Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Monk Of Reason]

The way I see it is like this: Why the sun is shining every day and not once a week? Was it because the energy that the sun is giving us today is just for today and the energy for tomorrow from the sun is just the replenishment of the energy that we are using today.

The sun gives us a constant stream of energy. The Earth has its own energy as well as residual energy. We loose energy as well. But yes much of our energy goes to entropy or simply escapes our system and the sun continues to replenish us with fresh and constant amount of energy that reduces entropy.

 

[JM2C]

Genius, the topic has been about the NT for the last few pages or so. The comment about the language the Bible was written in was made within this context. The context has changed from a general to a specific but you lost track of this fact.

You only change the comment after the fact to reflect the Bible as both the NT and OT. This does not change the context of the first reply nor replays after this fact.

Let me ask you since we are talking about NT and the Gospel of Matthew and since you are a self-proclaimed GENIIUS and GNOSTIC [who thinks he knows everything] maybe you guys can explain this.

MT 1:23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.”


ISA 7:14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

 

[Shad]

I am mocking you since you are incompetent. Time for a lesson in reading comprehension.

Follow the conversation.

The first reply regarding the language was the following.

Please Shad keep in mind the original Bible manuscripts were Not written in English but Hebrew and Greek.
In the Greek language at Luke 2:1,2 the words used in Greek is NOT tax or taxes but rather registered and registration.
KJV Bibles that translated some words into English that we now know by examining the Hebrew and Greek have a refined meaning.
So, a registration or registration census does Not necessarily mean property wealth.

As you can see we are talking about a NT verse thus the OT is not involved in the conversation. Hebrew is irreverent to this verse as it is within the Greek manuscript called the NT. The next comment pointed this fact out as the context was in the NT.

Not in the NT

All were originally Koine Greek, not Hebrew.

OT was Hebrew and later Koine

This is correct as the context was a NT verse not OT. The next which follows is an error made by the poster.

Yes, didn't Matthew write his gospel account in Hebrew then in the common Greek ?
Later the Greek Scriptures were also translated into Latin. From the Latin then into English.
Weren't some of the Christian Greek Scriptures also in the Aramaic ?

Which followed by the correction.

No everything in the NT were written in Koine Greek.

There were no Hebrew or Aramaic originals. Even when Paul wrote letter to the Romans, were written in Greek, not Latin.

So on and so on. Again you lost track of the conversation then modified it to suit your needs while ignoring the context completely. Thus you created a strawman making your comment irrelevant. Start on page 86 and read.

Idiot.

 

[JM2C]

The sun gives us a constant stream of energy. The Earth has its own energy as well as residual energy. We loose energy as well. But yes much of our energy goes to entropy or simply escapes our system and the sun continues to replenish us with fresh and constant amount of energy that reduces entropy.

IOW, if, for example only, the sun stops shinning, that is, total eclipse of the sun, for a week we would enter into equilibrium, meaning death.

 

[Shad]

Let me ask you since we are talking about NT and the Gospel of Matthew and since you are a self-proclaimed GENIIUS and GNOSTIC [who thinks he knows everything] maybe you guys can explain this.

MT 1:23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.”


ISA 7:14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

A theology narrative in order to give credibility to Jesus. I could call Outhouse Immanuel but it does not mean much as likewise it is meaningless for Jesus unless you are a member of his fan club. Just as the second coming is a theological narrative to cover up the fact that Jesus failed to fulfill prophecy before he died.

 

[JM2C]

A theology narrative in order to give credibility to Jesus. I could call Outhouse Immanuel but it does not mean much as likewise it is meaningless for Jesus unless you are a member of his fan club. Just as the second coming is a theological narrative to cover up the fact that Jesus failed to fulfill prophecy before he died.

You are disappointing me GENIUS. I thought you knew everything. I thought you would translate the word “virgin” into another words in Greek and in Hebrews. Well, I think GNOSTIC has more on this than you. Really disappointed on you GENIUS. I may have to change your name SOON IF YOU DON’T COME UP WITH A BETTER ANSWER THAN THIS NONSENSE RHETORIC.

 

[JM2C]

I am mocking you since you are incompetent. Time for a lesson in reading comprehension.

Follow the conversation.

The first reply regarding the language was the following.



As you can see we are talking about a NT verse thus the OT is not involved in the conversation. Hebrew is irreverent to this verse as it is within the Greek manuscript called the NT. The next comment pointed this fact out as the context was in the NT.



This is correct as the context was a NT verse not OT. The next which follows is an error made by the poster.



Which followed by the correction.



So on and so on. Again you lost track of the conversation then modified it to suit your needs while ignoring the context completely. Thus you created a strawman making your comment irrelevant. Start on page 86 and read.

Idiot.

WHO ARE YOU ADDRESSING HERE GENIUS?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

IOW, if, for example only, the sun stops shinning, that is, total eclipse of the sun, for a week we would enter into equilibrium, meaning death.

Yes. If we were cut off from the light of the sun for a whole week all life on earth would die. In fact it may only take minutes. Hours at most for the hardiest of creatures. We are that dependent on the entropy provided to us by the sun.

Also something I forgot to mention. Almost all life energy, or energy used in biological function, comes directly from the sun or indirectly from the sun. Its not a coincidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you somehow explain Entropy in layman’s terms or the easiest way to understand it without using physicist’s.

Entropy is a measure of how much in equilibrium a system is.

A simple example.....
Imagine a sealed room in which no air or heat flows in or out.
In it are 2 barrels of water.
One is hot. One is cold.
This is a "closed" system because nothing flows in or out.

It's not in equilibrium because of the temperature difference.
The temperature difference means there's "available" thermal energy to do work.
A Stirling engine does this easily.

The different temperatures mean the system isn't in equilibrium, so entropy is at a minimum.
Let's say the heat engine uses all the available thermal energy to lift a weight up a few feet.
Now the barrels are at the same temperature, so they're in equilibrium.
No thermal energy is available to do work.
But the weight has potential mechanical energy to do work.
Since no heat engine is 100% efficiency, the potential mechanical energy created is less than the available thermal energy used up.
So entropy has increased.

Now, let the weight fall, & generate heat.
There 's no more thermal energy or potential mechanical energy available to do work.
Everything is in equilibrium, so entropy is at a maximum for this closed system.

At this point, the only way to decrease entropy is to "open" the "closed" system.
If a power cord from outside the system delivered electricity to a refrigerator in it, one barrel could be heated & the other cooled.

I don't know how clear this is, or whether it answers your question.

 

[Shad]

IOW, if, for example only, the sun stops shinning, that is, total eclipse of the sun, for a week we would enter into equilibrium, meaning death.

There is geothermal energy, energy generated by the wind, tidal energy generated by the moon, etc. The Sun is not the end all be all of energy. There are forms of life which survive using hydrothermal vents, as well as other forms of energy, as sun light does not reach great depths. Once these sources of energy are depleted life could end but this could take billions of years. Mass extinctions would occur for life depends on sun light and those animals which consume these light dependent animals but not total extinction. There are actual experiments in the works by NASA to send a probe to Europe to detect life in its geysers. These are created by gravitation forces of Jupiter on Europe and it's ice sheet. NASA wants to determine if the gravitation forces provide enough energy to produce liquid H2O in order for life to develop. Sun light is very weak at Jupiter location and can not penetrate Europe's surface.

 

[JM2C]

Entropy is a measure of how much in equilibrium a system is.


A simple example.....

Imagine a sealed room in which no air or heat flows in or out.

In it are 2 barrels of water.

One is hot. One is cold.

This is a "closed" system because nothing flows in or out.


It's not in equilibrium because of the temperature difference.

The temperature difference means there's "available" energy to do work.

A Stirling engine does this easily.

The different temperatures mean the system isn't in equilibrium, so entropy is not at a minimum.

Let's say the heat engine uses all the available energy to lift a weight up a few feet.

Now the barrels are at the same temperature, so they're in equilibrium, ie, no thermal energy is available to do work.

But the weight has potential mechanical energy to do work.

Since no heat engine is 100% efficiency, the potential mechanical energy created is less than the available thermal energy lost.

So entropy has increased.


Now, let the weight fall, & generate heat.

There 's no more thermal or potential mechanical energy available to do work.

Everything is in equilibrium, so entropy is at a maximum for this closed system.


I don't know how clear this is, or whether it answers your question.

I saw these samples so many times already. I want to hear or read your .02cents on it, if you don't mind.

 

[Shad]

Yes. If we were cut off from the light of the sun for a whole week all life on earth would die. In fact it may only take minutes. Hours at most for the hardiest of creatures. We are that dependent on the entropy provided to us by the sun.

Also something I forgot to mention. Almost all life energy, or energy used in biological function, comes directly from the sun or indirectly from the sun. Its not a coincidence.

Not all forms of live depend on the Sun. Go look up a few species which survive at great ocean depths which the Sun can not penetrate. There are also forms of life which can hibernate such as bacteria. Other sources of energy would need to be exhausted first for a complete extinction level event rather than a mass extinction level event. After if the cause of the mass extinction of Dinosaurs was triggered by a meteor this produced cloud cover and a nuclear winter yet life still survived for more than a few days or we wouldn't be here talking about it. Keep in mind the scenario was an eclipse not the total removal of the Sun as a gravitational force, thermal, radiation, etc, generating body.

Bacteria manipulate salt to build shelters to hibernate - Astrobiology Magazine

This links directly to my previous point about Europa in which life does not need to be dependent on sun light but just needs liquid water. Obvious we do not really know how long such life can survive in hibernation hence the tests on Mars and Europe. One lacks liquid H2O while the other lacks Sun light below the surface.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not all forms of live depend on the Sun. Go look up a few species which survive at great ocean depths which the Sun can not penetrate. There are also forms of life which can hibernate such as bacteria. Other sources of energy would need to be exhausted first for a complete extinction level event rather than a mass extinction level event. After if the cause of the mass extinction of Dinosaurs was triggered by a meteor this produced cloud cover and a nuclear winter yet life still survived for more than a few days or we wouldn't be here talking about it. Keep in mind the scenario was an eclipse not the total removal of the Sun as a gravitational force, thermal, radiation, etc, generating body.

Bacteria manipulate salt to build shelters to hibernate - Astrobiology Magazine

This links directly to my previous point about Europa in which life does not need to be dependent on sun light but just needs liquid water. Obvious we do not really know how long such life can survive in hibernation hence the tests on Mars and Europe. One lacks liquid H2O while the other lacks Sun light below the surface.

It is doubtful that they would continue to live without the sun for very long. I suppose it is possible and there are exceptions to the basis photo oriented primary producers but the cooling effect of the earth itself may destroy the atmosphere and therefore water. But you make a good point to bring up direct sunlight isn't directly needed.

 

[Shad]

You are disappointing me GENIUS. I thought you knew everything. I thought you would translate the word “virgin” into another words in Greek and in Hebrews. Well, I think GNOSTIC has more on this than you. Really disappointed on you GENIUS. I may have to change your name SOON IF YOU DON’T COME UP WITH A BETTER ANSWER THAN THIS NONSENSE RHETORIC.

Can you not read your own comment directly above my own? Having issues follow the conversation again?

 

[Shad]

It is doubtful that they would continue to live without the sun for very long. I suppose it is possible and there are exceptions to the basis photo oriented primary producers but the cooling effect of the earth itself may destroy the atmosphere and therefore water. But you make a good point to bring up direct sunlight isn't directly needed.

A few questions needs to be resolved before either position can be anything but speculation. First off does the cloud cover and a nuclear winter environment produce a similar or different thermal drop as an long term eclipse would. How much of and for how long would current solar energy be contained within either atmosphere after. Would an atmosphere survive whole or in part rather than dissipate completely. Same applies to water. Such modeling is beyond my expertise but it is worth considering in a what if scenario with only one parameter which is an eclipse of some form.

 

[Shad]

You are disappointing me GENIUS. I thought you knew everything. I thought you would translate the word “virgin” into another words in Greek and in Hebrews. Well, I think GNOSTIC has more on this than you. Really disappointed on you GENIUS. I may have to change your name SOON IF YOU DON’T COME UP WITH A BETTER ANSWER THAN THIS NONSENSE RHETORIC.

So you projected what my actions should be while failing to provide parameters in your own comment which would direct me to do so. You only mentioned the translation of Immanual but said nothing about virgin as the focus. I put your quote in bold so you can learn how to form a proper sentence with parameters. Follow the bold to learn how to focus a sentence's point by emphasizing a point of a sentence.

Let me ask you since we are talking about NT and the Gospel of Matthew and since you are a self-proclaimed GENIIUS and GNOSTIC [who thinks he knows everything] maybe you guys can explain this.

MT 1:23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.”


ISA 7:14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

See, son, if you want to talk about about virgin then you should provide a sentence or parameter so one can clearly see you are talking about it. Instead you provided parameters about Immanuel then reinforced this by the parameter of "which translated means" which direct the focus to Immanuel rather than virgin. So congratulations for fail to construct a properly structured sentence then calling foul when it was your own mistake.

I merely stated my view on Immanuel since this was the focus of the sentence nothing more. Especially since Isiah predated Mathew this would have been known by most Jews since the Torah was part of their education and religious systems. It is no more impressive than taking a story of King Arthur returning and calling yourself Arthur while having another name all as post hoc rationalization.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

A question needs to be resolved before either position can be anything but speculation. First off does the cloud cover and a nuclear winter environment produce a similar or different thermal drop as an long term eclipse would. How much of and for how long would current solar energy be contained within either atmosphere after. Would an atmosphere survive whole or in part rather than dissipate completely. Same applies to water. Such modeling is beyond my expertise but it is worth considering in a what if scenario with only one parameter which is an eclipse of some form.

The vast majority of the energy in our planet comes from the sun. At least the vast majority of the energy on the surface of our planet comes from the sun. Very very cold planets, which is what would happen if we didn't have any heat or light coming from the sun, would freeze over our planet. We would be much like a moon or other piece of rock in deep space.

 

[Revoltingest]

I saw these samples so many times already. I want to hear or read your .02cents on it, if you don't mind.

That was my 2 cents.
I don't know a better way to explain it.
My best advice is to approach things simply but with rigor.....
- Think of the laws of thermodynamics in terms of heat.
- Ignore all discussion about order & disorder because they're more complicated, & they're easily confused with lay concepts.
- Consider that entropy is irrelevant to the creation & existence of life (because we live in an open system).

 

[Shad]

The vast majority of the energy in our planet comes from the sun. At least the vast majority of the energy on the surface of our planet comes from the sun. Very very cold planets, which is what would happen if we didn't have any heat or light coming from the sun, would freeze over our planet. We would be much like a moon or other piece of rock in deep space.

I know it does hence why I made a distinction between a mass extinction level event and complete extinction level event while providing a similar example of an environment in which sunlight is blocked

You are failing to consider that there are frozen moons and desolate planets which may still contain life. Hence my example of Europa and linked article covering the tests envisioned by NASA. There are other factor which make a planet lifeless besides the Sun. Mars has sunlight but may have no life due to a reduced atmosphere and weak magnetic field. Yes life as we know it will mostly die out but I doubt all of it considering my previous comments. Yet it would be pointless to explore different planets and moons if we have strictly defined life as we see on Earth and only the most common of life we know of. Hence why the geysers on Europe are important. Sunlight does not penetrate the surface, the geysers are generated by Jupiter gravity which generates heat. If there is life is it located around the vents, in the ice sheet or in a liquid medium containing H2O.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I know it does hence why I made a distinction between a mass extinction level event and complete extinction level event while providing a similar example of an environment in which sunlight is blocked

You are failing to consider that there are frozen moons and desolate planets which may still contain life. Hence my example of Europa and linked article covering the tests envisioned by NASA. There are other factor which make a planet lifeless besides the Sun. Mars has sunlight but may have no life due to a reduced atmosphere and weak magnetic field. Yes life as we know it will mostly die out but I doubt all of it considering my previous comments. Yet it would be pointless to explore different planets and moons if we have strictly defined life as we see on Earth and only the most common of life we know of. Hence why the geysers on Europe are important. Sunlight does not penetrate the surface, the geysers are generated by Jupiter gravity which generates heat. If there is life is it located around the vents, in the ice sheet or in a liquid medium containing H2O.

It won't have life if it doesn't have access to outside energy. That much is certain. The way that we can "cheat" the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that there is energy separated into different systems that can leak or affect other systems. Gravity and QM help create the sun and the conditions that separated the earth from the huge amount of energy being produced by the sun. There it creates a separate system within a much larger system (the universe) that can have increased entropy.