Summations Only

An Intelligent Designer is a belief, not a fact. the hypothesis is that such a designer exists. There are no facts to prove or disprove such a hypothesis. I could ask you what you hope to prove by claiming such a designer fictional.Bottom line: Neither of us can prove anything. That's why this discussion is in the free for all section. It is not scientific and it is open to any theory, fantasy, or belief.My belief is that God exists. God existed before any human had a brain developed enough to even think of Him. Humans have reasoning capacities, to be sure, but we are of a finite wisdom, and it is hubris to try and theorize the development of a universe without considering at least the possibility of a designer. We are talking of quantities and distances that are infinite, as far as we know, and we simply do not have the computing nor rational capacity to conclude anything at this point.Edited by Phat, : added

Since you've not supplied your own "biblical laws of thermodynamics", you very much ARE restricted to "secular" science since the LoT's are secular and not biblical. Magic doesn't jive with science. But you NEVER reveal anything emperical and you've been told this in every thread you ever partake in. Magic does not equal emperical....Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Oh so very true. It's just that the laws of thermodynamics are NOT belief. They ARE fact and buz is trying to use them as some sort of evidence for his god.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Would it be similar to a debate where someone argues that Leprechauns can reach into a secret dimension that contains energy, so that the magical production of gold coins is consistent with the 3LoTs?

I am just trying to figure out what Buz is trying to prove. It is a bit hazy.

Phat writes:

quote:

---

Can you (or anyone) explain to me what the 3Lot's are? Im not much of a science guy.

---

There are actually four, but most people only refer to the 1st through the 3rd.In short, the First Law of Thermodynamics basically says, "Everything's gotta go somewhere." In any thermodynamic reaction, all the energy has to be accounted for. Every single Joule you had at the beginning has to be allocated at the end.The Second Law of Thermodynamics basically says, "There is no perfect reaction." In any thermodynamic reaction, you cannot convert all of the energy into work. Some of that energy is bled off into the system. When I boil water, some of the energy is used to heat the pan, for example. You can increase efficiency, but there is no way to do it perfectly.As you may recall, I posted a Primer regarding the derivation of the Second Law from first principles. I've posted it a couple times but it has been so long and the board has had such changes that it isn't easy to find. The first reference I was able to track down is here: A Primer on ThermodynamicsThe Third Law of Thermodynamics has to do with absolute zero and defines what it is. But, it turns out there is no way to actually reach it. Any system you have exists in the universe which is filled with energy (even if at a very low state) and thus, it will bleed into your system.The pithy way of expressing the three laws are:You can't win: Energy cannot be created.
You can't break even: You always lose some energy.
You can't even quit the game: You can never get to zero.Now, the fourth law is often called the "Zeroth Law" because the first three are somewhat predicated upon an assumption that there is such a thing as a "thermodynamic reaction" in the first place. After all, it does no good to describe the laws by which energy must flow in reactions if energy never flows in the first place. The Zeroth Law has to do with equilibrium: If A is in equilibrium with B and B is in equilibrium with C, then A and C are also in equilibrium. It's what allows us to be able to take temperatures and be reliable about them. If I take a thermometer and set up a mark for the temperature it reads against one object, then any other object that gives the same reading is the same temperature because of the Zeroth Law.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

My position now has been updated to an unknown amount of non-infinite energy but all limited to that of the source, requiring work and rest by the source so as to manage the energy, compatible to 2LoT.

---

This violates the 1LOT, though. Energy cannot be created. There is no way for the source to "rest." If the source expends energy, the only way it can ever regain energy is for it to come from somewhere else.So what does god eat to regain his strength? And where does that get its energy?

quote:

---

If Jehovah's energy were infinite, there would be no need of rest.

---

Indeed, but all you've done is switch your violation. So take your pick: Do you want to violate the First or the Second?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

If you read the OP his main claim is that he won the debate with Jar, and not just because Jar's arguments were weak. He wants to "prove" this by starting a new debate where he defends a different position, because his original position was shown to be false.You might note a certain tension between the claim that his original position was true and could not have been defeated if he had faced a better opponent and the fact that he admits that he had to change it - and the thing he had to drop (infinite energy) was the very point that Jar was arguing against.Secondly Buz wishes to prove that his opinions are better than mainstream science on the grounds that his views are compatible with thermodynamics and mainstream cosmology is not. The fact that he doesn't fully understand what he is talking about doesn't seem to deter him.

The souls of the damned.

Um you sure he eats the dammed the whole the lord is my Sheppard makes me think he eats the other guys if he is picky then the rest of us might be in luck and not get eaten

What I don't understand is that you hold up the 3LoT's as some sort of absolute when they were arrived at by the same secular scientific method that also us gave us the evidence for evolution, radiometric dating, understanding of geological formations and anything else you feel is incompatible with the Genesis account. Therefore the 3Lot's are held to the same tentativity as anything else in science, so why do you feel that this one set of laws cannot be contravened by your omnipotent creator?

Since this is the free for all forum, I guess i'll stick my nose in.Im not too fimiliar with the LoTs. The first I think is the law of conservation of energy. The 2nd is entropy,Where as things are supposedly breaking down. I have no clue what the 3rd is but it's kinda like the second but not really? Trying to get to absolute zero?Well, here's my stupid question- do these laws deal with closed or open systems? How do we know if the universe is an open system? I know the earth is a closed sysyem therefore the laws apply to it. I assume were talking about the universe when it comes to these laws( in this discussion anyway). So how can anyone know if the universe is an open system or a closed one? This entire argument depends on weather or not it's opened or closed. How does one determine which it is? Maybe it has already been determined im not sure. It's free for all so I thought i'd ask. Thanks

Seriously? You can't think of any outside energy source that means the Earth isn't a closed system. Some distant source of light perhaps, begins with an S and ends in un?Its strange how so much of what you 'know' is complete nonsense.TTFN,WK

No, Chuck77. These laws apply in all systems. Whether they are isolated or not.The second law, for example, describes systems in equilibrium. The difference between isolated and open systems comes in where the distribution of energy is not uniform in localized places.Your biggest mistake here is that you think that the earth is a closed system. It certainly is not. It's very open. Things like the sun constantly add energy to the earth and everything on it. Energy also escapes from the earth. The energy distribution is earth is not in equilibrium. Do you realize that everytime you eat, you add energy that comes from the sun? Definitely not an isolated system.

*EDIT*I meant I "know" the earth is an OPEN system since the moon, sun, etc... have an effect on it. Sorry for the error. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.