Summations Only

Yes by being an arrogant and ignorant loudmouth. For Buz to be "down" he'd actually have to drop the arrogance long enough to recognize his own ignorance.edited to add: the debate of actual scientific theory against Buz's bullshit would go easier if Buz actually understood the science that he's trying to argue against.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

But you will notice that he DOESN'T know what he's talking about and a lot of the posts have gone into trying to get him to explain what he means, because he's not being very clear.Some history for you.Buz once managed not to lose a Great Debate, but only because his opponent missed some points which killed Buz's argument. This is his greatest achievement here and he is somewhat obsessed with it.THat argument was over whether his ideas were consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and he argued that with an infinite energy source he could technically avoid breaking the law (although an infinite energy source tramples all over thermodynamics). The problems were raised at the same time as the Great Debate, and perhaps the biggest development in this thread is that Buz has abandoned the idea of an infinite energy source. Which leaves him with his universe breaking the 2nd law.Buz also has a big grudge against modern cosmology. He hates it and reuses to understand it. With his pride over his "victory" of years ago he decides that thermodynamics MUST be an area where his ideas are "better" than real science. Even though his objections to Big Bang cosmology have nothing to do with cosmology (they are also nonsensical and Buz can't defend them but he doesn't let those facts interfere with his faith in himself). And to top it all off he makes nasty comments about "brainwashed sheeple" because nobody is stupid enough to believe his rubbish.So, at present the score on the topic is:Buz's universe is incompatible with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which he rejects.Buz babbles nonsense about standard cosmology which has nothing to do with thermodynamics.Therefore Buz loses the argument - and never even had a chance of winning. But, pride goes before a fall and Buz has lots of pride.

OK. So you do dispute that every event and activity you can observe around you is contributing to increasing entropy. We have at least pinpointed the source of your ongoing misapprehension.Question: Buz can you give a specific example of any event which you have ever observed which you think did not increase entropy within the universe?Now I'll answer your questions. It would be nice if you would explicitly answer mine. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that ds > 0. I.e. that any change in the "quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work" will ALWAYS be positive. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the overall "disorder or randomness" in a closed system only ever increases. Never decreases.

That is what the second law of thermodynamics stipulates. That entropy will only ever increase. Never decrease. I suppose that the second law of thermodynamics does qualify as "conventional science" but it isn't an assumption and it has nothing to do with expansion. Increasing entropy is what we observe.If you think there are observable events which decrease entropy rather than increase it please name one.

How long have you been here Chuck? If you have learnt anything in your time at EvC it is surely that a bunch of people itching for debate will seize on anyone who says anything obviously wrong.It's like a red rag to a bull. Carnal.

Life.

I'll accept life as the sort of observable "increase in complexity" that Buz is almost certainly thinking of.What provides the source of energy for observable life to exist?

How about you participate so he's not 8vs1? The problem is that many creationists I've seen, he doesn't understand basic sciences that's why I was trying to correct him. It's not a debate, it's us trying to teach lurkers (not Buzzsaw since he's not able to understand it) what science is about.

How is that a reply to my message? i didn't say that a change within the system would not affect the net of the whole system. i just said that your universe disagreed with the 2Lot. This law says that entropy only ever increases, your "model" says it isn't the case, doesn't it mean that you disagree with the 2LoT?Edited by Son, : No reason given.

The sun I guess or, more generally, the Universe. The energy is here and life is not creating any new energy but it seems a temporary reversal of decay. Isn't a tree more organized than the photons, minerals and gasses that make it up?

I'll try and understand Buz' argument better so I can get involved. Im not totally sure what He's arguing for yet. Tho, I think you should remember that this isn't the science section. So, maybe not everything Buz is arguing is totally Scientific in nature and will not comply with the current laws in the universe as applied. That's why this thread is here. He's trying to propose HIS theory and not one that is in agreement with mainstream science.

For the record, I wasn't implying that Buz didn't know anything about the lots when I said: What I meant was "for someone who apperantly" meaning as viewed by others as not knowing what he's talking about, not me. I may not know everything he means but why it takes atleast eight people in a non-science section to try to talk science to Buz about a theory that doesn't comply with the lots anyhow (I think) is what is perplexing.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Yeah ... if he's wrong, why are people disagreeing with him? It's a mystery.

Yes, the multitudes pointing out that his theory, as he sees it, that overrides the lots due to a prime mover (Jehovah God) which is his right to theorize is being challenged because it doesn't line up with current theories is perplexing, you got it. It's his theory.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Chuck, didn't you notice the thread title? Buz is claiming that his ideas are more compatible with thermodynamics than the standard view of physicists. If he has to reject the 2LoT then his view is incompatible, full stop. His right to theorise isn't in question, but he's got no right to make false claims and expect people to agree with them.