I think professor tin foil here also subscribes to Brannigan's law.

And Brannigans law is like Brannigans love, hard and fast.

So you better be right, Esq, or your arse is in for a rough ride.

(May 10, 2014 at 5:05 pm)professor Wrote: To the OP.
Yes, I understand your theory.

I also understand there are only 2 areas which are provable-
Mathematics (where lying is quickly found out and serves no purpose).
And demonstrative science- "We did this - we got that".

So, what part of your God + Alien Invasion theory has been demonstrated scientifically again?

(May 10, 2014 at 5:05 pm)professor Wrote:

---

All other human endeavors are subject to interpretation, lying and manipulation.

It is foolish to denigrate those not on board with your theory.
You think everyone not in your ship are uninformed or stupid?
Give me a break.

Here is one I have often thought about:
Mechanically oriented people joke about Murphy's Law, which says "Anything that can go wrong will".
Your car (if you have one, or your bicycle tires) are a perfect example of this.
It better be right, or you will meet Murphy up close and intimate.

We who design things usually do everything possible to disable Murphy's Law.

---

That law, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics should be enough to put nails in the coffin of your theory.
Hope springs eternal doesn't it.

Way to completely misapply the 2nd law.

Quote:Actually, it is not difficult to find inaccurate statements regarding entropy in popular science literature.

---

Ever since the time it was first defined, entropy has been recognized as a most elusive quantity as far as understanding its physical significance is concerned. Defining it mathematically in terms of other quantities is no problem; however, this cannot be done to advantage in popular debates, a situation that creationists have been quick to capitalize on.

---

Entropy has been defined nonmathematically as a measure of disorder, equilibrium, uncertainty, and unavailability of energy. Actually, to consider only the entropy content of a system is not enough; a system can gain entropy and, at the same time, become more organized, unbalanced, and richer in information and available energy. (A few examples will be considered later on.) What is important is the entropy deficiency of the system. We define this as the difference between the system's entropy capacity (the maximum amount of entropy the system is capable of holding with its present energy content) and the amount of entropy it is actually holding. This deficiency may also be referred to as negentropy (short for negative entropy)—a concept which, had it been generally adopted, might have been less confusing than entropy. Negentropy, then, has been defined as a measure of order, information, lack of equilibrium, and the availability of energy for doing work.

http://ncse.com/cej/2/2/creationist-misu...use-second

Besides, I don't understand: what does any of this have to do with the impending alien invasion?

(May 10, 2014 at 2:35 pm)Chas Wrote: Unsourced? Do you not know of Wikipedia?

Yes, but just saying Wikipedia is a little broad, don'tcha think? It's customary to provide a link to the specific article, or at least the article title, so that others can check the context of the quote.

Quote:And, yes, it does support my position. It calls into question anything above the gene level.

Look at the parts that I bolded.

"the view that selection on other levels, such as organisms and populations, seldom opposes selection on genes is more controversial."

Your view is that selection on other levels reduces easily to selection on genes, i.e. selection on other levels seldom or never opposes selection on genes. Your own quote says that position is controversial.

Quote:There are no mechanisms known for evolution above the gene/phenotype level. That is why "group selection" has failed.

According to your own quote, more sophisticated models of group selection make accurate predictions.

(May 8, 2014 at 5:37 am)FreeTony Wrote:

(May 8, 2014 at 5:14 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Because to accept evolution and what it implies means you have to utterly reject the myth of Christianity.

And one of the hardest thing a person can do is give up what they believe.

It's quite easy to say "your're not meant to take that part literally" though. Apparently it is obvious to tell which bits are and are not literal, though the results of this determination seem to be entirely dependant on the education of the Christian.

I sometimes think I'm on an exclusively American Forum. The majority of Christians in England accept evolution and a whole lot of other stuff. The Church of England is very laid back about scriptural interpretation. It's the fundamentalists/religious Right in the US that take it all literally. As I have posted elsewhere on this forum, even the Pope recently announced the Catholic Church accepts evolution with the caveat that God started it all off. By the way, even if God set things off, it still does not follow that he has or wants a personal relationship with humans. There is evolution happening on other planets and some of them will no doubt give rise to intelligence. Will those intelligent species also be sent the alien equivalent of Jesus?

Rampant,
I was responding to the OP on his question which was about evolution.

Aside from the long winded psudo article on entropy you posted,
just look at your automobile, especially if you live in a winter wonderland,
the 2nd law can wipe out your investment in wheels in a decade and a half.

Only in the realm of wishful thinking does entropy fail to do the deed.

(May 10, 2014 at 5:05 pm)professor Wrote: It is foolish to denigrate those not on board with your theory.
You think everyone not in your ship are uninformed or stupid?
Give me a break.

Uninformed, yes. As I've said, I've never seen anyone that disagrees with evolution- particularly those who completely deny it- that actually understand it properly. That's not denigration, it's a simple observation that the arguments against evolution that we hear most commonly have expectations and demands for evolution that don't actually apply to evolution. They make it clear, when they use those objections, that their understanding of what the theory actually states is lacking (and by the way, if you pick on my use of the word "theory" to tell me that it's "still just a theory!" then you're proving my point.)

Case in point:

Quote: That law, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics should be enough to put nails in the coffin of your theory.
Hope springs eternal doesn't it.

Right here, you've demonstrated that you don't understand evolution or the second law of thermodynamics. I don't even need to speak to show why you're wrong, I can let a comic do it for me:



We aren't in a closed system, as the second law requires, and you just got rebutted by a single panel comic strip.

Does that feel good, helping me prove my point?

Open system/ closed system is just more BS jargon in favor of smoke-screening
reality.
In order for the sun to be beneficial to life, there has to be instructions within the
living cells to utilize it. Otherwise, the sun does nothing, except maybe wreck plastic.

(May 11, 2014 at 10:57 am)professor Wrote: Open system/ closed system is just more BS jargon in favor of smoke-screening
reality.
In order for the sun to be beneficial to life, there has to be instructions within the
living cells to utilize it. Otherwise, the sun does nothing, except maybe wreck plastic.

Congratualations. In my two years participating here at AF I don't think I have ever read such an idiotic post. Enrico is now off the hook.

Without evolved life there would be no plastic for the sun to wreck. You probably don't know that ancient life was also required to make plastic. I doubt you know what ethene is or where it comes from or its importance in the productions of plastic.

The fact that celebrating a particular birthday is the only requirement for you to vote really bugs the shit out of me.

(May 11, 2014 at 10:57 am)professor Wrote: Open system/ closed system is just more BS jargon in favor of smoke-screening
reality.
In order for the sun to be beneficial to life, there has to be instructions within the
living cells to utilize it. Otherwise, the sun does nothing, except maybe wreck plastic.

LOL!
Are you wanting to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics so they suit you?
The second law of thermodynamics states something very simple: given an isolated system, its entropy can never be negative.
The Earth is not an isolated system. A cell is not an isolated system. The Solar System is not an isolated system, but is close to one.

According to the latest intel, early life didn't require the sun's light directly. It then evolved in such a way that enabled it to use that light... the instructions you speak of evolved.
Plastic is a human invention... initially, a by-product of gasoline and diesel products during refinement from oil.

---

(May 11, 2014 at 11:09 am)Cato Wrote: The fact that celebrating a particular birthday is the only requirement for you to vote really bugs the shit out of me.

The biggest trouble is that there are many many many like him!

You fail at physics forever professor. The usual theist rethoric involves a great deal of ignorance. You spoke about the second law of thermodynamics. You can't even enunciate it, let alone understand it. If calling a spade a spade is denigrating, so be it. Those that speak the truth deserve no punishment.