Customer Discussions > Science forum

Creationists are trying to rewrite the Laws of Thermodynamics!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1251-1275 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 5:54:46 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hidiing from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work.

Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 8:23:31 AM PDT
A. Caplan says:
CH: Be nice to our poor Atheist Science Groupie friends.
>Don't you have any poor non-atheist science groupie friends? Why not?

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2012 8:59:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 1:24:00 PM PDT
Irish lace: "Wise decision, FisicoM, but may I say I have enjoyed your contributions very much."

Well thank you! Your contributions have also been very much appreciated, both on this discussion and on the various other discussions in which you have participated.

Posted on May 24, 2012 5:26:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 24, 2012 5:28:51 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2012 3:42:17 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hidiing from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work.

Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

Posted on May 26, 2012 7:42:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 26, 2012 7:46:32 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 7:48:07 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 27, 2012 11:13:44 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 9:28:24 AM PDT
Christine, Christopher an a**? First time I have seen him described as the north end of a south bound perissodactyla.

Regards

John.

Posted on May 27, 2012 11:17:33 AM PDT
I accidentally deleted my post so here it is again

Haynes, you are right. We have not poked a whole in any of your arguments. We've simply completley and utterly destroyed them. Well, until relatively recently that is. As I'm sure you have noticed, we haven't really been paying much attention to what you have to say and we haven't been really responding the way we used to. You know why? Well we have realized you are no creationist, we have realized that there is no such thing as a creationist law of thermodynamics, or a creationist definition of entropy, or a creationist law of anything for that matter. This is all your mumbo jumbo, and as far as we can tell, the only reason for these posts is to annoy us.
So forget it Haynes. No one is going to take you seriously any more and no one is going to respond to your posts seriously.

Have a nice day.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 6:48:50 AM PDT
Give it a break.

Posted on May 29, 2012 4:49:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012 5:33:24 PM PDT
Guys, remember this howler?

One of our Atheist Science Groupie friends he comes out with the silliest stuff.
You'll love it.

First off, we was talkin about the Creationist Definiton of a Stable State, :
"A system is in a stable state if it's hopelessly improbable that it can attain a new state, different by a finite amount, without a finite and lasting change in its environment."

So this poor Atheist guy, he says this
"So basically, a system must be able to interact with its environment and must be able to respond to changes in its environment in order to be in a "stable state".

Well, basically, that's basically ridiculous guys.

See, basically a system what cant basically interact with its environment, and is basically already basically in a stable state, will basically always be in a stable state.
Basically that's what the Creationist Defintiton of a Stable State basically says.

I mean basically, is English basically so hard that our Atheist friends they basically cant read it?
Basically us Creactionsts we basically figure this is bascially a howl
Basically what do you guys basically figure?

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 5:11:49 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hidiing from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work.

Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 12:10:01 PM PDT
this law is energy is neither created nor destroyed but changes or something like that? how does belief in God creating an earth like this one contradictory? the bible doesn't say how long the days were, or the exact methods and science behind creation. all it tells is what man needs to know at present, it starts out with a planet that has been here and no life on it for long period of time, it didn't say the planet was created in a day but each sequence of life on it, and each day is not the same as our day, the bible indicates this in psalms.
If you existed like forever as an intelligent, powerful spirit creature with unlimited energy and capacity to create how does that break this law?

rose

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 1:22:48 PM PDT
ErikR says:
"the bible doesn't say how long the days were, or the exact methods and science behind creation."

And because of this we have no way of evaluating its claims. Therefore they can effectively be ignored.

Here's an example:

"Gribblfix made the universe through the process of Hruumphination."

If I can't give coherent descriptions/explantions of "Gribblfix" or "Hruumphination" how can you determine the truth value of my statement? And if you can't do this then the statement is effectively useless.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 2:46:04 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2012 2:47:35 PM PDT
Christopher Haynes: "Now take "The Creationist Defintion of Entropy" "
------------
So, creationists kids are now able to read Wikipedia, and parrot a definition of thermodynamic entropy that was known 162 years ago? Wow, I never knew modern creationists contributed so much to science!

You are a troll. Your folksy hick way of writing is a put-on. You try to appear stupider that you are.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2012 3:18:47 PM PDT
"You are a troll. Your folksy hick way of writing is a put-on. You try to appear stupider that you are"

And the pope is Catholic (and never mind the habits of bears)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012 10:00:04 AM PDT
Rose, posting as terry dolittle takes the Bible out of the context in which it was composed. By doing so this creates a sense of violence to the text as it was composed at a time when it was believed that the Earth was only about 6,000 years old and a 6 day creation was possible. Of course we know better nowadays.

We must not take the bible out of context as it becomes then a pretext for false belief.

Regards

John

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 13, 2012 10:50:50 AM PDT
Hey, John, where've you been??!

Posted on Jun 13, 2012 12:30:14 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2012 9:12:12 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2012 5:12:08 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hidiing from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work.

Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

Posted on Jun 17, 2012 11:46:19 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 17, 2012 12:10:13 PM PDT
Folks, us Creationists we got a quiz for you

But first a blast from the past:

One of them Atheist Science Goupies remember when he said this:
Ahem, "There is no such thing as infinite temperature: the energy of molecular motion can increase without limit. Nor can there be a negative temperature: once atomic motion reaches its lowest possible state (i.e, 0 K), it cannot get any lower. "
Hey fellas what's temperature?
Look at the Creationist Defintion of Temperature.
"Temperature is a property of a system equal to the change in energy corresponding to a unit change in entropy, casued by increasing entropy by an ininitesimal amount in a reversible process involving no work. "
So them electron spin systems they got negative temperatures. Negative infinty temperatures!

Anyhow. That quiz:
Who's right on the entropy of an isolated system can it decrease?.
Them Creationist kids? they said it CAN
or Them Noble Prize winners, fermi Plank Schrodinger? they said it CANT

A friendly warning guys.
You bet on them Peer Reviwed Scientists, real money, you'll lose.
And your missus she'll blow her top.

But if you want your missus to say "My hubby, the financial genius", its simple.
Sciencewise, just put your money on them Moron Nascar Hick Texas Creatard Creationist kids.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 6:02:41 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hidiing from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work.

Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

Posted on Jun 20, 2012 1:23:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 20, 2012 5:22:15 PM PDT
Thermodyanmics and Supernatural forces

Us Creationists we're glad to explain thermodynamics
So supernaural forces? Guys, that's an easy one, thermodynamicswise.

One of our Science Groupie friends he asked:
....."Please provide evidence that devine intervention can cause a system to have more than one stable state, and give an example of when this happens"

Okey-dokey.
First, lets take a system consisting of a jug and its contents.
State 1: The jug contains a gallon of water. This is a stable state
State 2: The jug contains a gallon of wine. This is a different state. It is also a stable state.

Now remember them Creationist school kids? Their Creationist Law of Stable States:
"In the absence of supernatural forces, a bounded system can attain one and only one stable state"

One sentence it contains the first and second laws together.
And it is correct!
Unlike all them statements put out by them Nobel Prize Winning Peer Reviewed Scientist phd's.
It's sad, them poor profs, made to look like goofs.
And uh oh, much worse. By them Texas dumbell nascar hick Creationists kids.
The good news: God He must love Peer Reviewed Goofs. He made so many of them

Anyhow, if the system in state 1 is isolated, it has already attained its one and only one stable state.
So it cant never attain no state 2, in the absence of devine intervention.
So says the Creationist Law.

The bottom line? Only God can turn water into wine. Says thermodynamics.

And God has done just that. So says Empirical Evidence!!
If you wish to see the empirical evidence, see the Gospels. John 2:1-11
Check it out guys. It's compelling evidence.
It's convinced billions of people.

Including U.S. President Barack Obama, a brilliant Ivy league intellectual.
And Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
And fellas, he's Articulate!
That's some compelling, huh guys?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 5:53:08 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hidiing from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work.

Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 11:42:48 AM PDT
Ryan S. Hupp says:
Dueling Banjos
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  90
Total posts:  1420
Initial post:  Oct 29, 2011
Latest post:  Jul 22, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions