|Bunghole| Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 [quote name='BlackJesus' post='571422' date='Oct 16 2007, 01:19 PM'][b]Yes[/b] [b][size=6]Once the idiot masses eliminates actual science in the classroom and replace it with reading of psalms [/size]... the whole nation will be fucked. We will lag behind the world in scientific progress & discovery (already happening) and not produce the future great scientific minds society will depend on for medical and health advancements. [/b][/quote] Wait a minute...we USED to have prayer in schools AND science was taught AT THE SAME TIME...before the ACLU, before shit like Columbine, BEFORE we lagged behind other countries in educational development...so what makes what we have now any better? IT ISN'T! Thanks liberal America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 [quote name='Bunghole' post='572210' date='Oct 17 2007, 09:19 PM']Wait a minute...we USED to have prayer in schools AND science was taught AT THE SAME TIME...before the ACLU, before shit like Columbine, BEFORE we lagged behind other countries in educational development...so what makes what we have now any better? IT ISN'T! Thanks liberal America![/quote] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/6.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Tory Go! Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 [quote name='Bunghole' post='572210' date='Oct 17 2007, 09:19 PM']Wait a minute...we USED to have prayer in schools AND science was taught AT THE SAME TIME...before the ACLU, before shit like Columbine, BEFORE we lagged behind other countries in educational development...so what makes what we have now any better? IT ISN'T! Thanks liberal America![/quote] I won't argue with this country's downward trend, but you are probably overstating the hand 'liberalism' has had in this mess. It seems like a pretty big stretch to pin decreased educational standards on not having prayer in public schools - and I suspect this isn't your argument, but rather that the invasion of 'political correctness' into the school system. I'd argue instead that the biggest obstacle to the education system is the rigidity of the extremely stodgy teacher's union, perhaps another hallmark of 'liberal america' gone awry for those of you looking for such fodder. While on the religion issue, whether I personally like organized prayer in public school or not, I think it's pretty much agreed upon that it really shouldn't go on in publicly funded institutions. Again, I do believe your point isn't that prayer in school enhanced educational development (which a comparative study between public and private schools posted here a few days ago refutes anyway), but that this change is indicative of a larger shift surrounding curricula. Either way, if I was to throw political correctness under the bus as the cause of the decline in educational standards, I'd probably say something like 'kids these days are acheiving less because their mothers aren't at home where they should be to keep track of them,' but I won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bean Counter Posted October 18, 2007 Report Share Posted October 18, 2007 Getting back to the original topic, evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive ideas. Evolution is a scienctific concept and faith is a religious one. Matters of faith should NEVER be taught in a public school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote]While on the religion issue, whether I personally like [b]organized prayer [/b]in public school or not, I think it's pretty much agreed upon that it really shouldn't go on in publicly funded institutions[/quote] [i]With that notion "organized prayer"; I can agree with. But, people that are calling for a prayers to be back in school are not asking for this. They are asking for time to be alloted for those that wish to do so as an individual practice. "Five minutes of Silence" can bet set aside for all, those that wish to partake and for those that wish not; can take a little nap.[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote]No ... because evolution is RIGHT .... and PROVEN.[/quote] [i]Correct, in some specific aspects. But, it has failed to do as whole in general. Why it never can? Due to the 2LOT in relation to total entropy. The 2LOT must be abolished, which it can't; in order for total entropy to be reversed[/i]. [i]2LOT deals with heat transfer specific while total entropy is best explained as (out of order, comes chaos).[/i] [i]Science attempts to create order out of chaos and 2LOT interferes everytime.[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Test Time. Choose from either 1) or 2): 1) In your own words, no cribbing or pasting, please explore the concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Where's it from? What does it state? What are the implications for the universe as a whole? Is the universe a closed system? If it is, then what does that say about God? 2) Repeat a mantra that you read somewhere without understanding its implications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote name='Homer_Rice' post='572807' date='Oct 18 2007, 09:20 PM']Test Time. Choose from either 1) or 2): 1) In your own words, no cribbing or pasting, please explore the concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Where's it from? What does it state? What are the implications for the universe as a whole? Is the universe a closed system? If it is, then what does that say about God? 2) Repeat a mantra that you read somewhere without understanding its implications.[/quote] Were you fishing for the "Thermodynamics of Hell" answer? [quote]Thermodynamics of Hell The following is an actual question in a University of Washington chemistry mid-term test. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues via the Internet, which is why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)? Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law,(gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or something similar.One student, however, wrote the following:First, we need to know how the mass of Hell changes in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving it. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.As for how many souls enter Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not normally belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.This gives two possibilities:1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.So which is it?If we accept the postulate given to me by Ms. Teresa Banyan during my freshman year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you.", and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then, #2 (above) cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze.The student received the only "A" given.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote name='Homer_Rice' post='572807' date='Oct 18 2007, 09:20 PM']Test Time. Choose from either 1) or 2): 1) In your own words, no cribbing or pasting, please explore the concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Where's it from? What does it state? What are the implications for the universe as a whole? Is the universe a closed system? If it is, then what does that say about God?[/quote] [i]As you are well aware, there are many concepts when discussing 2LOT. Therefore, if I were to begin discussion on one such concept,you could easily switch to another concept.[/i] [i]I guess your request for no cut and pasting was in hopes of avoidance to the following[/i]: [quote]The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — [u]well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes[/u]. [b]But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation[/b]. †[i]--Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)[/quote][/i] [i]Now in my own words, I present the[/i] "[url="http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/faqs/faqs.htm"]snow-flake[/url]" (as I have read elsewhere). The [b]conditions[/b] to form a snowflake must be just right. Some say that "No two snowflake's look alike" actually it would be more accurate to say that "To see a near-perfect snowflakes is highly uncommon". [i]So,we have tiny cosmic-dust, mixing with a minute water droplet, free-falling to earth, mix-in a little oxgen,some organical compose found on the earths surface, let simmer for awhile, then presto man evolves from primordial sludge. Did this phenom happen so that men/women (plural) sprouted up at the same time,in order to populate the earth?[/i] [i]The crux of my argument concerning 2LOT and entropy revolves around the fact that the [b]conditions[/b] surrounding the period when mans-evolution was to of began cannot be duplicated to confirm such findings. The information required is not available and is gone for-ever![/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote name='CincyInDC' post='572904' date='Oct 18 2007, 11:05 PM']Were you fishing for the "Thermodynamics of Hell" answer?[/quote] No, that's the first time I've seen this. Very clever and funny, too! Actually, I was hoping for a straightforward argument, both to demonstrate his understanding of the basics as well as illuminating his position via a vis why he invokes the 2nd Law in theological discussions. As you can see, I've been bitch-slapped with disappointment again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote name='Lawman' post='573008' date='Oct 19 2007, 06:35 AM']As you are well aware, there are many concepts when discussing 2LOT. Therefore, if I were to begin discussion on one such concept,you could easily switch to another concept.[/quote] Or, more simply, I'd at least be in a position to understand just why you place such emphasis on the idea. [quote]I guess your request for no cut and pasting was in hopes of avoidance to the following: <...Eddington quote...>[/quote] Not really, for a few reasons. First, I was hoping you would speak your own mind. I've clearly stated my position with respect to the entropic (or non-entropic) character of the universe--this Eddington statement does not persuade me to think differently. [quote]Now in my own words, I present the "[url="http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/faqs/faqs.htm"]snow-flake[/url]" (as I have read elsewhere). The [b]conditions[/b] to form a snowflake must be just right. Some say that "No two snowflake's look alike" actually it would be more accurate to say that "To see a near-perfect snowflakes is highly uncommon".[/quote] Interesting site. Unfortunately, not a single mention of Kepler that I could find. Curious, as Kepler did some groundbreaking work on geometrical structures in his "Six-Cornered Snowflake." Not sure that this has anything to do with entropy, though, unless it is to disprove it in an oblique way. [quote]So,we have tiny cosmic-dust, mixing with a minute water droplet, free-falling to earth, mix-in a little oxgen,some organical compose found on the earths surface, let simmer for awhile, then presto man evolves from primordial sludge.[/quote] Is this Bullwinkle science? "Watch me, Rocky, while I pull a rabbit out of my hat." What are you trying to say here? [quote]Did this phenom happen so that men/women (plural) sprouted up at the same time,in order to populate the earth?[/quote] Huh? [quote]The crux of my argument concerning 2LOT and entropy revolves around the fact that the [b]conditions[/b] surrounding the period when mans-evolution was to of began cannot be duplicated to confirm such findings. The information required is not available and is gone for-ever![/quote] You sound like some cranky Vermonter when asked directions: "You can't get there from here." And yet, here we are! All I asked for was some indication that you understood the 2nd law itself, and entropy itself, and for some of the ramifications of these in your theology. None of your response suggests that you really grasp the ideas, much less whether they might be true or false, or how they might apply to a given set of conditions. Wouldn't it be better simply to state the truth: that you haven't really worked the concepts through in your mind? Look, I know this stuff is hard, and in some respects not germane to your day-to-day life. Nonetheless, there is a lot of reward to be gained from an honest, diligent, pursuit of truthfulness. You don't have to be a theologian, or a cosmologist, or an epistemologist--you just have to have the gumption to be honest with yourself. I'm saying this with all sincerity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote name='Homer_Rice' post='573024' date='Oct 19 2007, 07:33 AM']No, that's the first time I've seen this. Very clever and funny, too! Actually, I was hoping for a straightforward argument, both to demonstrate his understanding of the basics as well as illuminating his position via a vis why he invokes the 2nd Law in theological discussions. As you can see, I've been bitch-slapped with disappointment again![/quote] [i]Didn't someone we know, just win a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore"]Noble Peace Prize[/url] for informing us that[/i]: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming"]the global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last 100 years.[/url] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote]Wouldn't it be better simply to state the truth: that you haven't really worked the concepts through in your mind? Look, I know this stuff is hard, and in some respects not germane to your day-to-day life. Nonetheless, there is a lot of reward to be gained from an honest, diligent, pursuit of truthfulness. You don't have to be a theologian, or a cosmologist, or an epistemologist--you just have to have the gumption to be honest with yourself. I'm saying this with all sincerity[/quote] [i]You were posting as I was. One of the things I attempt to do is, take a complex situation and break it down to it's simplistic form; the KISS theory (Keep It Simple Stupid). I do not and cannot claim to be a physics major. 2LOT could be used to discuss"thermonuclear fission", but that is not what we are discussing here. As related to the issue, the atmospheric and earth conditions which existed, when man alledgedly came on to the scene, cannot be duplicated. Simply put, scientist do not have enough or will they have ALL the information available to them to formulate concrete evidence. The only thing left is their "Theory", which needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. They will not be able to complete thier argument, unlesa a "time machine" is invented of course.[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Not my own words, but for the laymen like myself. [url="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/entropy.html"]http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...er/entropy.html[/url] - Entropy 2LOTs - [url="http://www.panspermia.com/seconlaw.htm"]http://www.panspermia.com/seconlaw.htm[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote name='Lawman' post='573046' date='Oct 19 2007, 08:38 AM']One of the things I attempt to do is, take a complex situation and break it down to it's simplistic form; the KISS theory (Keep It Simple Stupid). I do not and cannot claim to be a physics major. 2LOT could be used to discuss"thermonuclear fission", but that is not what we are discussing here. As related to the issue, the atmospheric and earth conditions which existed, when man alledgedly came on to the scene, cannot be duplicated. Simply put, scientist do not have enough or will they have ALL the information available to them to formulate concrete evidence. The only thing left is their "Theory", which needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. They will not be able to complete thier argument, unlesa a "time machine" is invented of course.[/quote] But the 2nd Law has absolutely nothing to do with your contention. That's what puzzles me. Is this obsession with the 2nd Law some kind of counterpoint to the element of "randomness" purported to be part of evolution theory? There are serious problems with making the argument this way, not to mention what it implies about the nature of Creation and the Creator. In any case, what I said earlier is heart-felt: it's clear you don't really understand just what it is you are arguing. That's something you can remedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 This explains it better. [url="http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm"]http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm[/url] The answer is that the universe is not a closed system because we know it is expanding, and thus will never reach its "heat death" (or ballance of when the tempatures are "evened out" like the black bucket example in the 1st thing I posted) What does this say about God? Well a God that created the universe in 6 days and then rested as the bible states, would have had to created a closed system if he truly created "all the universe" and then was done. However that isnt possible because we have seen it expanding. Thus it is still creating itself. So does that mean God is not possible? HELL NO!! Rather it means that he created the rules for what is seen and rests, and the universe continues to create itself based in his rules. How'd I do homer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='573060' date='Oct 19 2007, 09:26 AM']This explains it better. [url="http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm"]http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm[/url] The answer is that the universe [b]is not a closed system because we know it is expanding[/b], and thus will never reach its "heat death" (or ballance of when the tempatures are "evened out" like the black bucket example in the 1st thing I posted) What does this say about God? Well a God that created the universe in 6 days and then rested as the bible states, would have had to created a closed system if he truly created "all the universe" and then was done. However that isnt possible because we have seen it expanding. Thus it is still creating itself. So does that mean God is not possible? HELL NO!! Rather it means that he created the rules for what is seen and rests, and the universe continues to create itself based in his rules. How'd I do homer? [/quote] [i]Is it not possible that we are in a closed universe, consumed with invisible energy, which could be the cause of eternal expansion[/i]? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote name='Lawman' post='573142' date='Oct 19 2007, 11:26 AM'][i]Is it not possible that we are in a closed universe, consumed with invisible energy, which could be the cause of eternal expansion[/i]?[/quote] If the system is closed and God created the universe and everything in it and it was done, your going to eventually reach heat death. The water and the hot stone in the bucket will reach the same tempature so to speak. Now what EXACTLY that means I'm not sure, Im a laymen myself. In a closed system you also have the law of Conservation of energy, which states... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) "the conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in any closed system remains constant but can be recreated, although it may change forms, e.g. friction turns kinetic energy into thermal energy." "In thermodynamics, the first law of thermodynamics is a statement of the conservation of energy for thermodynamic systems, and is the more encompassing version of the conservation of energy. In short, the law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another, such as when electrical energy is changed into heat energy." Meaning that enegery cant be created or destroyed, only changed in format. The, heat from the stone warms the water untill heat death. So no, in a closed system the universe could not expand. What this means to me anyway, is that God when he created this stuff created the "blueprints" and left the rest up to the contractors, which is us, we are co-creators based in his rules or blue prints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|BlackJesus| Posted October 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]If religion wants to be taken seriously in the future .... they need to embrace the fact of Evolution ... and instead argue that God did the evolving. Anything short will make them into crackpot laughingstocks ... [/b][/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote name='BlackJesus' post='573359' date='Oct 19 2007, 04:19 PM'][font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]If religion wants to be taken seriously in the future .... they need to embrace the fact of Evolution ... and instead argue that God did the evolving. Anything short will make them into crackpot laughingstocks ... [/b][/size][/font][/quote] Speaking of which, via Counterpunch: [url="http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/"]Textbook Disclaimers[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='573060' date='Oct 19 2007, 09:26 AM']How'd I do homer? [/quote] Wink back atcha... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote name='Lawman' post='573142' date='Oct 19 2007, 11:26 AM'][i]Is it not possible that we are in a closed universe, consumed with invisible energy, which could be the cause of eternal expansion[/i]?[/quote] This sounds like the "Big Boom Theory," named for the noise my ass makes when the closed system of my gut cannot contain the expansion of the chili I ate last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote name='Homer_Rice' post='573395' date='Oct 19 2007, 10:13 PM']This sounds like the "Big Boom Theory," named for the noise my ass makes when the closed system of my gut cannot contain the expansion of the chili I ate last night.[/quote] Chili? Not hot brown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote name='Homer_Rice' post='573395' date='Oct 19 2007, 05:13 PM']This sounds like the "Big Boom Theory," named for the noise my ass makes when the closed system of my gut cannot contain the expansion of the chili I ate last night.[/quote] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//31.gif[/img] [i]We had a chili cook-off contest at work yesterday, did a little sharing myself at home [/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted October 20, 2007 Report Share Posted October 20, 2007 [quote name='Lawman' post='573434' date='Oct 19 2007, 06:35 PM'][img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//31.gif[/img] [i]We had a chili cook-off contest at work yesterday, did a little sharing myself at home [/i][/quote] I named mine Levi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.