Clarifying The Buzsaw Position

http://EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe -->EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The UniverseIn most any science thread I've participated in I learn something and try to apply it. One thing I learned in this thread is to read more carefully and thoughtfully what folks like you, Percy, and Son Goku say and questions asked of me before responding. When I fail to do this I sometimes misrepresent my position. For example, I will show that I understood that Qm does not apply much to large objects, except perhaps in questions about what makes planets spin et al. In the TD thread when I said I agreed with Percy that TD explains the solar system, I believe I qualified that in some of the context of the thread in that I was alluding to how it works to explain things on earth which in turn explains the disparity between earth and the rest of the solar system regarding entropy. By rereading the thread I see how I wasn't really clarifying my position to Son Goku and others. No reading at all? I'm certainly no where near near the level of Cavediver science wise but iIsn't that a rather disingenuous assessment? I've been reading and responding to science apprised folks here for years, often googling related articles pertaining to the topic et al. That I don't buy into a lot of what is read , being a fundamentalist ID creationist doesn't mean I've done no reading at all as you're stating.How many unread laymen having done no reading even know what the 3 basic thermodynamic laws are?
How many know who Dr Feynman is or care?
How many know that planet earth is an "open system" or what that means?
How many can name the layers of the atmosphere or care about their function?
How many know what mainline science says about expansion of space, the "outside of" and the "before" or "t=0?"
How many have read and viewed enough of the work of Ron Wyatt, ICR, Baumgardner, Lennart Moller/Aqaba, et al et al so as to debate these topics in the forums?
How many ID creo laymen (and evo theists) have really thought out the obsurdity of a temporal universe relative to an eternal Biblical God enough to debate the problem with a young universe and a BB hypothesis which leaves no place for the existence of a Biblical eternal God?
How many ID creo laymen have read and studied enough science to hold to a universe hypothesis which satisfies all the thermodynamic laws?With all due respect to our good member, Hoot Mon, how many unread laymen know enough about entropy to take issue with Hoot Mon's statement that a pound of manure produces more entropy than a pound of rocks? I would argue that if sh_tting living organisms and if sh_t ENERGIZED plants were on planet Mars as we observe them on planet earth, the sh_t which the living organisms sh_tted, would WORK to ENERGIZE the existing plants. The ENERGY of the sh_t ENERGIZED plants would then WORK to ENERGIZE the sh_tting living organisms which sh_tted the sh_t, which WORKED to ENERGIZE the sh_t ENERGIZED plants. Thus, logically it appears that sh_t observed on the surface of a planet of sh_t ENERGIZED plants and plant ENERGIZED sh_tting creatures would be evidence of a net DECREASE of entropy on such a planet and not increased entropy as Hoot Mon seems to be implying in the EvC science forum regarding thermodynamic science? http://EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe -->EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe Well, my friend, you're probably correct in that I'm not at level two but c'mon man, I do read up and am learning. One of the problems is that those telling Biblical prohecies keep me hanging tough in there on the side of Biblical accuracy. I, somewhat like my good friend and www ideological IDist EvC colleague, Nemmisis J. see a lot of holes, if you will in the arguments you science apprised folks are buying into. Speaking of NJ, I have enjoyed (hopefully he too) this teamwork in science where he is doing a good job with me lending an encouraging word or $.02 worth of support. He has done a lot to encourage and support my positions quite often as well. I believe we've worked together to lessen the disparity in science forums. I will miss this team relationship in debating ID creationist issues in science which worked to balance the debates. Faith is gone. Randman is showcased. If I go, NJ is the proactive IDist member left in the science lion's den of hungry counterparts eager to debate controversial science issues.I realize that I'm very inadiquate in science, but hey, I do raise some of the controversial issues which the science apprised appear to be quite interested in debating in science, like the popular IDist canopy atmosphere hypothesis espoused by many creos, global warming as Biblically prophesied and it's scientific implications pertaining to the creationist debate, the Moller Exodus Video and those alleged chariot wheel apparantly photographed in Aqaba, BB problems relative to the singularity et al, et al.Having said the above I want to thank everyone who tried to help me in science. I sensed a sincere desire to apprise me in science matters on the part of just about everyone. I apologize for not reading more carefully before responding on occasion and mistakes made. This is one of those areas where I failed to carefully read what I was responding to. The following links to my statements bear out that I do understand that QM relates primarily to small things and not solar systems perse. http://EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe -->EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe I failed here to articulate my argument adequately. I acknowledge that QM hones in on small things. What I failed to clarify here was that I saw QM as a methodology of explaining how decreased entropy can be observed on earth in areas of earth science. This in a sense explains the solar system in that it appears to me to explain the thermodynamic disparity observed relative to earth and other planets.Had I remained in the thread I would have addressed some questions like Crashfrog's. Had I gotten back to Crashfrog before I left I would have explained my position that it was not that the amount of Earth's entropy could be measured, but that a larger quantity of negative entropy is observed on earth than the other planets. I may have been in error claiming that science used QM to explain this, but again, I believed that QM was a methodology of science to explain the disparity of thermodynamics relative to earth and the rest of the solar system in that it worked to explain the decreased entropy observed on earth relative to the rest of the solar system.http://EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe -->EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe This is essentially my position, that the the entire solar system's entropy is decreasing. The point of my argument was that if this is the case, why the disparity relative to thrermodynamics observed on earth and the rest of the solar system? Imo, it is supportive to the IDist position that work is being applied to planet earth to effect this disparity. Perhaps this is what I failed to clarify to You, Son Goku and other members in that thread who were justifiably frustrated with what they understood my position to be. I'm afraid, pertaining to what is observed on earth's surface, you are correct in that I would be arguing til the cows come home that entropy has a net decrease on earth's surface, say over the last half million years of what mainline science claims to have happened in that time frame void of ID work and naturally effected. I understand. That's why I'm not bucking you on this and readily agree to leave science to the more science apprised and to more articulate IDists such as Nemmesis J. since I perceive that to be your desire. Perhaps NJ is more careful and conservative in positions he takes than I am. I likely tend to jump in to sink or swim. http://EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe -->EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The UniverseMy apologies for the length of this OP, but it's purpose is to respond to Admin and Cavediver in the thermodynamics thread and to clarify my position in that thread which I failed to explain adequately in retrospect.I believe Coffee House would be the place for this so as for any one who wishes to comment. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add a wordEdited by Buzsaw, : Correct Hoot Mon's link numberEdited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : To add one more ENERGIZE word for clarification

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

why do you give a sh_t what these people think of you, who don't know everything, except how to puff themselves up to give impressions? Which they do well.The ejicaded house they live in is built on a fault, their fault is that they don't know with one hundred percent certainty that what they know is true since they don't know how it all began. No one does. That evens things considerably.I come here often. LMAO! My favorite thread is the bannings and suspensions. People sitting in judgment on others exposing their own shorties.Hey, Buzz, you a good man? Need to be something better?Edited by DorfMan, : No reason given.

This forum doesn't run without balance, which Percy claims that he wants, but at the same time he excommunicates members who disagree with his view. Perhaps the only reason why I am still around is because, one, I've practically given up on trying to assert my position scientifically because its like talking to a wall-- an angry wall. The second reason is that I try and remain as objective as I can without completely compromising my position. The forum members know that I remain tentative on scientific matters and some have tried to exploit that candor. They know I'm not a creationist, per say, but they know I ascribe to ID, which to them is basically the same thing. I'm all by lonesome on most matters on this forum, and even in my death throes I'm going out swinging. Where are you going, though? I saw that you had said somewhere that you were not going to post in any of the science forums. Are you planning on leaving? My suggestion to you is that you find another webforum altogether. Don't allow for this censorship where you can speak about some things, but not others. I've been considering leaving the forum myself for a few reasons. One, I don't like the obvious bias against people of our ilk. Two, I'm getting tired of rehashing over the same things with little headway. Three, I'm rejoining the military the fifteenth of next month and probably won't be around much anyhow.But with having said that, do you have any idea how much power we wield in the form of pure entertainment for these guys? When a liberal/evolutionist/atheist writes to his/her fellow compatriots, look at how boring their dialogue is. Nobody cares because they agree with each other. And they end up writing a blurb. But sure as can be the second you arrive, I arrive, or Anastasia, or Riverrat comes in, all of a sudden the popularity increases exponentially. The evidence is overwhelming. Look at how many responses are waiting for me in my mailbox. I can't physically answer all the nasty grams sent to me. I'm sure its the same with you in your EvC mailbox.The point is that they need us for balance. On my last forum, they were practically begging for me to stay-- even though they despised me. Why? Why, because I am their inspiration. I am their entertainment. And they know it. And this is nothing of myself for a pat on the back, its juts because of my beliefs. Its not a good thing, but it is what it is. I think you are being treated unfairly and its not like you are the first to go. Look at Jar, NWR, Faith, Iano, Rob, Omni, Wounded King, True Creation, etc. At some point, all of them have been on the receiving end. Its a real shame too because I have fun here and a lot of vested interest in the lives of all the members on here. Even those who staunchly disagree with me. But the censorship is getting absurd.Therefore, perhaps its time to bow out and find another forum. You're fine Buz. These people are elitists. You don't need to understand the molecular workings of a gnat to know, without a question of doubt, that this universe was in fact created. And as Romans 1 says, they aren't going to have an excuse in the world when their number is pulled. They are trying to stir doubt in your mind and trying to prove that everything can come from nothing. They are trying to slander faith even though they undeniably use it in 90% of their thought process.Anyway, that's my two cents. Don't spend it all in one place Write me back and let me know what exactly is going on. Is this a witch hunt?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Hi, Buz.I haven't been paying much attention to some of these conversations, but I think that I will interject my opinion anyway.One complaint that I see is that sometimes people take part in these conversations with either very little understanding of the topic under consideration, or with deep misunderstandings. Yet when people who really do understand the subject matter try to correct the obvious mistakes, the person with the misunderstanding insists that she knows what she is talking about.For example, in this very post:

quote:

---

Had I gotten back to Crashfrog before I left I would have explained my position that it was not that the amount of Earth's entropy could be measured, but that a larger quantity of negative entropy is observed on earth than the other planets.

---

Now, as someone who actually does understand something about thermodynamics (I have an MS in physics), I can tell you that this sentence is scientifically meaningless. I might be able to make a guess as to what you meant, and then I might be able to offer a scientifically precise restatement for you; on the other hand, it is also possible that you have such a misunderstanding of thermodynamics and entropy that what you think you are trying to say is nonsense. It is hard to tell.But there is plenty of precedent where I would have tried to point out that this statement does not make sense scientifically, and the other person will argue that they know more about the subject than I and I am the one in error. Which is possible, of course, having an MS is no guarantee of anything; however, certain people not only argue with this or that resident expert but also with the consensus in that field (as if all the experts in that field are dolts), and they also insist on "correcting" the expert opinions in many other, different fields as well. After a while, it seems fair to me to suggest that the so-called "expert in everyting, and smarter than the actual people doing the research" is actually lacking enough humility to understand her limitations.

quote:

---

I come here often. LMAO!

---

Hey, me too! We have something in common! In fact, posts like yours are the ones I find particularly funny! Glad to see you back.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Hi Buzsaw,Here's a list of statements from your post that I think leave most people just scratching their heads in wonderment: You may as well have been arguing that "The slithy toves did gyre and gymble in the wade," because what you say has no intelligible interpretation, the kind of thing many people call "so misconceived it's not even wrong." It's as if someone had asked, "How many fingers am I holding up," and you answered, "The 1949 Yankees." Say what?That you have no idea what you're talking about was made eminently clear when you responded to my random word salad as if I had made some intelligible point. Nothing more need be said.But I will anyway, in what is probably yet another misbegotten attempt to help. Why don't you try this? The next time you see something in a science thread you disagree with, try to explain to yourself why science believes this. I'm not saying to accept it, just try to understand the reasons behind the science being explained.For example, someone might say that QM has nothing to do with planetary spin, and we already know you disagree with this. Ask yourself why science believes this? You already know the answer. QM's focus is the extremely small (molecules, atoms, elementary particles), and planets are extremely huge. Now ask yourself why scientists believe QM only affects the very small? This should lead you to ask what is the evidence for this, and now you're at the heart of the matter. Examine the evidence supporting QM's focus on the very small and why quantum effects break down as you consider things at larger and larger scales and you'll have your answer.What you cannot do is refuse to understand the science but conclude it is wrong anyway and then argue it is wrong in a nonsensical jabberwocky style for page after page until the thread is exhausted. This isn't something that needs any enforcement the first time you do it, or the second, or the third, or the fourth, or the fifth, but you've been here for years and have done this umpteen times. I've finally called a halt.I see Chiroptera has responded while I was typing this, and he basically echoes my own sentiments, labeling your negative entropy comments as an example of a scientifically meaningless statement, and what I've been referring to simply as nonsense.Say I came to the religion threads and argued that Christianity was wrong because Jesus never ascended to heaven because on the third day he left the tomb, saw his shadow, then returned to the tomb. And I argued this because there were some websites out there promoting this viewpoint. That's okay, right? You'd just explain why I was mistaken.Now say that I never gave up on this point and argued it for years citing things like QM effects on Biblical translations and so forth. At some point you'd just have to call a halt to the nonsense, right?For you, the only difference between what you're doing in the science forums and my example is that you understand why the Jesus argument is completely misconceived, but you haven't a clue why your arguments in the science forums are the same. If you still don't agree I call your attention once again to this fact: you responded to random word salad as if something intelligible had been said.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Buzsaw isn't being censored. I've given very clear reasons many times for my request that he not post in the science forums (see Message 103 for the most recent), and I suggest you respond to those. Give particular attention to Buzsaw's misconstrual of random word salad as an intelligible response, which to any rational person is a clear indication that his lack of comprehension in these areas is indeed as severe and profound as people have said.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hey thanks DorfMan for the encouragement. I don't care a lot about what people think of me perse but being it's Percy's site I strive to do what I can within his perameters insomuch as I can do so without having to compromising my position. I do want my position to be clear and that's what this is all about. I also wanted to appeal to Admin that restricting science forums to mainline assembly line thought and methodology, layman logic and IDist ideology is going to widen the balance gap in science when ideal dialog is debatable and ideologically diverse.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

quote:

---

Hey, me too! We have something in common! In fact, posts like yours are the ones I find particularly funny! Glad to see you back.

---

Hey, Oklahoma! Always happy to leave jollies in my track. Thanks for the welcome back. Unfortunately, for you (LOL), I fry most of my fish on CARM. Hope all is well with you.

I did read it and he seemed pretty genuine on the matter. For one thing, all he was really saying is that Quantum Mechanics is a young science that should be viewed tentatively. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that view. It sounded as if he was throwing some ideas around about entropy and QM.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

The ejicaded house they live in is built on a fault, their fault is that they don't know with one hundred percent certainty that what they know is true since they don't know how it all began. No one does. That evens things considerably.

---

Yes, because if we don't have perfect knowledge of the origins of life, it is impossible to have any level of knowledge of anything else.Why do you hate education and expertise so much?

Buzsaw has not been censored. He's been asked not to post nonsense in the science threads. Unless you can somehow make a case for why the examples I provided were not nonsense, either in Message 7 or Message 103, what he said stands as nonsense. I never noticed him saying this, but whether he did or not this is not what he was criticized for, though of course it is a red herring of a position. All science is tentative, including science older than QM like evolution, and science younger than QM, like plate tectonics, atomic energy, space science and the standard particle model of physics. The recentness of a discovery is not some measure of tentativity. Yeah, right. And I was just throwing around some ideas about Christianity when I said Jesus never ascended to heaven because he saw his shadow. You see, some ideas are truly nonsense.I appreciate that you'd like to support Buzsaw as a fellow creationist, but I hope that at the same time you consider it important to maintain both your credibility and self-respect by saying things that are actually true and that bear directly upon the issue. I consider censorship a serious charge, and if you want to say it was censorship rather than a desire to restrict nonsense contributions then you should be prepared to support your position.This is actually the wrong discussion to be having. Those trying to make clear the positions of science are not making it up, as you implied at one point. If we were making it up we wouldn't all agree with one another. And we all agree with one another because we're telling you what the science actually says. "You could look it up," as Casey Stengle used to say. And when you look it up you'll always find the same information, albeit expressed in different words depending upon the source, because it is all based upon the same repeated observations and experimental results derived from studying actual reality.Much creationist effort is exerted attempting to portray creationism as every much a science as legitimate science. It doesn't help your case to refrain from learning legitimate science and ignore all the gathered scientific knowledge while casting aspersions on those who have put the time and effort into it. If creationism becomes a science then it will be because it has built a theoretical framework upon a body of observational and experiment results that correspond to actual reality rather than hopes for Christian religious beliefs gaining representation in science class.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think there's merit in restricting science discussions to thought that is sensical and has evidential merit.As such I don't see how Buz's participation qualifies. And I don't understand why it's so hard for people to see that Buz is being come down on not because his thought deviates from some narrow scientific mainstream, but because his thoughts deviate from making any sense.The things Buz says literally don't make any sense. Why is that such a difficult point for people to grasp?

http://www.hyperflight.com/conceptthree.htm1. Would you care to apprise me what was therdynamically unscientific on the HootMon statement so I won't make the same mistake again, if in fact it was a mistake?2. Is the link on planetary spin also erroneous?3. I have no idea what most of your gripe specifics are and wonder if anyone else does. Would you provide specific erroneous statements to be fair so I can know what the charges are in your judgement?That's all I have time for for now.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28