Obamao's commie INJustice dept KGB goes after...conservative groups
-
So, according to Factcheck again... Ben Carson said this:
Carson, Sept. 22: Now you’re saying, there’s a Big Bang, a big explosion, and our solar system and our universe come into perfect alignment. Now I said you also believe in the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, right? “Yeah.” And I said, that states that things move toward a state of disorganization, right? “Yeah.” I said, so, how is there a Big Bang and instead of things moving toward disorganization they become perfectly organized to the point where we can predict 70 years hence when a comet is coming. How does that work? “Well. We don’t understand everything.”
-
I don't really wanna get into it, but the increasing entropy is actually measurable through cosmic microwave background radiation
Basically the big bang theory does not violate the laws of physics as we know them - but Ben Carson fabricates scientific laws because the big bang theory disagrees with his faith.
Ben Carson is a very talented and smart guy for sure, but being talented in one field doesn't directly translate to many other fields - where he's clearly lacking a bit.
-
So, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with random disorder.
So, Greene says the formation of a star increases the disorder.
So, again, given the magnificent order of the universe, the fascinating
miracle of the existence of biological life...
the human brain....
that is the opposite of "random" and "disorder".
So, how does that incredible order of the universe, and
all life on our planet, including the amazing human brain.....
happen, given the INCREASE or STABILITY of disorder?
Think about that. And yes, it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
-
No, no, no. you are missing the point. Using the big bang theory to explain, via random disorder...
the existence of life on earth, and the workings of the universe, and the human brain...
is a contradiction.
Given the law that says the disorder stays the same, or INCREASES in disorder...
makes our existence impossible.
there is no fabrication of laws. He just knows what he's talking about,
and you don't. That's all...
-
Alright, so a few comments:
Taking the assumption that Jesus believes homosexuality is a sin, based on your posts, people have no right to protest it. Making a law against something because it is a sin is no basis at all, because God will judge the gays. Basically it removes all "gays is sin" arguments from the anti gay marriage crowd (not that they were good arguments to begin with).
On healthcare, unless you're a complete ass that thinks every person on hard times is directly their own doing, it sounds like you're saying Jesus would want us to help them out.
The last point doesn't have to be about gays. What about black people and the history of racism in this country? Go back far enough and there were groups that thought blacks were a lesser race, but called themselves Christian. Sounds like they weren't Christian.
I just find the whole thing funny. Often politically conservative people use Jesus as a measuring stick, when Jesus seems like he'd be a pretty liberal dude. Of course, if you pick and choose your passages, and interpret how you see fit, you can make him be whatever.
Alright, so a few comments:
Taking the assumption that Jesus believes homosexuality is a sin, based on your posts, people have no right to protest it. Making a law against something because it is a sin is no basis at all, because God will judge the gays. Basically it removes all "gays is sin" arguments from the anti gay marriage crowd (not that they were good arguments to begin with).
No doubt there is much hypocrisy in this world. And those who judge others will answer to the Lord on judgement day. But remember even though you are fixated on homosexuality many things that we all do on a daily basis are considered sin. Lying cheating stealing coveting etcetera etcetera. And judging your fellow man.
On healthcare, unless you're a complete ass that thinks every person on hard times is directly their own doing, it sounds like you're saying Jesus would want us to help them out.
He would indeed. And there are many many Christian charities across the United States and the world. He would probably look kindly on those who advanced those efforts. Your point? Jesus was not involved in politics. That's probably what got him killed.
The last point doesn't have to be about gays. What about black people and the history of racism in this country? Go back far enough and there were groups that thought blacks were a lesser race, but called themselves Christian. Sounds like they weren't Christian.
That's true. Remember what I said about the hipocrisy?
And again he didn't meddle in politics.
Salvation comes from the Lord not from man no matter how rich you are before you die.
And calling yourself a Christian without adhering to the rules Jesus set down won't help you on judgement day.
It is ironic that bitter atheists often turn to this type of argument demanding that Jesus must also be liberal. Why is that?
The guy next door who fucks around on his wife will have to answer for that just as members of the Westboro Baptist Church.
WSS
I just find the whole thing funny. Often politically conservative people use Jesus as a measuring stick, when Jesus seems like he'd be a pretty liberal dude. Of course, if you pick and choose your passages, and interpret how you see fit, you can make him be whatever.
Nobody's picking and choosing. The rules are what they are. Many will be called to account for their actions.
-
So, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with random disorder.
So, Greene says the formation of a star increases the disorder.
So, again, given the magnificent order of the universe, the fascinating
miracle of the existence of biological life...
the human brain....
that is the opposite of "random" and "disorder".
So, how does that incredible order of the universe, and
all life on our planet, including the amazing human brain.....
happen, given the INCREASE or STABILITY of disorder?
Think about that. And yes, it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
So, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with random disorder.
So, Greene says the formation of a star increases the disorder.
So, again, given the magnificent order of the universe, the fascinating
miracle of the existence of biological life...
the human brain....
that is the opposite of "random" and "disorder".
So, how does that incredible order of the universe, and
all life on our planet, including the amazing human brain.....
happen, given the INCREASE or STABILITY of disorder?
Think about that. And yes, it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
This is something I'm not even going to argue. I trust all the explanations and measurements from the physicists over what Carson thinks.
Earth and humans are less than a spec of dust when talking about a system the scale of the universe.
-
Then I win by default. I thought I made a valid point - the miracle of life
doesn't fly with entropy.
-
I don't see physicists arguing with Carson. What's up with that jump to conclusion?
I'll take a neurosurgeon's understanding of life and the human brain over
a phsyicist all the time.
Because, even the expert brain scientists don't fully understand how brains work.
http://www.livescience.com/49113-do-scientists-understand-the-human-brain-video.html
http://physics.about.com/od/QuantumConsciousness/f/IsConsciousnessQuantum.htm
and, from the beginning of the human race, and life on earth.... even now we fully don't understand the
human brain.
And this is supposed to have just flippity'randomswitchedty by a big bang ?
nah. Read the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and about entropy - and Ben Carson is exactly correct.
-
The human brain doesn't disprove the big bang theory.
TBBT is pretty widely accepted given all the evidence for it (including being able to measure entropy)
"There are several main pieces of evidence that support the Big Bang theory. One is the fact that the universe is expanding, proven with something called red shift. The second is something called cosmic microwave background radiation. The third is the abundance of different elements in the universe."
Pretty much every astronomer and physicist agree with the theory because there's a whole sleuth of evidence that supports it.
-
1) Go ahead and take a neurosurgeons understanding of the human brain over a physicists. Of course, we aren't talking about the brain, we're talking about physics. In which case, listen to the physicists.
2) Are you really so deep into supporting Carson that you're taking his side on the 2nd Law of Thermo thing? You really think he is just now bringing to light this game changing, rule breaking evidence that no one else has ever thought of? Really?
3) You realize Earth is not a closed system right? The 2nd law of thermo is discussing closed systems. (If you google this topic and look at any reputable source/scientist talking about it, they'll say the same thing). Evolution, life on Earth, etc does not violate the 2nd law because the Earth isn't a closed system.
Don't use a scientific law to try to prove your point if you fundamentally misunderstand how that law works.
-
so, how do you "know" that the universe is NOT a closed system.
God only knows, yes?
I admit, I had to read up on that law. But his point still stands. I posted from the article.
If the entropy increases, or stays the same, but doesn't decrease... and entropy is a measurement of
disorder, then the disorder increases or stays the same.
Now, don't do the woodpecker dance around this question:
How the heck can you figure that the miracle of life, especially the design of the human brain,
which after all these centuries, we still don't fully understand it...
how the heck can a big bangsies create that? Biological life, especially the human brain, in it's fascinating
complexity... is hardly a random aspect of spontaneous disorder.
Answer it.
-
You do understand what your asking really has nothing to do any more with the 2nd law, right? You're using the "God of the Gaps" argument. If I can't completely describe to you how we went from the big bang to a human brain, you are going to claim any gap in info as proof of god. You see how flawed that is right? (no, wait, of course you don't)
The fact that you don't understand something doesn't mean A) No one does
No one ever will or C) god must exist...If god made humans in a few puffs of magic, why do we have vestigial organs and structures? Why do we breathe, communicate, eat and drink with the same hole, leading to thousands of choking deaths per year? Seems like a shitty design.
If you had to read up on the 2nd law to understand what it is, then you probably shouldn't be making statements about whether or not it is being used correctly. Especially statements attempting to support someone using it incorrectly, for the sole reason being that he has the same political beliefs as you. Carson is not using the 2nd law correctly. It doesn't go against the big bang. It doesn't go against evolution. Stop trying to say it does without understanding what you're talking about. His point does not stand, unless you are going to twist his point so that it still looks reasonable...
If your favorite conservative walked off a scientific bridge, would you? Your answer looks like yes.
If you want to make yourself look foolish and take the anti-evolution side here, be my guest. Just don't misuse scientific theories to try and prove a point. Carson's side and the side you're trying to defend boil down to nothing more than "This book says god did it, everything else must be wrong. So there". That isn't evidence. That isn't science. That's nothing.
-
NO. What nothing is, is a woodypeckerhead blabbing and blabbing and making claims
with no reason included.
the idea, birdbrain, is to believe that the miracle of life, especially the human brain, could
be a product of spontaneous random disorder.
You run your fat beak whenever you want, and it's usually when you don't have any damn idea
about a subject.
I'll ask it again, and maybe someone who isn't an asswipe birdbrain woodypeckerehead will try to answer.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has to do with entropy. And entropy is defined as a measurement of disorder.
And, given that the claim is that the entropy increases, or stays the same...
how is it that the human brain became about ? Entropy would have had to decrease to nearly zero.
But it doesn't decrease.
So? Of course the existence of the dramtically complex and fascinating brain defies that law.
If not, why not, and how do you explain both?
Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.
There have been nearly as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it.
— Philosopher / Physicist P.W. Bridgman, (1941)What you characters are missing is this:A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Creationism.
open systems/closed systems: open thermodynamic systems exchange heat, light, or matter with their surroundings, closed systems do not. No outside energy flows into a closed system. Earth is an open system; it receives outside energy from the Sun.
To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12
Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?
A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.
If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?
What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:
"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14
Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:
"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.
[see below for further evidence that the 2nd Law is a major problem for Evolution]
-
again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the 2nd law is. It deals with closed/isolated systems. The human brain is not this.
I get that you're trying to emulate you idol Carson, but it is a really bad look to reference scientific principles you don't understand. I mean, anyone taking the anti-evolution side already looks like an idiot, don't make it worse on yourself.
Everything I said in my original post still stands. The "God of the Gaps" argument is a terrible one. Evolution can explain the human brain, even if you may not be able to without gawd.
-
Ernst Mayr, Ph.D., Evolutionist:
"Living organisms, however, differ from inanimate matter by the degree of complexity of their systems and by the possession of a genetic program… The genetic instructions packaged in an embryo direct the formation of an adult, whether it be a tree, a fish, or a human. The process is goal-directed, but from the instructions in the genetic program, not from the outside. Nothing like it exists in the inanimate world."
[Ernst Mayr in Roger Lewin, “Biology Is Not Postage Stamp Collecting,” Science, Vol. 216, No. 4547 (May 14, 1982), pp. 718-720 (quote from p. 719, emphasis added).]
-
Or, you antagonistic nimrods + one woodypeckerhead can take a mathematician's word for it.
***************************************************************
If a creature could take, say, a kilogram of non-living, highly disordered material and turn it into a kilogram of highly ordered creature, then that would certainly be a big violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
-
did you even READ your own link? It says what I have been shouting at you for multiple posts now. Jesus fucking christ Cal. It literally explains why you're wrong in the same article...
-
and, one brilliant guy has a new theory about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics -
one that the existence of life does NOT
contradict.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
-
Do you read the articles you post? Any post you have made on this subject from actual, reputable, scientific sources (not ChristianAnswers) has disagreed with the argument you're trying to make. They saying what I've been posting for a while now, and the going into more detail to show why you're wrong.
This is actually a great case study on how your brain works. You want the 2nd law to go against life, so you search it in google. Then, you immediately pick the first links. Anything that looks like it has a promising line in, you post (good source or not... usually not). You don't ever read the article though, just the snippet google showed you. If you did, you would not have posted the article about the physicist or by the mathematician.
Keep trying though. This is funny.
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login