Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Subduction Zone]

Earth is open.
Consider sunlight on exposed surface.
And nightly, energy is radiated into space.
Without this energy transfer, life would
be very different...if it existed at all.
Also, tons of atmosphere are lost daily,
but tons of space debris fall daily.

Please note, I said for all practical purposes it is a closed system. I know that matter enters every day, and that we lose some gases as well. But those amounts are so small that they do not affect the entropy of the system measurably at all.

 

[McBell]

Where's that irony meter?

alas.
it sit broken in post #69.
Have not had enough time to find another ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Approximately, when did they come up with this new math?

I am not sure. It makes more sense to differentiate that way to me.

 

[John53]

I just found out I'm a masochist! I'm giddy with the anticipation of punishment

 

[Revoltingest]

View attachment 90616


Please note, I said for all practical purposes it is a closed system. I know that matter enters every day, and that we lose some gases as well. But those amounts are so small that they do not affect the entropy of the system measurably at all.

An open system can have increasing, decreasing, or constant entropy.
You spoke of practicality. Life's origin & evolution are the most
practical of all concerns. Earth's being an open system with a massive
energy flow from the Sun is crucial to both.

What you call an "isolated system" describes a "closed system".
What you call a "closed system" describes an "open system".
What you call an "open system" describes an "open system".
(In the thermodynamics courses I took in the mid 70s.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm, it seems that it has been at least since 2017 since the source that the Wikipedia article that I got my info from was written in 2017:

https://www.amazon.com/Finns-Thermal-Physics-Andrew-Rex/dp/1498718876

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, my words may not be technical terms, perhaps they are not liked by those referred to or related to what I describe, perhaps they seem harsh to accept or difficult to assimilate... but my words express exactly what I want to say, without cover up, honestly, and perfectly describe my ideas, not those of others.

Given that in my topics I am the one who raises the questions, it is not my words that have to be changed, but those who want to answer them have to understand them as they are posed. No, I don't misrepresent anything or use strawmen, nor do I like fallacies. I am sincere and express myself as I am, describing things as I perceive them.

So stop using personal attacks, and if you are going to participate in my topics, at least try to understand the questions before you even want to answer. Otherwise, they will continue to be ignored, because they contribute nothing. In any case, he who understands will know what I mean, and he who doesn't, then let him unclog the pipes in his brain... if he can.

When a person claims that order, beauty, organization, life, etc. come from something that has no beginning or purpose, he is saying that he believes in miracles.

I believe the bottom line problem is your personal attack against atheists, because they do not believe as you do,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The people of the Bronze Age were not idiots. They just were ignorant of a great deal of the world around them in general. Knowledge we take for granted today.

I would imagine that they could make an association between disease and animal waste, including human, even if they had no idea of the mechanisms involved. As to things hanging in space describing celestial objects in space, it is probably a bit of poetic license based on simple observation of the moon, the sun and other celestial objects. Nothing really spectacular. If someone wanted to argue that the Bible was providing revolutionary knowledge to people, I would expect it to describe things that were extraordinary for the times.

I suppose everyone has to have some justification for themselves. That seems naturally human to do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An open system can have increasing, decreasing, or constant entropy.
You spoke of practicality. Life's origin & evolution are the most
practical of all concerns. Earth's being an open system with a massive
energy flow from the Sun is crucial to both.

What you call an "isolated system" describes a "closed system"
in the thermodynamics courses I took in the mid 70s.

Yup, it was that way when I took it too. And you can still find sources that define it that way. I guess some in thermodynamics pointed out that we should have a term for a system where energy enters and leaves but matter does not.

More modern sources tend to have the three different systems and I switched since it is more accurate in my opinion.

 

[We Never Know]

I had to look it up, but one estimate of the net loss is 5.5×10^7 kg annually.

The last of that paragraph reads...

"This is well within the mass uncertainty of 0.01% (6×1020 kg), so the estimated value of Earth's mass is unaffected by this factor."

 

[Nakosis]

Would it be more of a miracle that I would manage to humanize an entire population of apes on internet,
that a troop of them suddenly start talking at the zoo, or
that certain population of apes did by themselves in the past?

There is no need for apes to communicate with human language so they lack a necessity to learn but that doesn't mean they can't be taught human language.

 

[YoursTrue]

"god of the gaps" ... Isn't that an evolutionist cliché? It's mentioned in this forum thousands of times.

I wonder why "evolution of the gaps" is not mentioned at all, if it makes more sense.

Some object about God wherever there is no provable scientific explanation. And so the claim is that such a divine designer must become the “God-of-the-gaps,” as if God were an idea to use whenever men cannot figure things out. In all fairness, evolutionists who rely on unsupported assertions, of which we see many, effectively make the Darwinian theory their "God-of-the-gaps."

 

[shunyadragon]

It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:

A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.

So who is the one who believes in miracles?

First atheists do not believe that anything came from nothing. No miracles involved. Thes odd irrational accusations need explanations.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup, it was that way when I took it too. And you can still find sources that define it that way. I guess some in thermodynamics pointed out that we should have a term for a system where energy enters and leaves but matter does not.

More modern sources tend to have the three different systems and I switched since it is more accurate in my opinion.

I find it less accurate.
It's not "closed" if energy moves across the boundary.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I just found out I'm a masochist! I'm giddy with the anticipation of punishment

I am a biologist, so I don't think I can help you out. Although, I think participation in some of these threads may be masochistic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I find it less accurate.
It's not "closed" if energy moves across the boundary.

Sorry, @Subduction Zone, I recognize what you are saying, but I'm going to have to agree with this Revoltingest engineer.

Sorry. Forgot to add the emojis.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, @Subduction Zone, I recognize what you are saying, but I'm going to have to agree with this Revoltingest engineer.

Sorry. Forgot to add the emojis.

Hmm, it seems that it has been at least since 2017 since the source that the Wikipedia article that I got my info from was written in 2017:

https://www.amazon.com/Finns-Thermal-Physics-Andrew-Rex/dp/1498718876

Perhaps instructors decided that classical thermodynamics
was too simple. (I got straight As in 2 cources...never made
a mistake on any test.) So to make things harder, they
re-defined the terminology to make it inscrutable.

 

[shunyadragon]

Some object about God wherever there is no provable scientific explanation. And so the claim is that such a divine designer must become the “God-of-the-gaps,” as if God were an idea to use whenever men cannot figure things out. In all fairness, evolutionists who rely on unsupported assertions, of which we see many, effectively make the Darwinian theory their "God-of-the-gaps."

Actually the accusation of God-of-Gaps is more of an insult from an atheist perspective and nothing to with the sciences of evolutions, Mud slinging and insults abound in irrational arguments.

Science and and the sciences of evolution are neutral as to the existence of God. Leave that to the emotional mud-slinging between Theists and atheists The sciences of evolution today is not the Darwinian Theory in fact Darwin was not the first to propose such a theory.

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the early 19th century prior to Darwinism, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution.

 

[Pogo]

I am not sure. It makes more sense to differentiate that way to me.

It seems you are correct, though if I was going to add a category I would have put isolated in the middle and left closed alone with it's original definition. Refrigerators make more sense as an isolated (controlled in and out) than as closed.
Maybe I will even remember this and have learned something here at RF.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I haven't seen any unsupported assertions raised in the explanations, support of and defense of the theory of evolution by scientists or those accepting science. And I have seen none referenced. Probably won't either. Just the empty claim that these things exist...somewhere...somewhere. Fish are still fish is not a refutation of the theory of evolution.