EvC Forum: Clarifying The Buzsaw Position

cavediver writes:

Don't avoid the science fora, just use them as a place to learn. It's where you can get your misconceptions ironed out, but only if you admit upfront that most of what you know (given your layman sources) is going to be misconception. And it's no good caveating yourself upfront, declaring yourself a layman, then going on to speak as if you're anything but. What's that about STFUASTFD and cotton wool, ears and mouth?

http://EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe -->EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe

In 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.

Percy writes:

When you're talking to Cavediver you have to realize there are actually two levels of layperson understanding. The first level is the uninformed layperson level. This is the person who has done no reading at all and is only aware of popular impressions. This is where you seem to be on this topic.

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?

Hoot Mon writes:

I was merely suggesting that a pound of manure produces more entropy than a pound of rocks. Since neither Venus nor Mars has any manure I concluded that Earth produces more entropy than the other two planets (we’ve got plenty of manure down here!).

http://EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe -->EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe

Percy writes:

The second level is the informed layperson level. This includes those who have read *and* understood popularizations, except that Cavediver believes that on some issues the simplifications are so severe as to be very misleading or even wrong, but I don't think Cavediver has taken this position on anything that's come up in this thread so far. I don't believe you're at the second level, familiarity with popularizations, for most scientific topics.

Applying quantum uncertainty to incredibly large objects like planets and solar systems is an example of why people always begin to question your understanding. It's okay to have something wrong. We all get stuff wrong all the time. It's that once you have something wrong you refuse to be corrected. You'll go on for pages and pages arguing for misimpressions you have. I'm not going to the bother of reading back through the thread to see if that was the case with QM and planets and solar systems, it's just a topic I recall you raising, but the reason I would prefer that you not participate in the science threads is that one can easily imagine that by post 300 no one would have been able to convince you that QM doesn't apply to large objects, and the original topic of the thread would have been long forgotten.

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.

Percy writes:

Another example is when you assumed that we know whether the entropy of something the size of a planet is increasing or decreasing.

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.

Buzsaw writes:

Looking at it via another analogy, QM would be to application of thermodynamics like judging a dog at a dog show with a microscope. The beauty of the beast becomes irrelavant to judgement.

http://EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe -->EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe

Buzsaw to Parisomnium writes:

I'm saying that since it does hone in on small things mysteriously, obfuscatively and controversly, applying it to things like the solar system undermines and obfuscates the logics of objective observatonal less mysterious conclusions pertaining to large things like the earth/solar system thermodynamically. We observe this huge amount of decreased entropy and order on earth compared to precious little elsewhere.

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.

Crashfrog writes:

I'm curious how you're measuring the entropy of the whole Earth. I'm not convinced that there's any less entropy on Earth than there is on Mars, for instance.

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

Percy writes:

We can say with great assurance that the entropy of the entire solar system is decreasing because probably to a couple levels of approximation it is an isolated system, but about individual planets we can say no such thing.

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.

Percy writes:

The sun is adding energy, energy is radiating off into space, the core is cooling, there's gravitational interaction with the moon, sun and other objects, there's the magnetic field draining energy off from currents in the core, sometimes heating breaks apart bonds creating increased entropy, sometimes heating creates bonds decreasing entropy, cooling causes crystallization and more order and therefore decreased energy, it's just all so complex no one knows whether the entropy of the earth is increasing or decreasing. But one can easily imagine that you'll still be arguing this is something knowable today at post 300.

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.

Percy writes:

If you'd like to take Cavediver's advice and listen instead of insisting that your views have merit, then your presence in the science forums would be fine. But if you're just going to dig in your heels on whatever mistaken belief happens to strike your fancy and refuse to allow any explanations to have any impact, then we've seen too, too much of this already.

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 Universe

My 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 word

Edited by Buzsaw, : Correct Hoot Mon's link number

Edited 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

2 online now:	LamarkNewAge, PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,832 Year: 4,089/9,624 Month: 960/974 Week: 287/286 Day: 8/40 Hour: 0/4