The lunacy of organized religion

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: misterj

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I feel incredibly sorry for the tens of millions of people who are hoodwinked and indoctrinated into these religions which are based upon thousand year old texts who accuracy can never be determined.

i feel sorry and pray for the lunacy of those without religion. try 2 billion christians out of the 6 billion total people in the world. add to that the remaining religions, and you are left with less than 16% of non-religious people.
google: world religion population

their accuracy has been determined. many accounts are historically correct. much skepticism lies in the fact that, it is in itself difficult to validate such ancient things, other than by other accepted ancient documents and artifacts.

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Clearly they were written by man, and not by God.

clearly those sincere enough to seek an answer learn that there is no question they were written by man. later they learn that they were *inspired* by God. further understanding lleads to more complex definitions of God, and leads to the conclusion that they *were* written by God.

skeptics skipping to the latter and taken out of context leaves them in the dark. it's almost comical how it seems He intended it this way. the above is so basic and easily one of the first premises you discover, yet there is so, so much more beyond imagination.

scoff at your computer and sit on your hands for as long as you want. the truth is there. seek and you will find. good luck.


btw interesting news about Anne Rice.

well for a work inspired by God it certainly had its share of revisions now didn't it. figured if it was inspired by God at least he'd get it right the first time?

all of these basic tenants that you believe in so strongly have no factual or logical basis whatsoever. it is your faith that allows you to believe in them, not reasoning or intellect. that is what I believe can be very dangerous about religions. people are fooled into believing things without ever questioning them.

The book was written thousands of years ago, the whole notion of Jesus being the son of God could all be one gigantic prank for all you know. Look at what the people believed in back then, it is quite possible some man did magic tricks to impress the locals and claim he was God. It is also possible that these stories got embellished and later when they were written down had almost nothing to do with what actually happened. The facts are that nobody has any idea what really happened, so to put so much stock in these things seems rather foolish to me. I suppose it would also be foolish to assume it never happened, but at this point I think the relevant facts that are out they are pushing me towards the notion that a majority of what supposedly happened never did happen.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tab
Yes, there are many uncommon terms associated with the subjects that are discussed on this board however the language is you use is the exact same that is used by "Christian Fundamentalists". The "complex language" used by those assoicated with that group isn't meant to extend the debate, but confuse and manipulate. "Christian Fundamentalists" are a very specific demographic group that you very easily fall into.

So, what issuses do you disagree with "Christian Fundamentalists"?

The language I introduce is that required to discuss such things, nothing more, nothing less. Christian fundamentalists have no need for such language as I have introduced, as they rely simply on the Bible, which certainly does not mention such language. Of course, you would know this if you had ever actually discussed these issues with a fundamentalist as I have. You would also recognize the language I use as that of the legal system pertaining to these issues if you ever picked up a book on the subject. Instead though, you'll try to paint me as a fundamentalist, even though it's clear to anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills that I'm not. Simply put, as I could have predicted as soon as you joined in this thread, you're not here for any rational discussion. You're only here to attack certain members of the discussion whom you disagree with. Why you disagree with them you don't even know, as you have never taken the time to form your own opinion on these things. Instead, you simply vacuum up the ideas of those whose political ideology is liberal, because you think that makes you open-minded. Just a little word of advice: if you're too open-minded, everything will fall right back out. Form your own opinions based on reason rather than talking points. Then, you will be able to defend them and hold a real discussion.

:roll:

Right, I am sure you know exactly who I've discussed politics with. I've discussed many political thoughts with many people, which of whom fall into the "Christian Fundamentalists" catagory. I've never said you're are a fundmentalist, what I am saying is you fall directly into that demographic catagory.

Somehow, I doubt I am vacumming up ideas. There is a severe lack of those on this board who have liberal views of society and are fiscially conservative. Yet, according to many political polls I fall directly into those that are would be considered "libertarian".

Who's here for rational discussion? Gee, I wonder...

"I sincerely doubt you want to quibble over the finer points of entropy with me, as your own example demonstrates that you don't really understand them. Instead, it's just your diversion to avoid the real issues that I laid out in great detail. Try to make yourself sound smart and me sound dumb rather than addressing any of the points. Anyway, I'm not going for it. I'm confident in my knowledge of the subject and won't dally trying to educate you on it."

"You're here waxing intellectual regarding things you obviously know very little about, and I have very little time to deal with your idiocy."

While reviewing the thread previouly, I noticed you missed Garth's care to address those points?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tab
Right, I am sure you know exactly who I've discussed politics with. I've discussed many political thoughts with many people, which of whom fall into the "Christian Fundamentalists" catagory. I've never said you're are a fundmentalist, what I am saying is you fall directly into that demographic catagory.

Maybe you should finish high school. That last year of English must be really important, as you would know that by saying I fall into that demographic category, then I would, indeed, be a fundamentalist. You simply use the word fundamentalist as a weapon in lieu of any argument, hoping to discredit me rather than addressing my points. Unfortunately, I am anything but a fundamentalist, so this falls flat on its face.

Somehow, I doubt I am vacumming up ideas. There is a severe lack of those on this board who have liberal views of society and are fiscially conservative. Yet, according to many political polls I fall directly into those that are would be considered "libertarian".

There are plenty of libertarians on this board. I can name at least ten off the top of my head. I know you're vacuuming for ideas because I never see a single original thought pop out of you. You never present an idea until after (usually, very shortly after) someone else proposes it in this forum.

Who's here for rational discussion? Gee, I wonder...

You're not capable of it, so I assume it's not you.

While reviewing the thread previouly, I noticed you missed Garth's care to address those points?

Why don't you quote something in particular? I believe I did address his misguided post previously, though perhaps only in a cursory fashion. In any case, he was apparently satisfied, since he has not come back with any more witty quips.

 

[Tab]

:roll:

Maybe you should finish high school. That last year of English must be really important, as you would know that by saying I fall into that demographic category, then I would, indeed, be a fundamentalist. You simply use the word fundamentalist as a weapon in lieu of any argument, hoping to discredit me rather than addressing my points. Unfortunately, I am anything but a fundamentalist, so this falls flat on its face.

No, you fall into the "Christian Fundamentalist" demographic catagory because of your vast opposition to abortion and gay marriage. For one to be associated with a catagory doesn't require them to adhear to each indiviual trait associated with the group. I am member of NDSU's College Democrats, yet my thoughts concerning the Death Penatly are completely opposite of the vast majority of indiviuals associated with my group.

There are plenty of libertarians on this board. I can name at least ten off the top of my head. I know you're vacuuming for ideas because I never see a single original thought pop out of you. You never present an idea until after (usually, very shortly after) someone else proposes it in this forum.

Libertarians are by far a minority on this board.

Why don't you quote something in particular? I believe I did address his misguided post previously, though perhaps only in a cursory fashion. In any case, he was apparently satisfied, since he has not come back with any more witty quips.

This weekend I didn't have any $1 bills on me, my friend gave me a dollar so I could get a pop. He hasn't asked that I pay him back, so I suppose he just doesn't care about the money I owe him...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tab
No, you fall into the "Christian Fundamentalist" demographic catagory because of your vast opposition to abortion and gay marriage. For one to be associated with a catagory doesn't require them to adhear to each indiviual trait associated with the group. I am member of NDSU's College Democrats, yet my thoughts concerning the Death Penatly are completely opposite of the vast majority of indiviuals associated with my group.

No. You can peg me as falling into a fundamentalist category, but not their demographic. Check the definition of that word before waving it around. Besides, I disagree with them on many political issues, so even the former would be incorrect. Of course, you're not interested in being correct, only in discrediting me.

Libertarians are by far a minority on this board.

And this is why you have so little to contribute. The pool that you draw your material from is relatively small. I'm probably the only populist on this board (even the only populist I know), yet I still have plenty to say. See the difference?

This weekend I didn't have any $1 bills on me, my friend gave me a dollar so I could get a pop. He hasn't asked that I pay him back, so I suppose he just doesn't care about the money I owe him...

How witty. Can't quote anything in particular that I didn't address?

 

[imported_Goo]

For me Religion is like gun, all depends on who is holding it.
I have seen Religion do wonder on people which I am happy for them. We have also seen Religion people do stupid thing "if" the leader is stupid. One thing I 120% hated is people use religion as a tool(exp. election), I believe religion and politics should not be mix.

Personally I don't care about religion, I have no interest in knowing where human/earth come from and I also have no interest what is going happen after I die. There is enough things that need my attention in my life, for me trying to figure out what happen many millions ago and millions yrs in the future is a waste of my time. Life is good and the best thing is you never know what happen the next sec, if there is after life, cool but I don't need to know now. I also like to walk on my own direction and have my own value for life, religion is good for many people but not for me for now.

 

[Red Dawn]

IMO it's not the organized religion is lunacy as much as to many Lunatics are in charge of organized religion.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Future Shock
Your confidence is your intellectual downfall. Real intellectuals respond on the basis of facts - all you have done is weakly try and malign my style. Poor show, lad.

Maybe you'd care to come sit in on my thermodynamics lecture next week. The going rate is about $4200 for the class, and I have about 65 students this semester. If you want to shell out the cash, I'll be more than happy to teach you the finer points. If not, then kindly piss off. You're here waxing intellectual regarding things you obviously know very little about, and I have very little time to deal with your idiocy.

please explain what the theory of entropy has to do with anything outside chem.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tab
While reviewing the thread previouly, I noticed you missed Garth's care to address those points?

Why don't you quote something in particular? I believe I did address his misguided post previously, though perhaps only in a cursory fashion. In any case, he was apparently satisfied, since he has not come back with any more witty quips.

My comments admittedly represented a bit of a digression from your other discussions, but it is worth noting that I looked for a response from you and did not find one.

I'd also like to add a brief comment on another, perhaps more relavant topic:

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Left unto themselves, things tend towards disorder. This is the second law of thermodynamics - that entropy always increases. Thus, no, complexity does not typically arise of its own accord.

And this holds true in every one of your science experiment examples. In every case you mentioned, you have specifically created a set of conditions under which order might be increased by inputing energy, either through work or heat. Thus, things are no longer left to themselves in the systems you described. However, even though you have input work and/or heat to the system, the overall entropy of the universe has still increased, despite your small, localized increase in order. This is the second law of thermodynamics. Are you going to dispute it still, or will you acknowledge that you don't understand it/just didn't know it?

Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel Prize in 1977 for his work with dissipative structures that showed in systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium, complex and orderly structures can form spontaneously, despite your contention here. I recommend THIS BOOK for more information.

Furthermore, you mentioned "the overall entropy of the universe," and I feel it is worth noting that such a notion is really quite meaningless because it is immesurable. It is not known how to treat the universe proper when it comes to thermodynamics because we do not know of if the universe has boundaries, if it has an environment, and what the total energy of the universe is (if it is even finite at all).

-Garth

 

[misterj]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
well for a work inspired by God it certainly had its share of revisions now didn't it. figured if it was inspired by God at least he'd get it right the first time?

i later posted "especially with the disarray of unity leading to false interpretations. this is why we have the church to guide us. (note: *one*, universal church. guess which that is?)"

He can't control the free will of people to go about misinterpreting, modifying, or removing things from it. the one and only version/interpretation is not modified. as for which, that is for you to find out as that would be an entirely new topic. (hint: "universal" church).

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: misterj

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I feel incredibly sorry for the tens of millions of people who are hoodwinked and indoctrinated into these religions which are based upon thousand year old texts who accuracy can never be determined.

i feel sorry and pray for the lunacy of those without religion. try 2 billion christians out of the 6 billion total people in the world. add to that the remaining religions, and you are left with less than 16% of non-religious people.
google: world religion population

their accuracy has been determined. many accounts are historically correct. much skepticism lies in the fact that, it is in itself difficult to validate such ancient things, other than by other accepted ancient documents and artifacts.

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
all of these basic tenants that you believe in so strongly have no factual or logical basis whatsoever. it is your faith that allows you to believe in them, not reasoning or intellect. that is what I believe can be very dangerous about religions. people are fooled into believing things without ever questioning them.

you believe it to be so. sincerely seek and you will find.

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
The book was written thousands of years ago, the whole notion of Jesus being the son of God could all be one gigantic prank for all you know. Look at what the people believed in back then, it is quite possible some man did magic tricks to impress the locals and claim he was God. It is also possible that these stories got embellished and later when they were written down had almost nothing to do with what actually happened. The facts are that nobody has any idea what really happened, so to put so much stock in these things seems rather foolish to me. I suppose it would also be foolish to assume it never happened, but at this point I think the relevant facts that are out they are pushing me towards the notion that a majority of what supposedly happened never did happen.

if you believe it to be so.. sincerely seek and you will find all the answers. all that you have asked can be easily addressed, but here it would just be an endless flamewar.

you can continue the flamewar to satisfy your impulses and end up where you started, or feel free to message me if you sincerely want to begin the journey. good luck.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
please explain what the theory of entropy has to do with anything outside chem.

Entropy is more typically used in developing power cycles (engines, power plants) than in chemistry. It dictates the efficiency of processes, tells you whether the process you designed is actually thermodynamically feasible or a pipe dream, and many other things. Your body expends gross amounts of energy to ward off entropy, preventing you from decomposing where you stand. Thus, it has much to do with everything outside of chemistry, even in your daily life.

Originally posted by: Garth
Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel Prize in 1977 for his work with dissipative structures that showed in systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium, complex and orderly structures can form spontaneously, despite your contention here. I recommend THIS BOOK for more information.

I never said structures can't form spontaneously. I just said that for this to occur, the conditions must be right.

Furthermore, you mentioned "the overall entropy of the universe," and I feel it is worth noting that such a notion is really quite meaningless because it is immesurable. It is not known how to treat the universe proper when it comes to thermodynamics because we do not know of if the universe has boundaries, if it has an environment, and what the total energy of the universe is (if it is even finite at all).

The entropy of the universe is not quantifiable, since we can't even quantify its size, much less its composition and pointwise conditions. However, its change due to a thermal process is readily quantifiable and is the basis for the second law of thermodynamics. Your demeaning of this tells me that you're not familiar with this law or its importance, and that you downplay it to further your agenda rather than out of any real sense of scientific concern.

If you'd care to repost your previous questions that I apparently did not address, I'll be more than happy to do so (or even direct me to the page that they're posted on).

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Garth
Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel Prize in 1977 for his work with dissipative structures that showed in systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium, complex and orderly structures can form spontaneously, despite your contention here. I recommend THIS BOOK for more information.

I never said structures can't form spontaneously. I just said that for this to occur, the conditions must be right.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for either you or FutureShock to summarize the main point of contention between you two with regard to thermodynamics, then. I'm not clear on what you contend and he disputes (or vice versa). What is your primary contention?

Furthermore, you mentioned "the overall entropy of the universe," and I feel it is worth noting that such a notion is really quite meaningless because it is immesurable. It is not known how to treat the universe proper when it comes to thermodynamics because we do not know of if the universe has boundaries, if it has an environment, and what the total energy of the universe is (if it is even finite at all).

The entropy of the universe is not quantifiable, since we can't even quantify its size, much less its composition and pointwise conditions.

Thanks for restating the obvious, genius. I must ask, though, given that it seems you understand my point, why do you continue to speak about the quantity of entropy of the universe? Do you agree that when you said, "However, even though you have input work and/or heat to the system, the overall entropy of the universe has still increased, despite your small, localized increase in order," you were speaking nonsense?

However, its change due to a thermal process is readily quantifiable and is the basis for the second law of thermodynamics.

Entropy is only quantifiable in smaller subsets of the universe. Changes to the quantity of entropy in systems IN the universe are not the same as changes to "the entropy of the universe."

Your demeaning of this tells me that you're not familiar with this law or its importance, and that you downplay it to further your agenda rather than out of any real sense of scientific concern.

This part of your response is perplexing. I haven't said anything false with regard to the laws of thermodynamics, so 1.) I can't be "demeaning" anything, and 2.) I am obviously familiar with the laws of thermodynamics. How you can then purport to know anything about my alleged "agenda" from the mere pointing out of pertinent facts is, frankly, breathtakingly arrogant and laughable.

If you'd care to repost your previous questions that I apparently did not address, I'll be more than happy to do so (or even direct me to the page that they're posted on).

It's on page 5, just below half-way down the page.

-Garth

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
please explain what the theory of entropy has to do with anything outside chem.

Entropy is more typically used in developing power cycles (engines, power plants) than in chemistry. It dictates the efficiency of processes, tells you whether the process you designed is actually thermodynamically feasible or a pipe dream, and many other things. Your body expends gross amounts of energy to ward off entropy, preventing you from decomposing where you stand. Thus, it has much to do with everything outside of chemistry, even in your daily life.

I know what the theory of entropy is. How it dictates that life and everything else is impossible, and necessitates the existance of a "god" is what i'm trying to get at.

BTW: i love that this conversation now has nothing to do with the OP at all, and we are discussing points in physics.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Reading back through the thread, CycloWizard, it seems that the issue with regard to thermodynamics is somewhat tangential to the point regarding evidence for a "Creator" or "Organizational Higher Power" of some sort. It seems that you expressed incredulity at the proposition that reality organized itself into its present state without the direct involvement of a god-type being. Is this an accurate assessment of the root of this discussion?

If so, could you explain a little more about the basis for your incredulity at the aforementioned proposition?

-Garth

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I agree, especially about the cult type chuches. I personally believe, but find the ways of organized religion depicable. Oh, and don't worry, the zealots will arrive shortly, so have your protective gear on.

completely agree. i'm a christian (and damn proud of it), but i hate it when people slap an elephant sticker on God and sell it to the masses. i don't understand why people can't take a second to get their heads out of their asses and realize that we all have to live on this planet until we die... so, until then, treat everyone like you want to be treated. no one likes zealots, lunacy, burning crosses on their lawn, a bible shoved in their face, a plane plowed into their buildings, being told they're going to hell, or having opposing beliefs turned into law.

when the fvck did it become ok for me to step on everyone else's nuts JUST BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN CHRIST?! answer: it never did... therefore, it shouldn't for anyone else, either. but, apparently, america/middle east is full of morons.... so, whatever. i'm going to live my life and let God take care of the idiots. i've already got enough on my plate.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Garth
Thanks for restating the obvious, genius. I must ask, though, given that it seems you understand my point, why do you continue to speak about the quantity of entropy of the universe? Do you agree that when you said, "However, even though you have input work and/or heat to the system, the overall entropy of the universe has still increased, despite your small, localized increase in order," you were speaking nonsense?

However, its change due to a thermal process is readily quantifiable and is the basis for the second law of thermodynamics.

Entropy is only quantifiable in smaller subsets of the universe. Changes to the quantity of entropy in systems IN the universe are not the same as changes to "the entropy of the universe."

Given your first remark, I would have assumed that you knew wtf you were talking about. Why else would you be such an ass? Then you made your second remark and I knew - it's just because you're an ass, not because you actually know anything. Change in the entropy of any system must be balanced by an equal or greater change in entropy of the universe. dS>=0. The second law of thermo. You're arguing with the second law of thermodynamics, not me. Thus, I can readily conclude that your subsequent statement, in which you claim to understand thermodynamics, is incorrect. As a consequence of this result, I can also conclude that any conclusions you reach based on your supposed knowledge of said subject are equally poor in quality and can be neglected.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
I know what the theory of entropy is. How it dictates that life and everything else is impossible, and necessitates the existance of a "god" is what i'm trying to get at.

Since entropy must increase without work, and the universe as we observe it is intrinsically ordered on all length scales, it is readily apparent that someone, somewhere along the line, put in all the work required to obtain this order (or, barring that, contrived systems that are capable of working on themselves). Since I'm a lazy bastard, I'm sure it wasn't me who did all this work. Was it you?

 

[kitkat22]

Wow, I can't believe I read through all that. Actually I found some of the comments very interesting. It's nice to see different perspectives from religious/non-religious folks. I am a religious person and as I've mentioned before on this forum I am a member of the LDS church. That will give some idea of where my points come from.
1) Organized religion has it's place in society. The first I can think of knowing what is happening with those in your congregation. Just as an example, what if a poor member of the congregation has their car breakdown and can no longer get to work? All of a sudden an associationship with a repairman makes sense. Let's say that poor person is a member of the local symphony orchestra and plays the violin very well. Wouldn't be great to have that person perform for the congregation? What if that performance inspires a young person to be interested in the arts and expand his horizons? There are so many possibilities with this that they are limitless. I will grant that some will see that it is a possibility to keep from "losing" members of the congregation. Or in other words, keep tabs on them so they don't go astray, even if they want to. I hope that never happens because I believe that it shouldn't. We all have a choice and if we want to follow through then fine.
2) Having morals isn't just about evading the consequences of the law. This is a basic principle, but if you touch a hot stove you get burned. You sleep around there is a greater chance you'll either get someone pregnant or contract a STD. There is no gov't law stating you shouldn't touch a hot stove or have sex with everyone you meet, but there are good reasons not to.
3) Science and religion to have to be mutually exclusive. I've used this analogy before, but if a religion claims to have the absolute truth then it must coincide with truths of science. Truth is truth and can't be seperated into multiple truths. Put into simple terms either 2+2 is 4 or it is not. Same goes for religion and science. However, we are not completely knowledgable on everything. Evolution may exist, but does it completely destroy religion? Not necessarily. It is quite possible that they coexist and still work. Think of it as a gigantic jigsaw puzzle, just because one piece does not fit does not mean we throw it out. It may just be that that piece fits somewhere else on the puzzle. Someday we may figure it out, we may never figure it out, but that still doesn't mean we should throw it out.

I hope that makes sense. I just wanted to add my perspective to the whole mix.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Given your first remark, I would have assumed that you knew wtf you were talking about. Why else would you be such an ass? Then you made your second remark and I knew - it's just because you're an ass, not because you actually know anything.

Physician, heal thyself!

Change in the entropy of any system must be balanced by an equal or greater change in entropy of the universe. dS>=0.

That doesn't make any sense. First, you continue to speak about "the entropy of the universe" as though it had meaning. It doesn't. dS>=0 holds only for isolated thermodynamic systems, but the universe is not known to be an isolated thermodynamic system. Without an idea of the total energy in the universe, you can't even begin to quantify its entropy, and you can't measure change in something that you can't quantify to begin with.

Second, in an isolated system, entropy increases and has no affect on ANYTHING in the system's environment. That's what it means to be an isolated system. So, it cannot be that changes in entropy in an isolated system need to be "balanced" by anything at all outside the system.

Lastly, I think the basic misunderstanding here is ultimately semantic. I agree that inputting energy into system A from system B, therby decreasing the entropy in A, must still result in a net increase of entropy in B that is greater than or equal to the decrease in A. I'm just saying that "the universe" is not suitably modelled by system B in such an example because we don't know if we can speak about the universe in toto as a thermodynamic system.

The second law of thermo. You're arguing with the second law of thermodynamics, not me.

Not really. I'm arguing with your terminology, it seems.

Thus, I can readily conclude that your subsequent statement, in which you claim to understand thermodynamics, is incorrect. As a consequence of this result, I can also conclude that any conclusions you reach based on your supposed knowledge of said subject are equally poor in quality and can be neglected.

This nonsense aside, what about the points on other subjects?

-Garth

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Since entropy must increase without work, and the universe as we observe it is intrinsically ordered on all length scales, it is readily apparent that someone somewhere along the line, put in all the work required to obtain this order.

I don't see how that can follow except from a hidden premise that the total energy of the universe is finite. Please acknowledge that premise and present an argument in its defense. To the best of my knowledge, that premise is not supported by available evidence.

-Garth

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
OK, if you want one free lesson in reading comprehension and thermodynamics wrapped into one, here it is. All of this from the posts I made previously that you quoted in your previous post.

Left unto themselves, things tend towards disorder. This is the second law of thermodynamics - that entropy always increases. Thus, no, complexity does not typically arise of its own accord.

And this holds true in every one of your science experiment examples. In every case you mentioned, you have specifically created a set of conditions under which order might be increased by inputing energy, either through work or heat. Thus, things are no longer left to themselves in the systems you described. However, even though you have input work and/or heat to the system, the overall entropy of the universe has still increased, despite your small, localized increase in order. This is the second law of thermodynamics. Are you going to dispute it still, or will you acknowledge that you don't understand it/just didn't know it?

No, actually I did know that, but I'm going to dispute that it has ANY applicability. There is no shortage of energy input in the universe - conductive heat, light, open flame, sparks, etc. We are talking about could life have arisen on it's own, and so therefore it doesn't matter a rat's ass if it takes external energy input to do so. You are trying to hide behind a law of thermodynamics to show that life couldn't have arisen on it's own - which is a fatally flawed analysis, as the your're assumptions (no external energy input) is clearly not true to life. And we are talking about the real world here, not your text book or in a lab. In the real world, there are plenty of external energy inputs. My "small, localised increase in order" as you put it could very nicely fit the definition of the genesis of life...and frankly, that's what this debate is about, not thermo laws.

The weird thing about complex biochemistry is that it DOES have a tendancy to self-organize.

This is true to an extent, though not as you stated it. Most reaction networks in a biochemistry setting start with a given set of reactants and proceed through a complex mechanism, only to arrive at a single (or a handful) of product species, despite the possibility of forming literally thousands of intermediate species along the way. Why does this happen? Because the conditions in which the reactions occur force the reaction to that end by manipulating thermodynamic properties (i.e. equilibrium constants) and rate constants by controlling temperature, osmolarity, enzyme concentrations, and so on (I highly recommend a literature search on Prof. Linda Broadbelt from Northwestern Univ., as she has done a lot of work in this area). Then, one might ask, how does the body know that these specific conditions need to exist for the synthesis of all the required amino acids, proteins, and what-have-you?[/quote]

The BODY doesn't have to - because a BODY didn't spring up from nothing overnight. Rather, evolution posits that basic amino acids formed from exisiting chemicals (which I have supplied evidence of previously), and that these amino acids randomly formed and eventually randomly assembled into protiens - over a LONG time, and with lots of chances to go wrong.

With TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of stars, and all of the Generation II stars having the basic building blocks of heavier elements, it was simply a matter of trial and error, or random chance, that SOMETIME these amino acids would eventually find the right conditions and right chance to forumulate self-replicating life. That idea is CENTRAL to my point - we aren't here because of some ID or god, but because we DIDN'T come into being in any of several trillion other potential starsystems. Believers in ID or god point to our existance and say "SEE? It's complex, it's amazing, something must have brought us into being". Yeah, but that THING is simple Statistics 101, not an IDer or a god. Trillions and Trillions of stars, Billions of years - and what do you know, somewhere, sometime, those amino acids finally got it right.

The ID or god crowd is simply painting the targets after they have fired the arrows into the side of the barn...and then professing to being amazed at how good the archer was. (For those that don't recognize it, it's an old parable)

How can the body possibly control its temperature in a pointwise sense closer than any man-made process control scheme could hope to? Life exists because of this control scheme - it could not exist without it, yet the control scheme must have evolved as the first step of life. Else, there would be no second step on the evolutionary ladder. From an engineering perspective, this is a miracle. The petroleum industry spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year to attempt to achieve anything remotely resembling this type of control, yet they can't achieve it. While you can argue that this is coincidence, that evolution forced things to be this way, I say it is still a miracle. And yes, I do believe in evolution.

I just bought a sat nav system for my Land Rover tonight, and a hundred years ago people would have proclaimed it impossible, and 300 years ago I'd have been burned as a witch. "Signals - from SPACE? Guiding you? TALKING to you! You must be evil..." My point being that just because something is advanced, and even beyond our science to understand fullly, still doesn't make it a miracle. Unless you have a Second Law of Miracles you'd like to pontificate about... ;-)

Duve's statement is based on faith. Such an occurrence has never been witnessed - there is no data to support it any more than there is the Christian story of creationism. This comes back to another infamous debate that I won't get into.

No, Duve's statement is based simply on his learned opinion, not on "faith". A learned opinion is just that - an opinion. Faith claims to be much more than that - I don't remember ever hearing a pastor saying to have "a positive opinion" about god.

In summary, nearly everyone posting followup to this forum has backed my point of view: you're simply wrong in your analysis of the real-world situation, despite how every many thermo laws you wish to spout - because it ISN'T about thermodynamics. Game over, chump. It's been a long time since I've seen someone cling so tightly to a shred of a definitional point, and loose the larger picture so badly. Given the "logic" that you are applying to the situation, I suggest that it is likely that the rest of your academic career will follow a similar path - off point and irrelevant.

Future Shock

N.B. - and your candyass personal insults ring so hollow..."asshat", "asswipe", "assinine", "stfu"...blah, blah, blah...you should have taken some English classes along with all that science, you might know more words...

 

[xaeniac]

sheep need a shephard

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Garth
I don't see how that can follow except from a hidden premise that the total energy of the universe is finite. Please acknowledge that premise and present an argument in its defense. To the best of my knowledge, that premise is not supported by available evidence.

As mentioned previously, that's your shortcoming, not mine. Your lack of ability to understand it doesn't mean it's incorrect.

dS>=0

This mathematical statement of the second aw affirms that every process proceeds in such a direction that the total entropy change associated with it is positive, the limiting value of zero being attained only by a reversible process. No process is possible for which the total entropy decreases.

Source: Smith JM, Van Ness Hc, Abbott MM. Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, Sixth Ed., p. 171.

Originally posted by: Future Shock
No, actually I did know that, but I'm going to dispute that it has ANY applicability. There is no shortage of energy input in the universe - conductive heat, light, open flame, sparks, etc. We are talking about could life have arisen on it's own, and so therefore it doesn't matter a rat's ass if it takes external energy input to do so. You are trying to hide behind a law of thermodynamics to show that life couldn't have arisen on it's own - which is a fatally flawed analysis, as the your're assumptions (no external energy input) is clearly not true to life. And we are talking about the real world here, not your text book or in a lab. In the real world, there are plenty of external energy inputs. My "small, localised increase in order" as you put it could very nicely fit the definition of the genesis of life...and frankly, that's what this debate is about, not thermo laws.

I corrected myself to indicate that work input is required to decrease entropy, not simply any form of energy input. Thus, while there is energy aplenty, there must still be an agent to apply work to the system to decrease its entropy. Oh, and if you don't think the laws of thermo apply outside a lab, then you'd better head back to wherever you got your 'degree' and demand a refund. You got ripped off, Chucko.

 

[ijester]

I would like to go somewhat back on topic.

One of the main paradigms of the human belief system is that 99% of everything we 'Know' to be true, is simply faith of one kind or another. Simply put, if you haven't directly observed something, you are exercising faith in other people and what you are being told is true. How many people really 'Know' that the way their car can tell them how to get to a specific destination is because there are satellites in the sky? Have you seen them up there firsthand? You might have seen a light that you were told was a satellite. But you don't really know it the same way you know that your car is in the driveway because you can see it sitting there. We all know a lot of things simply because "Everyone knows that" and from what we are taught by the various social systems currently in place.

The problem with organized religion, I believe, comes from those who take our ability to have faith in what we learn from and are told by perceived authority figures and twist it for their self-aggrandizement. It does not seem so strange to me that the human capacity for faith and hope should lead to a belief in a deity, a chance to carry on beyond our small existence in the midst of the harshness that befalls so many of us in the living of our daily lives. But when personal and political aspirations cause some to prey on that for nothing more than the chance to accumulate their own (power, money, sex with small boys, etc. etc.......), then we are all made smaller as a result.

Religion and/or lack of same can and should be a personal choice, based on an individuals beliefs, learning, opinions, upbringing and any other knowledge they have accumulated and not the result of some form of twisted psychological blackmail eg: "Either you believe what we do, or you go to Hell", or "You don't believe what we do, so we will now kill you all".

I am not a religious person, but I still do not understand the enmity engendered by the whole "Creation vs. Evolution" argument. I do not 'Know' there is no God, but I also realize that if there was one, he could certainly have created the universe to function as it does, and evolution could have been a guided process just as easily as it could have been random chance. Until these things are proven definitively one way or the other, I am unwilling to shut out the possibilities.

Darryn

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
I know what the theory of entropy is. How it dictates that life and everything else is impossible, and necessitates the existance of a "god" is what i'm trying to get at.

Since entropy must increase without work, and the universe as we observe it is intrinsically ordered on all length scales, it is readily apparent that someone, somewhere along the line, put in all the work required to obtain this order (or, barring that, contrived systems that are capable of working on themselves). Since I'm a lazy bastard, I'm sure it wasn't me who did all this work. Was it you?

while structure is obdvious, is this not the work of gravity, weak and strong force, and electromagnetism? That is, isn't the order that we observe on a macro scale the result of these forces?

I'm not up enough on my physics to talk in any more than vague generalities, or what effect these forces would have on entropy. I'll leave that to you.

 

[VIAN]

I feel the exact same way as the OP. Religion is a monster. It's like organized brainwashing.