientific liturature, from the top like Friedman, to the posting of some highschool biology teacher, you recognize that they are all just doing their darndest, to make sense of this huge creation that we call science. There us no "you people".

There is, though, the body of work that tens of thousands of people have contributed to. Part of that includes the top of the field, like Feinman. Another part is the pyramid of professors and teachers that absorb and restate that material in a manner suitable for the particular group of students that are attempting to digest it. Then they do their best to describe it to a general audience. We could spend a dozen full time lifetimes learning it and never understand it all.

I am learning that there seem to be a subset of humans that see themselves as part of some select group. They reveal themselves when they decide to label me. It's odd because I happen to not know anybody, so I can't really be part of a group of "You people...".

Shit, I'd be tickle pink if there was one person that was willing to muddle through this thing with me.

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

If there is any "You people", it is some 3.3 billion people that just go to work each day, do their job, pay their bills and taxes, pick up some news or their favorite show on TV, and just get along. This is as true here as it is in Iran and North Korea. (I knocked off 6%, 1% at the top and 5% at the bottom, then rounded)

And I can guarantee that most of us feel like idiots. From Feinman on down, everyone feels dumb. But man, when something is just wrong....and most people keep pointing it out, over and over and over. Things are difficult enough to learn and figure out. Why be ignorant (I love that word, ignore-ant), purposeful... you don't even have to add "on purpose" to it, that's redundant...

I'm just trying to find the right words that I know are right, most people agree with, can't be to terribly misconstrued, and moves thing in the right direction.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That skyscraper would need a blueprint and planning.

Obviously. Now the fact that locally things got more complex and more ordered does not violate the 2nd Law.

Everything you said after this is meaningless.
Your claim and Dr Wieland's is wrong.

Until you recognize my point and Dr. Wieland's point

I recognize your point.
And I mock it.

Things getting more complex

Thanks for admitting your error. Now deny it some more.

I know you're more intelligent than this. Really ? mocking reality. Sorry you resort to a desperate attempt at making a point. You're are using a cycle that has coded instructions as the basis of your point. It really is a poor analogy.

Yes, I'm mocking your misunderstanding of the 2nd Law.

Coded instructions mean the 2nd Law works? Or that it doesn't work?

The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes. Somewhere between 2.7 and 3.5 billion years ago life supposedly showed up, in truth they don't know. That is a lot of time to pass in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases,and you think complexity and order would increase. Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.

Face it, the universe and everything in it were created and we are seeing the effects of the 2nd law at work no matter how you fudge the numbers.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Amen. Why must some, if not most, divide people up into little groups? People these days are obsessed with labels. I believe to label something is to become closed minded to it

That is nature at work. Every living organism stay's with their own kind.

 

[itfitzme]

The reason a public university education works as providing the best objective system of gaining knowledge is

1) People, including administration and professors get paid to be the leaders, organizers.

2) Nobody decides what the material is except the students and faculty.

What some may not recognize, that becomes apparent at the grad level, is that the faculty really competes with each other for students. They advertise their course in the catalog and students sign up. That becomes a vote, by a group of students, who gets to be "learning" leader for three hours a week. Once elected, the students then play follow the leader for three months. It is quite democratic. And it is really helpful. My position is that I pay someone else to light a fire under my ass. Knowing that; a) I'm going to have waisted good money by flunking, b) it will be noticed if I don't show up today, and c) not having to figure out what to study; it really moves along very well. You do that for four or six years straight, and it is really incredible. It really doesn't matter if its your local community college, a state U, or MIT. (Sure, MIT is harder, Harvard is better on a resume, whatever) It doesn't matter if it is a general curriculm, elecronic engineering, or associate of arts in, oh ... art. As long as it is an accredited program that builds the body of knowledge as a program. Trust me, Kahn Acadamy is great, but it isn't the same. No matter what you think you know, there is more. Taken intro to statistics, no take intro to linear regression. Now take analysis of variance. Now, go buy another book on them, really, stuff I didn't study? I had to laugh because every text book I own is "Intro to [blank]". For every textbook, each chapter becomes ten more "Intro to"s.

People stop at PhD, not because they know everything, but because at that point, even everyone with a PhD just says, "Dude, really, that's enough already. Find something to do or someone to talk to".