Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[JM2C]

That's pretty much it.

Actually that's how they discovered the 1st, 2nd and 3rd LoT and they applied this to nature.

 

[outhouse]

No, no one can correct you if you are too stubborn to learn from your mistakes.

That's has always been the heart of the issue here.

Willful ignorance.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually that's how they discovered the 1st, 2nd and 3rd LoT and they applied this to nature.

The laws aren't something one can "apply" to nature....they are nature, ie, our description of it.
But we apply them in engineering.

 

[Parsimony]

Absolute Zero (0° K) is –273.15°C or –459.67°F.

I am aware. What's the relevance?

Based on the 2nd LoT the fridge was invented doing the reverse process.

Right, but that doesn't keep the fridge from reversing entropy locally.

Can we live inside the fridge all the time to preserve life?

No, nor did I imply such.

Can you give me exaimple of non-living things that you eat that don’t make you sick?

I eat non-living things all the time and don't get sick. I'm pretty sure the bread I just ate was quite dead.

What if someone said it’s a behemoth in the beginning, instead of a dinosaur, when they found the dinosaur, then you would agree that the behemoth are the dinosaurs we found today.

One would have to prove that such was the case first.

 

[Shad]

We are here to debate and not insult each other. If I’m wrong correct me, but that doesn’t mean you are right when you’re correcting me. We could trade insults all day long, but at the end of the day we can ask ourselves, did I learn something today?

Insult can happened regardless of intent. For example people bring up subjects they have no education in so are arguing from a position of ignorance. If someone points out this ignorance many take offense due to the word ignorance or that they overestimated their knowledge of the subject. They become emotional rather than acknowledging their lack of education in a subject. Everyone is ignorant in a great many subjects, few are willing to admit this fact.

 

[David M]

It’s not against the 2nd law? Are you saying that a dead cell can be animated again? You watch too much Zombie movies. Do you know any scientist that did this, or any experiment at all? How do you understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Please explain it to me?

Why bother, you will just ignore any explanations and continue to misrepresent people's words.

But yes scientists have revived dead cells. Science, like a Fez, is cool.

Whether or not a dead cell can reproduce is simple a matter of biology, we define a dead cell as one that cannot reproduce. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. The 2nd law might be applicable as to whether certain cells can reproduce but it applies no matter what biological state they are in.

We are talking about A DEAD CELL, aren’t we?

You are, no one else is.

He could have said a single cell “reproduce itself into multiple single living cells before it died” instead of “a single dead cell reproduce itself into multiple single living cells before it died”. How can a dead cell reproduce living cell? IT’S AGAINST THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

He could have, but what he did say has the same meaning. And its not anything to do with 2LoT, its simple to do with human definitions of what properties are assigned to the terms dead and alive.

 

[Bunyip]

They want to build a perpetual-motion machine powered by heat/energy based on the theory of the 1st LoT. IOW, heat will energize heat to a never ending cycle of heat that can power any machine to infinity and beyond. But this theory ended when they discovered that the heat/energy is escaping, meaning it’s looking for something that is not hot but cold to heat it up and the energy is becoming a waste and the theory, although it’s not a theory anymore but a fact, of 2nd LoT was discovered.

The really sad thing is that you can not see how transparent your lies are. The 2nd law presents no problem for biology, it is also (and this is amazingly ignorant of you) a LAW, not a theory.

The 2nd law, which you patently do not understand does not apply to organisms. It applies to CLOSED MECHANICAL SYSTEMS. Organisms are not closed mechanical systems. I should thank you. You and those like you drive so many people away from faith. How you ever began to believe that making a liar of yourself would do anything other than reflect badly on other believers I can not imagine.

 

[Bunyip]

JM2C

I don't think it is appropriate to pretend to have been insulted whenever people point out that you are being dishonest. Rather than take it as an insult - why not just stop being dishonest?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to evolution or biology - just move on.

 

[David M]

Can you give me example of non-living things that you eat that don’t make you sick?

I use artificial sweeteners in many things, molecules that are produced solely by chemistry that have at no time been anywhere near being alive.

 

[Revoltingest]

The really sad thing is that you can not see how transparent your lies are. The 2nd law presents no problem for biology, it is also (and this is amazingly ignorant of you) a LAW, not a theory.
The 2nd law, which you patently do not understand does not apply to organisms. It applies to CLOSED MECHANICAL SYSTEMS. Organisms are not closed mechanical systems. I should thank you. You and those like you drive so many people away from faith. How you ever began to believe that making a liar of yourself would do anything other than reflect badly on other believers I can not imagine.

I don't think he's lying. Thermodynamics is not straightforward or easy to understand, particularly when the waters are muddied by this tricky order & chaos interpretation. Also, the business of open vs closed systems is a bit arcane, & easily overlooked by those untrained in it.

Why can't a dead organism be brought back to life?
It isn't a closed system because it exists in a larger environment. The 2nd law doesn't prevent it because entropy can be lowered simply by adding energy. The problem is that death involves chemically irreversible changes, ie, there are no cellular mechanisms which can reverse the results of death. This is biology problem, not a thermodynamics problem.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't think he's lying. Thermodynamics is not straightforward or easy to understand, particularly when the waters are muddied by this tricky order & chaos interpretation. Also, the business of open vs closed systems is a bit arcane, & easily overlooked by those untrained in it.

Those untrained in it would be best advised not to make silly claims about it. To argue that the 2nd law presents some kind of obstacle for biologists without even bothering to find out what the 2nd law is is dishonest. Personally I would not infer (for example) that all neuro surgeons were lying, conspiring con-artists on the basis of my not knowing anything at all about brain surgery. BEFORE dismissing brain surgery as bunk, an honest person would feel obliged to at the very least figure out what brain surgery is.
After all, when was the last time you saw a person who knew what evolution means arguing against it? I never have.

Why can't a dead organism be brought back to life?
It isn't a closed system because it exists in a larger environment. The 2nd law doesn't prevent it because entropy can be lowered simply by adding energy. The problem is that death involves chemically irreversible changes, ie, there are no cellular mechanisms which can reverse the results of death. This is biology problem, not a thermodynamics problem.

Yes, the 2nd law refers to waste heat in closed mechanical systems, not organisms.

 

[Revoltingest]

Those untrained in it would be best advised not to make silly claims about it. To argue that the 2nd law presents some kind of obstacle for biologists without even bothering to find out what the 2nd law is is dishonest. Personally I would not infer (for example) that all neuro surgeons were lying, conspiring con-artists on the basis of my not knowing anything at all about brain surgery. BEFORE dismissing brain surgery as bunk, an honest person would feel obliged to at the very least figure out what brain surgery is.
After all, when was the last time you saw a person who knew what evolution means arguing against it? I never have. Yes, the 2nd law refers to waste heat in closed mechanical systems, not organisms.

Well, we're all here to opine about things in which we've no expertise.
You're certainly correct that we shouldn't over-extend ourselves, but we do.

 

[Bunyip]

Well, we're all here to opine about things in which we've no expertise.
You're certainly correct that we shouldn't over-extend ourselves, but we do.

Say for example I wanted to challenge an aspect of science - the honest approach would be to inform myself about whatever it is I am claiming to be able to challenge.
For example, BEFORE claiming that the 2nd law was an issue for biologists I would want to find out what the 2nd law actually was and how biologists apply it.
There are millions of biologists, inferring that they are all frauds whilst demonstrating an almost utter ignorance of biology is essentially dishonest.

 

[Revoltingest]

Say for example I wanted to challenge an aspect of science - the honest approach would be to inform myself about whatever it is I am claiming to be able to challenge.
For example, BEFORE claiming that the 2nd law was an issue for biologists I would want to find out what the 2nd law actually was and how biologists apply it.
There are millions of biologists, inferring that they are all frauds whilst demonstrating an almost utter ignorance of biology is essentially dishonest.

I think you have an unrealistic expectation that we'll all be competent.
We're not.

 

[Bunyip]

I think you have an unrealistic expectation that we'll all be competent.
We're not.

We don't need such competance in all (or any fields), we have internet access and can easily validate claims, inform our opinions and educate ourselves.
If I were wanting to challenge some aspect of biological science for example, the first step would be to research said aspect. When a person says 'X' is false! Scientists are all lying to you! And then demonstrates that they do not even know what the aspect of biology they are challenging means it is reasonable to conclude that they are dishonest.

Remember that the context here is scientific facts, not views, opinions, beliefs and so on.

The best and only way to challenge a scientific theory is to go and become a biologist, physicist or whatever and challenge it. Challenging an accepted theory as an amateur is pretty pointless.

 

[gnostic]

I’ve proven your theory wrong about the “Quirinius Census” on which you cannot refute at all.

Actually, Quirinius didn't serve as legate (governor) in Syria twice.

He only served in Syria between 6 and 12 CE.

There were 2 legates who had held offices in Syria the last decade of Herod the Great's life:

• Gaius Sentius Saturninus 9 – 7/6 BCE
• Publius Quinctilius Varus 7/6 – 4 BCE

Around that time, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (Cyrenius, Κυρήνιος) became consul in 12 BCE, then as general in a war against the Homonadenses, at the provinces of Galatia and Cilicia, from 12 BCE to 1 BCE, during which time, he became legate of Galatia, between 5 and 3 BCE.

There were no two censuses in Judaea, and certainly not when Herod was alive, and not while Judaea wasn't a Roman province. There was no procurator (minor governor) in Judaea at that time, so why would Augustus ordered a census when Judaea wasn't a province.

Census were only carried on Roman provinces, and Judaea didn't become a province till 6 CE, when Archelaus was banished from Judaea by Augustus:

"Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance ..."

This is 10 years after Herod's death.

Look I don't always agree with Josephus' history, but he is far more reliable than Luke.

Josephus came from royal background from his mother's side and his father was a priest at the temple. Plus that Josephus have imperial connections with both Vepasian and son Titius - gave Josephus have unique position of being able to access both Jewish and Roman records or sources that Luke and Matthew wouldn't have access to.

And Josephus made it quite clear when Judaea became a province and when Quirinius became governor and when the census took place.

And beside that, a Roman census would registered people where they lived, not by what tribe. If Joseph was living in Nazareth, then he would have enrol there, not in Bethlehem.

And if Luke was indeed a physician and Paul's disciple from Antioch, then it is very doubtful that he witnessed Jesus' ministry, first hand.

It is said that the gospel was written in late 70s or eary 80s, so it is also doubtful that he would have met Mary mother of Jesus, who supposedly died in 48 CE. If that's the case, where did the source(s) about Jesus' birth and Mary's pregnancy come from?

I have no doubt that Luke is wrong about the timeline of census and governorship of Quirinius.

The fact that there other sources other than Luke, that mean you haven't refuted anything I have written about this subject.

I suspect that you are going to ignore anything I write, since you are not interested in learning historical facts.

 

[Revoltingest]

We don't need such competance in all (or any fields), we have internet access and can easily validate claims, inform our opinions and educate ourselves.
If I were wanting to challenge some aspect of biological science for example, the first step would be to research said aspect. When a person says 'X' is false! Scientists are all lying to you! And then demonstrates that they do not even know what the aspect of biology they are challenging means it is reasonable to conclude that they are dishonest.

Remember that the context here is scientific facts, not views, opinions, beliefs and so on.

The best and only way to challenge a scientific theory is to go and become a biologist, physicist or whatever and challenge it. Challenging an accepted theory as an amateur is pretty pointless.

I don't really disagree.
But such opinions aren't necessarily dishonest.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't really disagree.
But such opinions aren't necessarily dishonest.

I respect your opinion. I do feel very strongly that yes, after the KD trial and the exposure of the Wedge doctrine continuing to promote creationism is dishonest. I do understand that there are different views here.

 

[Revoltingest]

I respect your opinion. I do feel very strongly that yes, after the KD trial and the exposure of the Wedge doctrine continuing to promote creationism is dishonest. I do understand that there are different views here.

Aye, there was clearly dishonesty in some in that movement.
They dun got caught in the act.
But regarding posters holding unscientific beliefs, I'll presume honesty until there's evidence to the contrary.

 

[McBell]

Is there anything you can tell me besides this nonsense insults you and your friend been doing.

To what end?
You refuse to learn about evolution and instead prefer to repeat the same bold faced lies over and over.