Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Subduction Zone]

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.

That is because that is how we were brought up. Things change in the sciences. New definitions are accepted when they work better. Since none of us work in the field our independent opinions do not matter a hill of beans.

And as I said, though I know that this is the more modern way to do it, I can still easily find sources that support you two.

 

[We Never Know]

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

" A closed system is a natural physical system that does not allow transfer of matter in or out of the system, although – in the contexts of physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. – the transfer of energy (e.g. as work or heat) is allowed."

"In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings."

Closed system - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Now you're braggin'. And you don't even have to. We are already in awe that you manage to survive in the closed system of Revoltistan.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

I vaguely recall that IC engines were
treated as constant entropy open systems
upon reaching a stable mode, ie, operating
temperature with constant power.
This was half a century ago.
I personally knew Lenoir & Otto.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Well of course people are adding and removing food all of the time. So that fails too, but as I said, for all practical purpose it is a closed system. We can take energy out and make it cooler, but not mass is lost or gained in the process. So they run as a closed system.

I like the isolated system because that is the system of creationists. When they abuse the second law of thermodynamics the system that they are appealing to is an isolated one where neither matter nor energy can escape and entropy can only increase.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Magat

I believe that is a closed system. Or is it an isolated system?

 

[Revoltingest]

" A closed system is a natural physical system that does not allow transfer of matter in or out of the system, although – in the contexts of physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. – the transfer of energy (e.g. as work or heat) is allowed."

"In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings."

Closed system - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

We're having a terminology argument.
It doesn't make sense to call a system with
energy transfer "closed".
If a store had customers freely coming &
going, would you say the store is "closed"?
No, it would be "open".

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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?

No, an atheist does not believe any gods exist. That is it. Not all believe something came from nothing, I don't believe that. I know atheists that believe the supernatural exists etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe just like it is written in 1 Corinthians. Some were in the early congregation who insisted there is no resurrection of the dead, while others believed otherwise. shrug. Seems this applies to some here, and I'm glad to have seen it with my very eyes. metaphorically speaking, of course.
"But if Christ has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and your faith is also in vain." 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I forget about isolated systems. You'd think, given that it seems to be a significant feature of the basis of the paradigm against science, that familiarity with a practical example would bring it to mind.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hopefully, we'll see.

 

[We Never Know]

We're having a terminology argument.
It doesn't make sense to call a system with
energy transfer "closed".
If a store had customers freely coming &
going, would you say the store is "closed"?
No, it would be "open".

For energy its considered open.
I would think the bold is why its also considered closed.

"Earth's mass is variable, subject to both gain and loss due to the accretion of in-falling material, including micrometeorites and cosmic dust and the loss of hydrogen and helium gas, respectively. The combined effect is a net loss of material, estimated at 5.5×107 kg (5.4×104 long tons) per year. This amount is 10−17 of the total earth mass.[citation needed] The 5.5×107 kg annual net loss is essentially due to 100,000 tons lost due to atmospheric escape, and an average of 45,000 tons gained from in-falling dust and meteorites. 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."

Earth mass - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

It isn't just atheists. It is anyone that understands and accepts science, while rejecting illogical mischaracterizations of the science.

 

[McBell]

I had to google it

The weird stuff you find when you go down a Google rabbit hole...

Claiming she was not informed of the results or her options, Kassama, on behalf of her child, sued Magat for "wrongful life."​

​

Kassama v. Magat - PubMed

Kassama v. Magat

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Subduction Zone]

I forget about isolated systems. You'd think, given that it seems to be a significant feature of the basis of the paradigm against science, that familiarity with a practical example would bring it to mind.

That is why I like it. Even most creationists can understand how in a truly isolated system that only decay can occur and yet life will grow witnhno problem in our system, no matter how you label it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is why I like it. Even most creationists can understand how in a truly isolated system that only decay can occur and yet life will grow witnhno problem in our system, no matter how you label it.

It is interesting to note the decay present in isolated systems and how appropriately metaphorical that is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I vaguely recall that IC engines were
treated as constant entropy open systems
upon reaching a stable mode, ie, operating
temperature with constant power.
This was half a century ago.
I personally knew Lenoir & Otto.

But then you are not considering the entropy of the fuel and the gases involved. The system of the engine is constant under constant load.

Also the version that one prefers may be based upon the sort of work that one does.

 

[Pogo]

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.)

Yup same way I learned it, but they seem to have changed the categories, I guess we are over the hill.

new example of a closed system, A pressure cooker on a gas stove.
and many more

 

[Pogo]

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.)

Yup same way I learned it, but they seem to have changed the categories, I guess we are over the hill.
View attachment 90617

new example of a closed system, A pressure cooker on a gas stove.
and many more

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We're having a terminology argument.
It doesn't make sense to call a system with
energy transfer "closed".
If a store had customers freely coming &
going, would you say the store is "closed"?
No, it would be "open".

Would it be more appropriate to consider it functionally closed the the exchange of matter, despite the fact that matter is exchanged at a very low rate.

I like your metaphor though. It makes sense.