Author
|
Topic: Infuriating arguments
|
Son Goku
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 46 of 56 (666205)
06-24-2012 2:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie 06-19-2012 9:41 AM
|
|
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Well I wasn't aware of this level of ignorance until a while into my posts on EVC. I'll always remember my absolute shock at reading "Let's be honest, you cannot stand on the surface of the Earth, it doesn't exist" by some poster here a few years ago. Unfortunately the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a particularly difficult concept to set right to an audience of this kind. This is because a lot of presentations make it appear to be about order and disorder (where as this is only a common, but not universal, consequence of it). Unfortunately an "increase in disorder" fits with all sorts of notions such as the decline of the world after the "fall". I've seen many Creationists using it as scientific proof of their world view, i.e. "Look the world really is decaying!"
This message is a reply to: | | Message 1 by Trixie, posted 06-19-2012 9:41 AM | | Trixie has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10304 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 7.3
(2)
|
|
|
|
|
Message 47 of 56 (666280)
06-25-2012 1:21 PM
|
|
|
I have always asked creationists this question: You developed from a single cell into a fully functioning, multicellular human being in just 9 months. If this does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then how does the same thing occuring over a 3 billion year time period violate the same law? To counter this argument, creationists have actually argued that the laws of thermodynamics can be violated within the womb. I kid you not. They also try to claim that if you have instructions on how to violate the laws of thermodynamics (i.e. DNA) then it can occur. I guess all we need are plans which say that a body of water at equilibrium can spontaneously produce boiling water and ice cubes at the drop of a hat.
Replies to this message: | | Message 48 by Trixie, posted 06-25-2012 2:19 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
(1)
|
|
|
|
|
Message 48 of 56 (666285)
06-25-2012 2:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by Taq 06-25-2012 1:21 PM
|
|
The ironic thing is that they don't realise that eating bypasses the 2LoT.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 47 by Taq, posted 06-25-2012 1:21 PM | | Taq has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 50 by Taq, posted 06-25-2012 2:29 PM | | Trixie has replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
|
Message 49 of 56 (666290)
06-25-2012 2:28 PM
|
|
|
Oh, my! The logic is astounding!
In a debate about how many men had demons cast into the herd of pigs, two gospels claim it was one man, one claims it was two. So, naturally, if you accept one acount, the other must be wrong, you'd think, since they are mutually exclusive, it's either one OR two. You'd be wrong, according to the genius I spoke to. He says both are right becase it was one or two!!! Then the site buffoon waded in and here's his little gem of reasoning.
Trixie says "If it was one person, then the verse saying it was two is wrong and vice versa, they can't both be right." This just is false and proven false here numerous times on this page, reflecting ignorance and bias on this subject. The biased assumption is that one statement excludes the other which is false, none of the accts limit their statements to only one and Fiona presupposes to know the intent and mindset of the author, more fallacious, biased methodology.
Replies to this message: | | Message 56 by xongsmith, posted 03-07-2013 10:32 PM | | Trixie has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10304 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 7.3
(1)
|
|
|
|
|
Message 50 of 56 (666292)
06-25-2012 2:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by Trixie 06-25-2012 2:19 PM
|
|
The ironic thing is that they don't realise that eating bypasses the 2LoT.
That is actually a misleading statement. No reaction bypasses the 2LoT. Rather, a reduction in entropy is fully allowed when energy is added to the system. A freezer does not bypass the 2LoT when it produces ice cubes from tepid water in a room at 70 degrees F. Rather, it requires an input of energy just as the 2LoT states it should.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 48 by Trixie, posted 06-25-2012 2:19 PM | | Trixie has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 52 by Trixie, posted 06-25-2012 2:51 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 51 of 56 (666295)
06-25-2012 2:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie 06-19-2012 9:41 AM
|
|
How do you deal with this level of ignorance without losing the will to live? I laugh at them and then start trolling.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 1 by Trixie, posted 06-19-2012 9:41 AM | | Trixie has not replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
|
Message 52 of 56 (666296)
06-25-2012 2:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 50 by Taq 06-25-2012 2:29 PM
|
|
Yes, quite, Taq. But you're failing to take into account that they believe nothing and I mean NOTHING will ever under any circumstances will see a reduction in entropy. They even claim that an input of energy only ever increases entropy. As far as they are concerned the 2LoT states that entropy always increases. They see the "isolated system" as irrelevant and can't see that in a system which is not isolated, the statement that entropy always increases doesn't apply. They insist it applies to everything and that sunlight on skin damages DNA so increases entropy which shows that sunlight can't put energy into earth's systems. I said "bypasses" because it makes the claim of "entropy always increasing in an isolated system" irrelevant in an open system.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 50 by Taq, posted 06-25-2012 2:29 PM | | Taq has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 53 by jar, posted 06-25-2012 4:06 PM | | Trixie has not replied | | Message 54 by Taq, posted 06-25-2012 4:27 PM | | Trixie has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 53 of 56 (666298)
06-25-2012 4:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by Trixie 06-25-2012 2:51 PM
|
|
Huh?
Sunlight on skin damages DNA? HUH? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to: | | Message 52 by Trixie, posted 06-25-2012 2:51 PM | | Trixie has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10304 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 7.3
|
|
Message 54 of 56 (666299)
06-25-2012 4:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by Trixie 06-25-2012 2:51 PM
|
|
They insist it applies to everything and that sunlight on skin damages DNA so increases entropy which shows that sunlight can't put energy into earth's systems. And in doing so they only highlight their ignorance since I am very, very sure that pyrimidine dimerization requires a local decrease in entropy. Sadly, their misunderstandings of entropy go very, very deep and is only compounded by their anti-intellectualism.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 52 by Trixie, posted 06-25-2012 2:51 PM | | Trixie has not replied |
|
CoolBeans
Member (Idle past 3874 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: 02-11-2013
(1)
|
|
|
|
|
Message 55 of 56 (692720)
03-06-2013 7:41 PM
|
|
|
Im currently interested in the evolution of the ability of energy storage.
|
xongsmith
Member Posts: 2620 From: massachusetts US Joined: 01-01-2009
|
|
Message 56 of 56 (692848)
03-07-2013 10:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by Trixie 06-25-2012 2:28 PM
|
|
Re: Oh, my! The logic is astounding!
Trixie writes:
In a debate about how many men had demons cast into the herd of pigs, two gospels claim it was one man, one claims it was two. So, naturally, if you accept one account, the other must be wrong, you'd think, since they are mutually exclusive, it's either one OR two. Maybe the three other guys ran off into the woods before the pigs ate them... - xongsmith, 5.7d
This message is a reply to: | | Message 49 by Trixie, posted 06-25-2012 2:28 PM | | Trixie has not replied |
|