Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

[ Long ] A Philosophy of Science v. Pseudo-Science

Page 5 of 11 [ 169 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,887
Location: Stendec

17 Mar 2015, 8:14 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Have you ever heard of enthalpy?
I have given him the math, but he is completely blind to any reason. His philosophy goes something like, If it disagrees with the bible it cannot be true no matter the evidence.
Then he must also believe that slavery is a God-given right, since the Bible gives instruction on how slaves are to be treated, and allows men to sell their daughters as 'servants'.

Fundies ... :roll:



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

17 Mar 2015, 8:22 pm

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
... Creationist sources ignore, deny or distort the evidence for evolution and "quote mine" to present a straw-man caricature of this subject. So anyone who relies on creationist sources for their information about evolution forms their opinion based on LIES they were told. And to tie in with the conspiracy nuts, somehow there is a huge conspiracy of atheist scientists who the creationists claim are making all this stuff up to deny God and mislead the public. IF there is a conspiracy about evolution, it is GOD who is the mastermind, because all the evidence of the physical world clearly shows evolution happens.


They do? Do you actually have anything - anything at all - to back up these accusations? It's easy enough to whine about 'creationists' (whoever they are), and how they are apparently destroying science, but I want clear evidence of this, and not just someone's (no doubt, biased) opinion.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

17 Mar 2015, 8:51 pm

You're basing all this "entropy" stuff upon the premise that there was a "nothingness."

I don't believe absolute "nothingness" is even possible.

Something always has arisen from an infinite "something."



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

17 Mar 2015, 9:52 pm

Lintar wrote:
TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
... Creationist sources ignore, deny or distort the evidence for evolution and "quote mine" to present a straw-man caricature of this subject. So anyone who relies on creationist sources for their information about evolution forms their opinion based on LIES they were told. And to tie in with the conspiracy nuts, somehow there is a huge conspiracy of atheist scientists who the creationists claim are making all this stuff up to deny God and mislead the public. IF there is a conspiracy about evolution, it is GOD who is the mastermind, because all the evidence of the physical world clearly shows evolution happens.


They do? Do you actually have anything - anything at all - to back up these accusations? It's easy enough to whine about 'creationists' (whoever they are), and how they are apparently destroying science, but I want clear evidence of this, and not just someone's (no doubt, biased) opinion.
That's fair enough.

My case all along in this, and other similar threads, is that science shows Darwinism scientifically impossible. It's the nonsciencetists who try to hide their lack of science by bringing up the Biblical account of Creation to be an object of ridicule. Which, of course, has nothing at all to do with "proving" the veracity of the list of unjustifiable gratuitous assertions that "make their case".



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

18 Mar 2015, 7:20 am

Oldavid wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Have you ever heard of enthalpy?
The theoretical maximum amount of energy that can be produced or absorbed by a reversible (chemical) process? What has that to do with the creation of order?

Entropy and enthalpy are intrinsically linked.

The universe tends towards entropy, but reactions in which entropy decreases are still energetically viable if the drop in enthalpy makes up for that. See here.

Life is an exercise in making reactions more efficient so that enthalpy changes allow entropy to decrease.

For example, proteins are more stable than amino acids or primitive polypeptides. Assembling proteins from RNA code is more efficient than just hoping they assemble without a plan. Then DNA is better than RNA, because you've got an extra strand for redundancy and it's less reactive (hence "deoxy").



daniel1948
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2015
Age: 75
Posts: 62
Location: Spokane, WA

18 Mar 2015, 8:42 am

Fnord wrote:
Here is something that I've been working on for a while - indicators that an extraordinary claim may be delusional, irrational, or otherwise refutable. I may have posted this previously, in whole or in part, but recent pseudo-scientific claims have inspired me to post it again. <... snip...>


Excellent summary, Fnord!



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,887
Location: Stendec

18 Mar 2015, 8:46 am

daniel1948 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Here is something that I've been working on for a while - indicators that an extraordinary claim may be delusional, irrational, or otherwise refutable. I may have posted this previously, in whole or in part, but recent pseudo-scientific claims have inspired me to post it again. <... snip...>
Excellent summary, Fnord!
Thank you. I stand by every word.

Irrational delusions may come, and irrational delusions may go, but Science marches on!

:D



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

18 Mar 2015, 8:24 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Have you ever heard of enthalpy?
The theoretical maximum amount of energy that can be produced or absorbed by a reversible (chemical) process? What has that to do with the creation of order?

Entropy and enthalpy are intrinsically linked.

The universe tends towards entropy, but reactions in which entropy decreases are still energetically viable if the drop in enthalpy makes up for that. See here.

Life is an exercise in making reactions more efficient so that enthalpy changes allow entropy to decrease.

For example, proteins are more stable than amino acids or primitive polypeptides. Assembling proteins from RNA code is more efficient than just hoping they assemble without a plan. Then DNA is better than RNA, because you've got an extra strand for redundancy and it's less reactive (hence "deoxy").
Hmm. An almost clever slight-of-mind to trick the unwary.

That energy (and thus potential) can be transferred from one system to another (as in blowing up a motor car tyre) does not imply, or cause, an overall decrease in entropy, nor does a localised increase in energy potential imply, or cause, a spontaneous creation of order.

Also, that real scientists and engineers intelligently come up with ways to minimise losses in energy transfers does not imply that entropy can be made non-existent or reversed.

Real science is not trickery. Nonscience is all trickery.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

18 Mar 2015, 9:06 pm

David given your understanding of entropy and the second law. Can you explain why the earth is not in thermal equilibrium with cosmic space? Indeed can you explain why the whole universe is not in thermal equilibrium?


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

18 Mar 2015, 9:19 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
David given your understanding of entropy and the second law. Can you explain why the earth is not in thermal equilibrium with cosmic space?
The Sun is still shining.
Quote:
Indeed can you explain why the whole universe is not in thermal equilibrium?
It hasn't got there yet.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

18 Mar 2015, 10:54 pm

Good. So you accpet that we get energy from the sun and therefore this planet is not a closed system, you also accpet that heat energy is not uniform throughout the universe.
The next question is what happens to all that solar energy. For example do you accept the principle of the conservation of energy?


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

19 Mar 2015, 12:51 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Good. So you accpet that we get energy from the sun and therefore this planet is not a closed system, you also accpet that heat energy is not uniform throughout the universe.
The next question is what happens to all that solar energy. For example do you accept the principle of the conservation of energy?

Arty, I didn't come down in the last shower. Waffly twaddle is only a nuisance irritation to me.

The Laws of Thermodynamics require all of the above for anything physical to work.

Quote:
The next question is what happens to all that solar energy.
The bulk of it is eventually dissipated into space just like the other 99.999999999999....% of the Sun's output.

I assume that this just a pretentious exercise trying to trap me into defending a straw man of your own making.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

19 Mar 2015, 3:53 am

OK so we are getting somewhere. You agree that we do not live in a closed system, you agree that the universe has non uniform areas of heat energy, you agree that energy is conserved. I presume you will agree that the solar energy that is sent back into space is in the form of infra red radiation? Yes? One more thing I would like to check, do you accept that e=mc2 is a valid and rigorously tested formula?


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

19 Mar 2015, 4:39 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
OK so we are getting somewhere. You agree that we do not live in a closed system, you agree that the universe has non uniform areas of heat energy, you agree that energy is conserved. I presume you will agree that the solar energy that is sent back into space is in the form of infra red radiation? Yes?
Well, some is infrared. There must be an awful lot of the rest of the spectrum sent back out or you'd never be able to see "the blue planet" from "out there".
Quote:
One more thing I would like to check, do you accept that e=mc2 is a valid and rigorously tested formula?
It seems to work in some situations. But you tell me what you get if you make one of the variables =0. And how fast relative to what must a proton be travelling to have the mass of a proton?



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

19 Mar 2015, 5:32 am

Oldavid wrote:
That energy (and thus potential) can be transferred from one system to another (as in blowing up a motor car tyre) does not imply, or cause, an overall decrease in entropy, nor does a localised increase in energy potential imply, or cause, a spontaneous creation of order.

No, but it allows for it.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,887
Location: Stendec

19 Mar 2015, 6:27 am

Oldavid wrote:
... It seems to work in some situations. But you tell me what you get if you make one of the variables =0. And how fast relative to what must a proton be travelling to have the mass of a proton?
Wow! You really don't understand the mass-energy equivalency equation! Do you understand simple maths at all?

You can't make 'c' zero, because that is an established constant; and making 'E' equal zero makes 'm' equal zero, and vice-versa.

Did you flunk algebra, or do you actually believe that your pseudo-scientific ideas have any validity in the real universe?

:lol: