Conference Concludes Origin of Life Research Is at a Standstill

I quoted YOU and the Q has been directed to YOUR words on THIS topic. But you are right, atheists wouldn’t even check that out but all atheists reading you will be sure that you are right even if all of them see with their own eyes that you are not. This is how atheistic minds work.


I just like to expose psychological problems of atheists.

In order to expose total idiocy of atheism further let me ask another question and predict that I will get the same answer: “I'm sorry, but you obviously know nothing about thermodynamics and no, I won't answer your question that doesn't even relate to the topic.
Go ahead and evade the topic with somebody else, I'm unwilling to move the goalposts.”

What is a difference between my statement ‘’change in entropy for any system is always positive – this IS the 2nd law.’’ and Clausius’ : The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum’ in your religious mind?’’ Please, please, I beg you.


The idiocy here is unbelieveble, immesurable. Atheists state that dS<0 (tends to a minimum) and at the same time atheists state that the 2nd law says dS>0 ( tends to a maximum).

The idiocy here is unbelieveble, immesurable; anyone with basic knoweldge of mathematics only would know that my statement ‘’change in entropy for any system is always positive – this IS the 2nd law.’’ and Clausius’ : The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum’’ state exactly the same.


The idiocy here is unbelieveble, immesurable; anyone with basic common sense would see that Clausius says “in the universe” but not in ‘’a system’’ closed, open, or isolated only. Facepalm.

But does any atheist care? Atheism is the most fanatical, psychologically challenged and ignorant of any reality religion.

 

Sorry, I have been very busy lately with school.

These are the questions you are speaking of, correct? What exactly does showing you a page dealing with inductive or deductive logic on TalkOrigins have to do with Thermodynamics? It is an unrelated topic. This question is not directed towards me nor is it directed towards thermodynamics.

You truly love personal attacks, don't you?

I've already answered this question in my post, but apparently you are too busy getting mad at atheists to actually read what I say.

I've bolded the relevant parts, I hope you don't miss it this time.

I'm not sure what a background in mathematics would have to do with this.; you would need an understanding of thermodynamics.

No (*)(*)(*)(*), that's why I said it was a general, not a detail-oriented, description of entropy. We know today that in open systems entropy can decrease, you have even admitted to this. So, why the hell are you arguing? Why don't you stop yourself and read a high school textbook to learn the basics of thermodynamics and come back to me. It is tiresome to argue against a person who doesn't even consider thermodynamics to be a science and thinks that the Universe is crystallizing instead of breaking down.

 

This scripture comes to mind..

Romans 1:19-23 (ASV)
19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

 

The point of the quote you have replied to with these words was:

But you are right, atheists wouldn&#8217;t even check that out but all atheists reading your reply will be sure that you have answered the point even if all of them see with their own eyes that you have not. This is how atheistic minds work.

I just like to expose psychological problems of atheists. So thanks again for helping.

just like to expose psychological problems of atheists and agnostics.

 

Facepalm. The question is: what is the difference between statements:

1. change in the value X (or Y or Z) for any system is always positive
2. The value X (or Y or Z) of the universe tends to a maximum
3. the value X(or Y or Z) >0 for any system
?


The point is that anyone who has at least a vague idea about language used by non-scientific theories linked in my Q sees immediately that there is none. It does not matter if these statements are true or it does not what is X, they are stating the same. Your attempt to use language of science trying to read language of non-science is just another proof total illiteracy of atheism in the language of Nature.


As to the bolded part the absurd of it has been all demonstrated 5 times in my previous posts. For instance it has been demonstrated that nobody can see or demonstrate a closed or an insulated system existing in the Universe. Such do not exist in Nature. Only atheists believe in things nobody can see and make up “ laws” for such things. There is no atheist or agnostic who would accept the reality demonstrated by me: Closed or insulated systems do not exist in Nature. The variant of the 2nd law quoted by you does not mention such. Kelvin in my link does not. Just look around, for the sake of sanity.

Indeed, no questions can be asked about statements of your religion; anything which disagrees with your blind beliefs is stupid, pathetic, and ridiculous, just BS. “Look at this guy who doesn't even consider thermodynamics to be a science like we all do in our religion!”
Everything in thermodynamics can be demonstrated as one can see in my posts. Nothing in science can be demonstrated, science is just an empty rhetoric and ungrounded absurd which has nothing to do to reality.

Even quoting out of the context, where do you see one in your quote? I have pointed not to you but to dozens of adherents of your religion reading our conversation, and I have pointed that all of them agree with you even if they see with their own eyes that you are not even wrong, that you have not made a single attempt to address my points.

I have commented only on views and actions of all adherents of your religion, never on you personally. Moreover I couldn’t single you out because your answers are no expression of personality or a thought but rather an appeal to the scientific consensus, to the community of atheists and agnostics. Generally it is all about my religion of freedom of human spirit, thoughts, ideas and inquiry in the surrounding reality vs. your religion of uniformity, compliance and substituting the surrounding reality with pipe dreams which make you feel good about yourself.

Facepalm. Where did you say ‘’ not a detail-oriented’’, description of entropy’’ and where did I every admit to anything you said in your bird language?

The difference between thermodynamics and science is that in thermodynamics they do not admit or not, do not agree or not, but they demonstrate. You see it – then it is there. You don’t see it then it is not there, but it is another atheistic pipe dream which has no roots in reality.

Facepalm. What do you, atheists and agnostics know today that Kelvin, Clasieus and Einstein did not know?

Facepalm. Entropy is denoted as S in all languages – Russian or English or Portuguese. Show me how your made up “general” entropy is denoted? Is it Sg? Is it the one in the Gibbs equation you have googled out? Does your google-quote of Gibbs free energy denote “detail-oriented entropy”? Is it Sdo?

Facepalm. Anyone can see that all systems are open. Nobody can point to a closed or isolated system. In thermodynamics they do not have opinions. Either you can point, show, demonstrate existence of something or you can’t.

Inquisitor - Look, there is the sun in the sky.

Atheist, agnostic – where, I don’t see it?
__________________________________
1. Atheist, agnostic – there are closed and isolated system in nature.
2. Inquisitor – can you show me one?

3.Atheist, agnostic – there are closed isolated system in nature,.

4.Inquisitor – can you show me one?

5.Atheist, agnostic – there are closed and isolated system in nature,

6.goto 2.

I just like to expose total mental stupor of atheists and agnostics.

You have googled out the equation where dS<0 was the result of a thermodynamic process in the view of scientists. Scientists as usual exhibit total blindness, mental stupor. In the SAME process an increase of dS always has to happen and it is happening. In total in the process you have described the increase always exceeds the decrease; that is dS happens whatever you do, however you do. That is: your melting substance seems to be going to more orderly state - from crystal flakes to liquid – but it is like a society accepting atheism, - feels like you are flying when you jump out of a window of a skyscraper when in reality you are moving to blip at the asphalt of the reality. A society accepting atheism throws itself out of a window. It falls into a mental stupor.

Why do atheists always divert to entropy? Because they think it is a scientific complicated matter a cleaning lady cannot figure out so she has to think that scientists have higher mental abilities than she does; when in reality it is the opposite.

A cleaning lady can see that in reality when something is heating it always means that something is cooling in the same process. Even a cleaning lady can see that heat always flows from hot to cold ( which is another formulation of the 2nd law) and never backward, not at any moment, not under the sun, not in nature, not in reality.

“The first statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics - heat flows spontaneously from a hot to a cold body - tells us that an ice cube must melt on a hot day, rather than becoming colder.” http://theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

Unless there is an atheistic god pumping work into the system ice cube-hot day, this is what always happens, the cleaning lady can understand and see that. Scientists are imbeciles who luck an intellectual capacity of a cleaning lady. Scientists are stating that there is some detail oriented happening where the ice cube becomes colder being in a contact with a hot day or, which is the same as the statement that a hot day becomes warmer being in contact with an ice cube. Idiocy of scientific pipe dreams is unsurpassed.

The sun is not heating the earth, but it is loosing heat. The earth does not become warmer receiving energy of the sun, but becomes colder loosing heat to the Cosmos. There cannot be and there has been no spiking process backwards, no possibility of life happening in this fixed procedure of the Universe. This procedure has been going on and will be going on until all the temperatures equalize at the temperature of the Cosmos, 0K. Here 0 is zero, K is Lord Kelvin, the giver of the 2nd law. Altogether the expression is more than simple and it is the counting point of existence of everything around us. This procedure may be demonstrated any time in any way. Take a coin, make it red hot over the flame, but it in glass of ice cubes, bring it outside. The coin would be cooling down loosing its energy to ice, ice melting would be loosing THAT energy to outside and in the end they all would EQUALIZE with outside T and then noting will be happening, - there would a thermodynamic equilibrium. One way street to a stay still. Always. The 2nd law states – you can take a pig, put it through a meet grinder and get a sausage, but you cannot run the sausage back through the meat grinder and get a pig, instead you will always get more mess. A cleaning lady, a Mexican Catholic hardly speaking English can understand that, but not scientists and intellectuals who blindly believe in all kinds of absurd drawn from their pipe dreams.

“Atheistic idea is so absurd that I cannot express it in words” – Lord Kelvin

 

If light is the fastest thing there is, how come darkness is always there waiting when light arrives?

 

1) Darkness does not exist, it is the absence of light.
2) Light is not the fastest thing in the universe, there are hypothetical particles such as tachyons, as well as the fact that space can expand faster than light can move.

 

The sun is losing heat...to space in which the Earth sits, whereby its atmosphere is heated by the sun. Effectively, the sun is heating the Earth. You can't deny this...and be taken seriously.

 

2 refers to a specific system, 1/3 refer to ALL systems. How is that hard for you to get? One system =/= all systems.

When the hell has anybody argued that there exists a closed system inside of the Universe? Go ahead and point out that non-existant post.

Please explain how atheism and science, or atheism and thermodynamics are related. Please, I beg of you.

What the hell do you mean nothing in science can be demonstrated? Like what? Gravity? I drop a ball, gravity. WOAH!

I am an atheist, you point out that atheists have psychological problems, therefore you are saying I have psychological problems. That is a personal insult.

If you place me in within the group that you are commenting on, you are commenting on me.

I used the word general. If you know what general means, this language should be cake for you to understand.

Yes, once again, a big part of science is demonstration/experimentation.

Oh, look, a completely made up strawman conversation.

Yes, an increase in entropy has to always increase in the Universe, but not in open systems such as this planet.

HOW can you even consider water to be more ordered than a crystal?

But wait, I thought you just said that water is more ordered than a crystal. How can that be? Entropy is a measurement of disorder; the higher the entropy, the more disorder. So, heat flows from a hot body to a cold body and entropy increases, how can you possibly state that water would be a more ordered state if what you said was true? Uh oh.

Uh, why both occur? We all know that the sun heats the Earth. Children know this. If the sun isn't heating the Earth, then what is? The heat absorbed by the sun then dissipates into the cosmos. Both happen. That is why there is a net increase in entropy of the Universe and a net decrease in entropy on this planet.

So, how does life survive on this planet, then, genius?

Nice quote that you pulled out of your ass and then attributed it to Kelvin.

Oh, by the way, Lord Kelvin was a scientist.

 

No Bishadi, not even close to the "same difference."

Let's see how it works according to you.

Redo:

See, it isn't the same...

 

4. goto 1.

http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...-life-research-standstill-13.html#post3828222

The problem is the same; taking one line out of a system of proof, one spot out of the whole picture and ignoring the rest - this is how atheists read any text including the Bible and this is how they see the picture of reality around them.

I don&#8217;t care how atheists take me. I am just demonstrating total inability of atheists to comprehend basic reality around them. If the sun was heating the earth, the Earth would be getting hotter and hotter, even a cleaning lady can understand that. The earth has NOT been getting hotter and hotter.

Effectively ""the space where the Earth sits" (Lol) is loosing that energy passed to it by the sun to surrounding Cosmos which is colder than the space where the earth sits. The 2nd law &#8211; heat flows from hot to cold. The Earth has been cooling. A little while ago it was hot like melted rock, in a little while it will be all cold like ice. There has been no delay or reverse in the procedure.

&#8216;&#8217;3. Within a finite period of time past, the earth must have been, and within a finite period of time to come the earth must again be, unfit for the habitation of man as at present constituted, unless operations have been, or are to be performed, which are impossible under the laws to which the known operations going on at present in the material world are subject.&#8217;&#8217; - Lord Kelvin, On a Universal Tendency in Nature to the Dissipation of Mechanical Energy (known as the 2nd law).

http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_a_universal_tendency.html

 

I'm sorry, but that's patently untrue. The only future for this planet is a hot, fiery death. The sun won't simply go out and leave the Earth cold, the Sun will expand is it gets older and engulf this planet in flames.

So, he's saying that the Earth's existence is finite. Yes, that's true. What does this have to do with entropy?

 

No doubt .. "Lake of fire, huh ?"

 

Not that I'm really disagreeing with your overall point here, GraspingforPeace, but technically this claim is untrue.

We expect the sun to begin dying a heat death in something like 4-6 billion years. However, within the next 2-3 billion years, the Milky Way galaxy will run smack dab into the Andromeda galaxy. The interaction between our two galaxies will definitely effect the gravitational interactions between many suns and planets, possibly even our own.

So it's not technically correct to say that "the only future for this planet is a hot, fiery death." We could spin outside of the sun's gravitational pull as a result of the gravitational effects of other bodies as our galaxy collides with Andromeda. The planet could die a cold, frozen death.

However, I agree with your point in spirit. Clearly some folks on this thread don't understand how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics works for the Earth and the Sun as system.

 

Actually, I believe that Earth is supposed to become uninhabitable far before that.

 

You had it right Grasping. Still do.

 

As a result of what process? The sun is only halfway through its life, and it's about 4.5 billion years old. You can check that here, where it's said that the sun is about halfway through life as a main-sequence star.

The Andromeda Galaxy is expected to hit the Milky way in about 3-5 billion years. That's stated here.

I'm not maintaining that this will absolutely spell the end of Earth. I'm simply stating it as one possibility in opposition to the absolute certainty you proposed regarding the heat-death.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/specials/washington_2000/649913.stm

The sun is constantly getting brighter, and life on this planet is expected to go extinct within .5 billion - 1 billion due to higher temperatures.

 

This statement was made by a single geologist, not in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but as an oral comment at the proceedings for the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It makes for good press, but it doesn't make for good science.

On the contrary, the scientific consensus is that earth can survive until the sun reaches about 40% more than its current luminosity. That's about 4 billion years away. That's from:

Kasting, J. F. (June198. "Runaway and moist greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of earth and Venus". Icarus 74 (3): 472&#8211;494.

 

Uh, have you even read the paper?

"Thus, the present model suggests that Earth could begin to lose its oceans around one billion years hence."

I doubt we are going to survive long with no water on the surface of this planet.

 

One billion years after the sun reaches 40% more luminosity than the current state. That's what the "hence" is referring to.

Wow, first you come up with a random quote from a single geologist, then you misread a peer-reviewed study? The scientific consensus is pretty clear on this -- the sun gradually burns off its hydrogen and eventually reaches red-giant stage somewhere around 4-6 billion years from now. Some maintain that the earth can last quite a while into this stage, others say our environment will be destroyed once the sun is about 40% more luminous than it is now -- in about 4 billion years. It's not hard to understand. That is, unless you're cherry-picking for claims that contradict the consensus.

Let's take a step back. What would it take for me to prove to you that the general consensus is that the earth has about 4-6 billion years before it is overtaken by the sun's heat?

For you to prove to me that it would take less time, I would want you to quote from at least one or two peer-reviewed journals in the fields of geology or astronomy. They should say specifically when the sun will affect the earth to such an extent that life would be impossible.

 

I am not talking about Earth itself being destroyed by the Sun, I am talking about life being unsustainable on this planet. I am sorry but you are just patently wrong about the one billion years beign AFTER a four billion year interval. The article mentions nothing about that.

http://www.astro.ugto.mx/~kps/KPSPub51.pdf

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES


According to this study, because of the luminosity ever increasing, photosynthesis will be impossible after about 600 million years because of a lack of CO2.

Heath, Martin J.; Doyle, Laurance R. (2009). "Circumstellar Habitable Zones to Ecodynamic Domains: A Preliminary Review and Suggested Future Directions"

While some terrestrial life may live on for some time longer, this planet will be completely desert, so I have pretty grim hopes for humans. Well, I doubt we would even be around even 1 Gyr from now anyways.

Anyways, even with the Andromea collision, if it occurs, the solar system would not simpy be destroyed.

http://www.universetoday.com/1604/when-our-galaxy-smashes-into-andromeda-what-happens-to-the-sun/

 

Remarkable quoting out of context. Take, for instance, the Kasting quote. Here's the ENTIRE quote:

"According to Kasting (198 as soon as the sun is ~1 Gyr from now, when the sun's luminosity will be about 10 percent greater, the nuclear aging of the Sun should significantly heat up the Earth and cause the onset of the evaporation of the oceans. At approximately 4 Gyr from now, when the sun's luminosity is 40% larger than presently, a runaway greenhouse effect should take place due to evaporated ocean water. This would make the earth uninhabitable for most current terrestrial life forms."

Please read the last two sentences, which you failed to quote.

 

Which is why I said:

While some terrestrial life may live on for some time longer, this planet will be completely desert, so I have pretty grim hopes for humans. Well, I doubt we would even be around even 1 Gyr from now anyways.

 

as it was predicted atheists follow the same algorythm
4. goto 1.

http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...-life-research-standstill-13.html#post3828222
Any mad statement made by scientists is true for atheists , really no matter how mad it is and how ungrounded it is and really, no matter if laws of nature do exist as they are never refered in atheistic pipe dreams

Only atheists can quote a statement never mentioning entropy and and ask: What does this have to do with entropy?
I enjoy demonstrating how atheistic minds are working.

Only atheists can read the paper on the 2nd law and understand nothing. He's saying that the Earth's existence is finite and it was too hot to live on and it will be too cold to live on.