Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Inevitability of the End of the Species

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 5:52:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So, one of the fiction authors I enjoy reading, and one of the original Nerdfighters, John Green, in his latest novel, THE FAULT IN OUR STARS, gives us through the main characters one of the most philosophically stirring passages from fiction I've read:

"There will come a time when all of us are dead—ALL of us. There will come a time when there are no human beings remaining to remember that anyone ever existed or that our species ever did anything. There will be no one left to remember Aristotle or Cleopatra, let alone you. Everything that we did, and built, and wrote, and thought, and discovered will be forgotten and all of this will have been for naught. Maybe that time is coming soon, and maybe it's millions of years away but even if we survive the collapse of our sun, we will not survive forever. There was a time before organisms experienced consciousness and there will be time after. And if the inevitability of human oblivion worries you, I encourage you to ignore it. God knows everyone else does." - THE FAULT IN OUR STARS, by John Green.

What do you think about this quote? Comments? Disagreements? etc?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 6:21:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think understanding this is one of the keys to unlocking happiness.

That's keepin' it real.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
MasterKage
Posts: 1,257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 6:51:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In about five billion years the sun will burn up and destroy the Earth. By then, I will be dead and my corpse won't even exist anymore. So, no I have no reason to worry about it. It is inevitable. And I will be dead by the time it happens.
This signature is full of timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 7:10:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Everything dies... everything. Nothing can escape entropy. Eventually even our Sun will burn out. Should there be any organisms still alive by this time, this will kill everything... even bacteria.

What do I think about it?

Sh*t happens. Embrace the suck.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 7:14:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 5:52:01 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
So, one of the fiction authors I enjoy reading, and one of the original Nerdfighters, John Green, in his latest novel, THE FAULT IN OUR STARS, gives us through the main characters one of the most philosophically stirring passages from fiction I've read:

"There will come a time when all of us are dead—ALL of us. There will come a time when there are no human beings remaining to remember that anyone ever existed or that our species ever did anything. There will be no one left to remember Aristotle or Cleopatra, let alone you. Everything that we did, and built, and wrote, and thought, and discovered will be forgotten and all of this will have been for naught. Maybe that time is coming soon, and maybe it's millions of years away but even if we survive the collapse of our sun, we will not survive forever. There was a time before organisms experienced consciousness and there will be time after. And if the inevitability of human oblivion worries you, I encourage you to ignore it. God knows everyone else does." - THE FAULT IN OUR STARS, by John Green.

What do you think about this quote? Comments? Disagreements? etc?

The Fool: Philsopher or theologin? yeah its a theologin. They have recently started calling themselfs philosophers .. to hide under its banner .. to try and regain there complete lose of CREDIBILITY very slithering and sneaky Sophists .. I can sniff them out. lll
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 7:18:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
about five billion years the sun will burn up and destroy the Earth. By then, I will be dead and my corpse won't even exist anymore. So, no I have no reason to worry about it. It is inevitable. And I will be dead by the time it happens.

Report PostReply & QuoteAdd PostPARADIGM_L0ST
34-year old male in Austin, Texas, United States.Debates: 11Wins: 60.00%Percentile: 93rdIdeology: LibertarianParty: UndecidedOnline: Right NowPARADIGM_L0ST

Posts: 5,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message 2/10/2012 7:10:37 PMPosted: 3 minutes ago
Everything dies... everything. Nothing can escape entropy. Eventually even our Sun will burn out. Should there be any organisms still alive by this time, this will kill everything... even bacteria.

The Fool: No they are false claims. don't listion to the Sophist. Entrophy has a problem. because as these external things break down into vagueness..

LIFE becomes MORE COMPLECATED and COMPLEXE, EVOLUTION CONTRADICT THE LAW OF ENTROPY IN ITS FACE!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 7:21:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 6:51:07 PM, MasterKage wrote:
In about five billion years the sun will burn up and destroy the Earth. By then, I will be dead and my corpse won't even exist anymore. So, no I have no reason to worry about it. It is inevitable. And I will be dead by the time it happens.

Right so it is in the evolution of ideas. technology to get out of here.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 7:33:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: No they are false claims. don't listion to the Sophist. Entrophy has a problem. because as these external things break down into vagueness..

LIFE becomes MORE COMPLECATED and COMPLEXE, EVOLUTION CONTRADICT THE LAW OF ENTROPY IN ITS FACE!:

I'm not referring to creationist conceptions of entropy nor the 2LoT.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
MasterKage
Posts: 1,257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 7:36:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 7:21:49 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/10/2012 6:51:07 PM, MasterKage wrote:
In about five billion years the sun will burn up and destroy the Earth. By then, I will be dead and my corpse won't even exist anymore. So, no I have no reason to worry about it. It is inevitable. And I will be dead by the time it happens.

Right so it is in the evolution of ideas. technology to get out of here.

No, in five million years the sun will be five times the size it is now. So even if we colonize another planet. It most likely, won't make enough difference.
This signature is full of timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 8:34:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 7:36:10 PM, MasterKage wrote:
At 2/10/2012 7:21:49 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/10/2012 6:51:07 PM, MasterKage wrote:
In about five billion years the sun will burn up and destroy the Earth. By then, I will be dead and my corpse won't even exist anymore. So, no I have no reason to worry about it. It is inevitable. And I will be dead by the time it happens.

Right so it is in the evolution of ideas. technology to get out of here.

No, in five million years the sun will be five times the size it is now. So even if we colonize another planet. It most likely, won't make enough difference.

DO you realize how long that is for technological advancement? five million years

what I mean by life is that we are a point in the life cycle that we can now use the life that we came from and which we are and use that in our favour. biotech is a whole new deal.. that gives us the power of life.. to actauly make bio manipulatoin in our power!!

I don't most people right now realize how much possiblity is ahead. Five million years!! the way we know the universe might completly find whole new dimentions.. sounds like alot .. all we know is we are here and we are part of this process. and it is intuitive in all living things to survive. if we don't evolve we can increase are knowledge(evolve our ideas) and create something that does. I know this sounds "out there" but I am just giving you some examples of the capabilities are We are finding dark matter. There lots of possibilties. and lots of time.

What no I wasntt saying anything again a creationalist modal.(that just religous resistance). I am saying regardless life is a contradition to the phyisical entropy modal.. So its like there are two things happening is opposite directions. . we dont really know what happent to the energy when it break down in entropy it become vague and fades away. we might just not recognize what happens to it. So there is still lots of hope.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 8:38:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 7:33:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The Fool: No they are false claims. don't listion to the Sophist. Entrophy has a problem. because as these external things break down into vagueness..

LIFE becomes MORE COMPLECATED and COMPLEXE, EVOLUTION CONTRADICT THE LAW OF ENTROPY IN ITS FACE!:

I'm not referring to creationist conceptions of entropy nor the 2LoT.

hostly Its just madness . you also have to understand that america by far the last western country to move on with that already, so these other advances our probably less popular around their, because there is lots of resistence and manipulation of contradicting idea.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 1:04:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 7:18:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
about five billion years the sun will burn up and destroy the Earth. By then, I will be dead and my corpse won't even exist anymore. So, no I have no reason to worry about it. It is inevitable. And I will be dead by the time it happens.

Report PostReply & QuoteAdd PostPARADIGM_L0ST
34-year old male in Austin, Texas, United States.Debates: 11Wins: 60.00%Percentile: 93rdIdeology: LibertarianParty: UndecidedOnline: Right NowPARADIGM_L0ST

Posts: 5,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message 2/10/2012 7:10:37 PMPosted: 3 minutes ago
Everything dies... everything. Nothing can escape entropy. Eventually even our Sun will burn out. Should there be any organisms still alive by this time, this will kill everything... even bacteria.


The Fool: No they are false claims. don't listion to the Sophist. Entrophy has a problem. because as these external things break down into vagueness..

LIFE becomes MORE COMPLECATED and COMPLEXE, EVOLUTION CONTRADICT THE LAW OF ENTROPY IN ITS FACE!

Yeah...not how that works.

Entropy can decrease when subjected to an open system. If earth had some way of receiving energy, some massive object out there providing rays of...something or other (this only stumped Kent Hovind) then matter can decrease in entropy.

Think of a lightbulb. If a lightbulb is a closed system, there's a bit of light and then it turns into heat and other forms of energy. If it's an open system (electric cord) then it can continually produce light (low entropy) which then increases in entropy (heat).

The universe as a whole is a closed system, meaning over time entropy increases until "heat death."

You aren't actually a creationist, are you?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:18:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 1:04:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/10/2012 7:18:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
about five billion years the sun will burn up and destroy the Earth. By then, I will be dead and my corpse won't even exist anymore. So, no I have no reason to worry about it. It is inevitable. And I will be dead by the time it happens.

Report PostReply & QuoteAdd PostPARADIGM_L0ST
34-year old male in Austin, Texas, United States.Debates: 11Wins: 60.00%Percentile: 93rdIdeology: LibertarianParty: UndecidedOnline: Right NowPARADIGM_L0ST

Posts: 5,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message 2/10/2012 7:10:37 PMPosted: 3 minutes ago
Everything dies... everything. Nothing can escape entropy. Eventually even our Sun will burn out. Should there be any organisms still alive by this time, this will kill everything... even bacteria.


The Fool: No they are false claims. don't listion to the Sophist. Entrophy has a problem. because as these external things break down into vagueness..

LIFE becomes MORE COMPLECATED and COMPLEXE, EVOLUTION CONTRADICT THE LAW OF ENTROPY IN ITS FACE!

Yeah...not how that works.

Entropy can decrease when subjected to an open system. If earth had some way of receiving energy, some massive object out there providing rays of...something or other (this only stumped Kent Hovind) then matter can decrease in entropy.

Think of a lightbulb. If a lightbulb is a closed system, there's a bit of light and then it turns into heat and other forms of energy. If it's an open system (electric cord) then it can continually produce light (low entropy) which then increases in entropy (heat).

The universe as a whole is a closed system, meaning over time entropy increases until "heat death."

You aren't actually a creationist, are you?

I taking about Real science.. I have know Idea what you talking about
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:21:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 11:18:04 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/11/2012 1:04:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/10/2012 7:18:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
about five billion years the sun will burn up and destroy the Earth. By then, I will be dead and my corpse won't even exist anymore. So, no I have no reason to worry about it. It is inevitable. And I will be dead by the time it happens.

Report PostReply & QuoteAdd PostPARADIGM_L0ST
34-year old male in Austin, Texas, United States.Debates: 11Wins: 60.00%Percentile: 93rdIdeology: LibertarianParty: UndecidedOnline: Right NowPARADIGM_L0ST

Posts: 5,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message 2/10/2012 7:10:37 PMPosted: 3 minutes ago
Everything dies... everything. Nothing can escape entropy. Eventually even our Sun will burn out. Should there be any organisms still alive by this time, this will kill everything... even bacteria.


The Fool: No they are false claims. don't listion to the Sophist. Entrophy has a problem. because as these external things break down into vagueness..

LIFE becomes MORE COMPLECATED and COMPLEXE, EVOLUTION CONTRADICT THE LAW OF ENTROPY IN ITS FACE!

Yeah...not how that works.

Entropy can decrease when subjected to an open system. If earth had some way of receiving energy, some massive object out there providing rays of...something or other (this only stumped Kent Hovind) then matter can decrease in entropy.

Think of a lightbulb. If a lightbulb is a closed system, there's a bit of light and then it turns into heat and other forms of energy. If it's an open system (electric cord) then it can continually produce light (low entropy) which then increases in entropy (heat).

The universe as a whole is a closed system, meaning over time entropy increases until "heat death."

You aren't actually a creationist, are you?

I taking about Real science.. I have know Idea what you talking about

You are not talking about real science . . . Wnope's explanation is completely correct. I suggest you read a textbook once in a while.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 1:14:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 11:21:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/11/2012 11:18:04 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/11/2012 1:04:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/10/2012 7:18:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
about five billion years the sun will burn up and destroy the Earth. By then, I will be dead and my corpse won't even exist anymore. So, no I have no reason to worry about it. It is inevitable. And I will be dead by the time it happens.

Report PostReply & QuoteAdd PostPARADIGM_L0ST
34-year old male in Austin, Texas, United States.Debates: 11Wins: 60.00%Percentile: 93rdIdeology: LibertarianParty: UndecidedOnline: Right NowPARADIGM_L0ST

Posts: 5,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message 2/10/2012 7:10:37 PMPosted: 3 minutes ago
Everything dies... everything. Nothing can escape entropy. Eventually even our Sun will burn out. Should there be any organisms still alive by this time, this will kill everything... even bacteria.


The Fool: No they are false claims. don't listion to the Sophist. Entrophy has a problem. because as these external things break down into vagueness..

LIFE becomes MORE COMPLECATED and COMPLEXE, EVOLUTION CONTRADICT THE LAW OF ENTROPY IN ITS FACE!

Yeah...not how that works.

Entropy can decrease when subjected to an open system. If earth had some way of receiving energy, some massive object out there providing rays of...something or other (this only stumped Kent Hovind) then matter can decrease in entropy.

Think of a lightbulb. If a lightbulb is a closed system, there's a bit of light and then it turns into heat and other forms of energy. If it's an open system (electric cord) then it can continually produce light (low entropy) which then increases in entropy (heat).

The universe as a whole is a closed system, meaning over time entropy increases until "heat death."

You aren't actually a creationist, are you?

I taking about Real science.. I have know Idea what you talking about

You are not talking about real science . . . Wnope's explanation is completely correct. I suggest you read a textbook once in a while.

has creationalism done observational experiments ?
AKA
scienctic method
1. formulate a hypothis from observable information
2. then create a falsyfiable experiment.
3. test the experiment which can validation or devalidate the theory
4. is the thoery hold true then we could extend it by predicting something else

has this happened with creationalism.
how is it science or there scientist would have not done experiments.
What predictions about the future can be made from creationaist experiments..
How does it increase our ability to manipulate the world around us..

science is not againt creationism, it is against supernatural explanations.
because there is not predicting power. THerefore is a useless in science
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 1:16:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 1:14:16 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/11/2012 11:21:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/11/2012 11:18:04 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/11/2012 1:04:28 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/10/2012 7:18:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
about five billion years the sun will burn up and destroy the Earth. By then, I will be dead and my corpse won't even exist anymore. So, no I have no reason to worry about it. It is inevitable. And I will be dead by the time it happens.

Report PostReply & QuoteAdd PostPARADIGM_L0ST
34-year old male in Austin, Texas, United States.Debates: 11Wins: 60.00%Percentile: 93rdIdeology: LibertarianParty: UndecidedOnline: Right NowPARADIGM_L0ST

Posts: 5,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message 2/10/2012 7:10:37 PMPosted: 3 minutes ago
Everything dies... everything. Nothing can escape entropy. Eventually even our Sun will burn out. Should there be any organisms still alive by this time, this will kill everything... even bacteria.


The Fool: No they are false claims. don't listion to the Sophist. Entrophy has a problem. because as these external things break down into vagueness..

LIFE becomes MORE COMPLECATED and COMPLEXE, EVOLUTION CONTRADICT THE LAW OF ENTROPY IN ITS FACE!

Yeah...not how that works.

Entropy can decrease when subjected to an open system. If earth had some way of receiving energy, some massive object out there providing rays of...something or other (this only stumped Kent Hovind) then matter can decrease in entropy.

Think of a lightbulb. If a lightbulb is a closed system, there's a bit of light and then it turns into heat and other forms of energy. If it's an open system (electric cord) then it can continually produce light (low entropy) which then increases in entropy (heat).

The universe as a whole is a closed system, meaning over time entropy increases until "heat death."

You aren't actually a creationist, are you?

I taking about Real science.. I have know Idea what you talking about

You are not talking about real science . . . Wnope's explanation is completely correct. I suggest you read a textbook once in a while.

has creationalism done observational experiments ?
AKA
scienctic method
1. formulate a hypothis from observable information
2. then create a falsyfiable experiment.
3. test the experiment which can validation or devalidate the theory
4. is the thoery hold true then we could extend it by predicting something else

has this happened with creationalism.
how is it science or there scientist would have not done experiments.
What predictions about the future can be made from creationaist experiments..
How does it increase our ability to manipulate the world around us..

science is not againt creationism, it is against supernatural explanations.
because there is not predicting power. THerefore is a useless in science

Your argument needs to be more coherent. A few posts ago, you argued that evolution contradicted the Second Law. When Wnope and I pointed out that this was flawed reasoning, you switched your position to something else.

Creationism is a supernatural explanation for the creation of the universe. According to your own logic, it is pseudoscience at best and fraud at worst.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 2:47:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 1:16:48 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

Royal Sophist: our argument needs to be more coherent.

The Fool: yes mame!! I will try and improve that!! ;)

Royal Sophist: A few posts ago, you argued that evolution contradicted the Second Law.

The Fool: I don;t don't remember saying anything like that about this.. I think it was read from a creationalist framework. so it was probably misinterpreted. But you did recognize something really special. But it is not creationalist base. Nore faith based nore supernatural. You have to much 'mushmind' too understand these matters.

The Fool: I said that evolution and entropy were in contradiction. Which simply means not every is breaking down. Evolution is easy to demonstrate. One of the thousand experment was that We take a wild aggresive wolfs and only mate the least agressive with the least aggresive over time we get completly non-agressive wolve. that is we act at the enviroment and this forces cause gentitic changes in the wolve..(this is just one experiment) seconly, you do know that all dogs.. come from the wolf right. we have been the enviroment which have manipulate them into the dogs we have now..

It is falsyfiably because if we were not successuffl in that experiment is would mean evolution was false.

Royal Sophist: When Wnope and I pointed out that this was flawed reasoning, you switched your position to something else.

The Fool: Yes, I am aways switching . that is is the trick..!! you finally caught me....aaaaaw ;(

Royal Sophist: Creationism is a supernatural explanation for the creation of the universe. According to your own logic, it is pseudoscience at best and fraud at worst.

The Fool: Yes I am pretty sure supernatural could explain anything is wants!! lol
I do admit I suffer ignorance of supernatural logic. I am only a natural human ;( My bad.
But I am pretty sure supernatural explanations or not the same as natural explanations. So mabye

The Fool: yes I will try and use another logic next time. . its appears I have been fooled again. I am eager learn the This other logic. I better start reading now..

'mushmind' is caused by being give the same answer for every question. god. god. god. now you have 'mushmind' its very hard to tried.

Let those be the words of a Fool!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 2:51:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 2:47:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/11/2012 1:16:48 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

'mushmind' is caused by being given the same answer for every question. god. god. god. now you have 'mushmind' its very hard to treat. But there is hope yet. you are still young enough.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 12:17:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Evolution and entropy are in contradiction?

Evolution is simply change, not growth. Organisms just tend to favor some of the more apparent changes.

Entropy is more the cycle back to origin after reaching some crux. For example, it can be the energy potential of a given organism, which then begins to deteriorate from radiation.

I will admit, though! The direction that entropy seems to take is almost always counter to the direction that evolution seems to take.

This is true, and perhaps it deserves further thought. What is the nature of that relationship? Could one simply consider it part of the natural balance, tantamount to warm and cold wind currents?

Or, is it suggestive of another relationship, perhaps, a chronological statement -- first there's evolution, then there's entropy?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 12:28:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 12:17:57 PM, Ren wrote:
Evolution and entropy are in contradiction?:

I'm fairly sure that was a sarcasm because some creationists actually believe that, having a fundamental misunderstanding of what entropy is and how it works, especially when it comes to the 2LoT.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 12:32:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 2:51:33 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/11/2012 2:47:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/11/2012 1:16:48 PM, royalpaladin wrote:


'mushmind' is caused by being given the same answer for every question. god. god. god. now you have 'mushmind' its very hard to treat. But there is hope yet. you are still young enough.

You know, it is pretty difficult to understand exactly what position you are taking. First you said that evolution and entropy contradict each other, and now you are arguing that they do not.

I am an Atheist, by the way, so I have not fallen prey to "mushmind".
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 12:44:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am busy right now, so I will post more about this later, but entropy is supposed to describe trends on the molecular level, not on the level of changes in species.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 12:55:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Be sure to note that complexity and disorder are not antithetical; in fact, larger and more complex molecules are said to have more entropy than less complex and smaller molecules, which means that, if we adopt the logic of the Creationists, the Second Law actually backs up Evolution.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:02:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 12:44:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I am busy right now, so I will post more about this later, but entropy is supposed to describe trends on the molecular level, not on the level of changes in species.

Again, you aren't quite right.

The second law of entropy is based on the statistical fact that of the possible combinations molecules could take at any given moment, there much fewer organized states than there are disorganized (high entropy) states. Depending on the environment, certain states are more or less prevalent. For instance, if you hold a match under a metal bar, the heat will disperse differently through the metal and through the air. This means different molecular interactions, different changes in entropy.

When you start in a very low entropy state, you, in a sense, "set" the initial conditions on how entropy will function. Because there are so few states that are extremely low entropy (universe condensed into an inch during the big bang), you will get a trend of decreasing entropy until heat death.

Entropy works on a molecular level, and the molecular level effects of material level. This isn't one of those "quantum for molecules and gravity for basketballs" situations. Entropy is basically a statistical fact.

It's basically the closest thing we have to a "law" of physics.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:25:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 1:02:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/12/2012 12:44:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I am busy right now, so I will post more about this later, but entropy is supposed to describe trends on the molecular level, not on the level of changes in species.

Again, you aren't quite right.

The second law of entropy is based on the statistical fact that of the possible combinations molecules could take at any given moment, there much fewer organized states than there are disorganized (high entropy) states. Depending on the environment, certain states are more or less prevalent. For instance, if you hold a match under a metal bar, the heat will disperse differently through the metal and through the air. This means different molecular interactions, different changes in entropy.

When you start in a very low entropy state, you, in a sense, "set" the initial conditions on how entropy will function. Because there are so few states that are extremely low entropy (universe condensed into an inch during the big bang), you will get a trend of decreasing entropy until heat death.

Entropy works on a molecular level, and the molecular level effects of material level. This isn't one of those "quantum for molecules and gravity for basketballs" situations. Entropy is basically a statistical fact.

It's basically the closest thing we have to a "law" of physics.

Fair enough. Is my second point about positive correlation between molecular complexity and entropy correct?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 1:36:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 1:02:38 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/12/2012 12:44:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I am busy right now, so I will post more about this later, but entropy is supposed to describe trends on the molecular level, not on the level of changes in species.

Again, you aren't quite right.

The second law of entropy is based on the statistical fact that of the possible combinations molecules could take at any given moment, there much fewer organized states than there are disorganized (high entropy) states. Depending on the environment, certain states are more or less prevalent. For instance, if you hold a match under a metal bar, the heat will disperse differently through the metal and through the air. This means different molecular interactions, different changes in entropy.

When you start in a very low entropy state, you, in a sense, "set" the initial conditions on how entropy will function. Because there are so few states that are extremely low entropy (universe condensed into an inch during the big bang), you will get a trend of decreasing entropy until heat death.

Entropy works on a molecular level, and the molecular level effects of material level. This isn't one of those "quantum for molecules and gravity for basketballs" situations. Entropy is basically a statistical fact.

It's basically the closest thing we have to a "law" of physics.

The Fool: dude stop telling what I wrong about before asking for clarification on scientific matters. I reject the big bang theory . I don't think it makes sense that the universe pops up. It makes more sense to me that it is always there. There is nothing that follows that the universe began at all. Especially if the universe is all things that exist. Remember it is calculated with niave empirism. That is only based of what we know now. Plus I can see major wholes in quantum mechanics. lots of things just keep unravelling. I have mastered an advanced philosohpy. And I seem to be discovering things not body knows. Its kind of spooky..l
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 2:02:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
royal- entropy is a measurement of disorder. Therefore, as molecules enter more organized/complex states, the entropy goes down.

fool- big bang has nothing to do with it. The only question I have is this:

Do you believe that the total entropy of the universe 1 billion years ago was lower?

The actual "bang" isn't needed at all.

I'm using statistics. For a low entropy system, there are more possible states which are high entropy than lower entropy (on a relative scale of extremes)? Now, consider the aggregated effects of thousands of random, minute changes in entropy. Due to this statistical situation, a closed system which begins in low entropy will move towards higher entropy states, while the opposite will not occur.

Or do you also deny this?

If so, how in the heck are you able to find "holes" in quantum theory when quantum theory uses the "naive empiricism" you critique?

BTW, if you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics.

Do you accept that?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 2:10:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 2:02:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
royal- entropy is a measurement of disorder. Therefore, as molecules enter more organized/complex states, the entropy goes down.

I think that you are mistaken about this. Heavier, more complex molecules have greater entropy than less complex molecules.

"Molecular Complexity : A second clear trend in the table is the higher molar entropy of substances with more complex molecules. To some extent this is due to the mass since on the whole more complex molecules are heavier than simpler ones. However, we still find an increase of entropy with complexity when we compare molecules of very similar masses:"

http://chemed.chem.wisc.edu...
fool- big bang has nothing to do with it. The only question I have is this:

Do you believe that the total entropy of the universe 1 billion years ago was lower?

The actual "bang" isn't needed at all.

I'm using statistics. For a low entropy system, there are more possible states which are high entropy than lower entropy (on a relative scale of extremes)? Now, consider the aggregated effects of thousands of random, minute changes in entropy. Due to this statistical situation, a closed system which begins in low entropy will move towards higher entropy states, while the opposite will not occur.

Or do you also deny this?

If so, how in the heck are you able to find "holes" in quantum theory when quantum theory uses the "naive empiricism" you critique?

BTW, if you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics.



Do you accept that?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 2:12:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So, given that entropy increases with molecular complexity, if we adopt the idiotic logic of Creationists, the Second Law actually affirms evolution, at least on the molecular level.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 7:39:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 2:02:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
royal- entropy is a measurement of disorder. Therefore, as molecules enter more organized/complex states, the entropy goes down.

fool- big bang has nothing to do with it. The only question I have is this:

Do you believe that the total entropy of the universe 1 billion years ago was lower?

The actual "bang" isn't needed at all.

I'm using statistics. For a low entropy system, there are more possible states which are high entropy than lower entropy (on a relative scale of extremes)? Now, consider the aggregated effects of thousands of random, minute changes in entropy. Due to this statistical situation, a closed system which begins in low entropy will move towards higher entropy states, while the opposite will not occur.

Or do you also deny this?

If so, how in the heck are you able to find "holes" in quantum theory when quantum theory uses the "naive empiricism" you critique?

BTW, if you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics.



Do you accept that?

I don't know if it is so simple as an overal general entropy. Bur rather pockets.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL