Prev: and possibly offensive to sensitive souls - don't read this if you are offended by language. WAS: Re: Anyone feeling poetic?
Next: Test request (for Enter;prise COBOL)
From: Alistair on 19 Jul 2010 15:24
On Jul 19, 4:32 pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote:
> In article <33db1847-821e-4370-b330-1a032bc73...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups..com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Alistair  <alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Jul 16, 1:49?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote:
> >> In article
> ><62c55b5c-d6dc-4089-b1fa-6ae4b3b74...(a)k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> >No, I didn't. And as Ghosts (and life after death, generally)
> >> >contravene the laws of thermodynamics, I can have no truck with them.
>
> >> Against your religion, I see... but if the laws of thermodynamics were
> >> strictly held to, in all spacetimes and at all timespaces, wouldn't life
> >> as we know it - a violation (temporary, but a violation nonetheless) of
> >> bits and pieces of Thermodynamic law - never have occurred?
>
> >I'm dreading seeing the explanation as to how life is a violation of
> >the laws of thermodynamics but I have to ask....how so?
>
> What follows, Mr Maclean, might not be 'the explanation' but more of 'an
> explanation'.
>
> Life, by definition, is an organising of particles; consider embryogenesis
> from haploid gametes to diploid zygote to morula to blastocyst (two
> primary cell cell types) and so on, through the Carnegie stages.  Each
> change is towards greater order, greater differentiation and growth, quite
> the opposite of entropy (a tendency towards disorder).
>
> DD- Hide quoted text -

My understanding of the ins and outs of Entropy is limited but I
understand that the application of that law to the non-chaotic
ordering of life-forms is in error as Entropy applies to limited
closed systems and not to the Universe as a whole (or any
insignificant small blue-green planet on the edge of a spiral arm of a
minor galaxy in the middle of nowhere). Regrettably, although I have
seen the explanation for this (Scientific American I think) I am
unable to repeat the proof. Sorry.
From: Alistair on 19 Jul 2010 15:26
On Jul 19, 6:24 pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote:
> In article <rd09465s2i337t38ur6n479ordjc0ov...(a)4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee  <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:24:49 +0000 (UTC), docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote:
>
> >>>It couldn't be that our good doctor is playing with us here, could it?
>
> >>No doctor, good or otherwise, I... jes' ol' Doc and I am full of play and
> >>joyfulnesses!  I believe this deity-to-get-the-ball-rolling was addressed
> >>by Pierre-Simon Laplace's 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothesis' (or
> >>something like that, as dimly recalled from Kollidj Daze)
>
> >Maybe you're a doctor the same way the protagonist of Dr. Who is.
>
> I had to research that one... but no, I have never been proclaimed thus
> by a crew of scriptwriters.
>
> DD

Whoa! You had to research the great Dr. Who?! Where have you been the
last 50 years?
From: Alistair on 19 Jul 2010 15:31
On Jul 19, 4:47 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:12:07 -0700 (PDT), Alistair
>
> <alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Against your religion, I see... but if the laws of thermodynamics were
> >> strictly held to, in all spacetimes and at all timespaces, wouldn't life
> >> as we know it - a violation (temporary, but a violation nonetheless) of
> >> bits and pieces of Thermodynamic law - never have occurred?
>
> >> DD
>
> >I'm dreading seeing the explanation as to how life is a violation of
> >the laws of thermodynamics but I have to ask....how so?
>
> There are some Creationists who use the law of thermodynamics to show
> that things cannot become more ordered without a deity making them so.
>

Would those creationists be the same ones who quote science to support
their case when it suits them and yet they deny other sciences when it
doesn't suit them?

I saw a superb documentary about jellyfish yesterday. A scientist
described how he watched jellyfish hunting fish. Something that they
could not do as they clearly don't have eyes. Subsequent dissection
found the eyes and a controlling brain. Amazing how the deity created
eyes in jellyfish in order to satisfy the observation and musings of a
humble scientist.
From: Anonymous on 20 Jul 2010 10:26
In article <a49ec6f8-084e-44e3-8179-26d0daa1c0a6(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Jul 19, 4:32?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote:
>> In article
><33db1847-821e-4370-b330-1a032bc73...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On Jul 16, 1:49?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote:
>> >> In article
>> ><62c55b5c-d6dc-4089-b1fa-6ae4b3b74...(a)k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> [snip]
>>
>> >> >No, I didn't. And as Ghosts (and life after death, generally)
>> >> >contravene the laws of thermodynamics, I can have no truck with them.
>>
>> >> Against your religion, I see... but if the laws of thermodynamics were
>> >> strictly held to, in all spacetimes and at all timespaces, wouldn't life
>> >> as we know it - a violation (temporary, but a violation nonetheless) of
>> >> bits and pieces of Thermodynamic law - never have occurred?
>>
>> >I'm dreading seeing the explanation as to how life is a violation of
>> >the laws of thermodynamics but I have to ask....how so?
>>
>> What follows, Mr Maclean, might not be 'the explanation' but more of 'an
>> explanation'.
>>
>> Life, by definition, is an organising of particles; consider embryogenesis
>> from haploid gametes to diploid zygote to morula to blastocyst (two
>> primary cell cell types) and so on, through the Carnegie stages. ?Each
>> change is towards greater order, greater differentiation and growth, quite
>> the opposite of entropy (a tendency towards disorder).
>
>My understanding of the ins and outs of Entropy is limited but I
>understand that the application of that law to the non-chaotic
>ordering of life-forms is in error as Entropy applies to limited
>closed systems and not to the Universe as a whole (or any
>insignificant small blue-green planet on the edge of a spiral arm of a
>minor galaxy in the middle of nowhere).

Note that the example given above, Mr Maclean, deals off with two haploid
gametes and a working uterus; this might appear to be more of a 'limited
closed system' than 'the Universe as a whole (etc)'.

>Regrettably, although I have
>seen the explanation for this (Scientific American I think) I am
>unable to repeat the proof. Sorry.

No need to apologise, it can be considered as discarded due to lack of
substantiation.

DD

From: Anonymous on 20 Jul 2010 10:28
In article <58814b9e-b2ed-48e9-8a91-b83db3ca1cd6(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Jul 19, 6:24?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote:
>> In article <rd09465s2i337t38ur6n479ordjc0ov...(a)4ax.com>,
>> Howard Brazee ?<how...(a)brazee.net> wrote:

[snip]

>> >Maybe you're a doctor the same way the protagonist of Dr. Who is.
>>
>> I had to research that one... but no, I have never been proclaimed thus
>> by a crew of scriptwriters.
>
>Whoa! You had to research the great Dr. Who?! Where have you been the
>last 50 years?

Among other things... watching different television program(me)s, it
seems.

DD

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: and possibly offensive to sensitive souls - don't read this if you are offended by language. WAS: Re: Anyone feeling poetic?
Next: Test request (for Enter;prise COBOL)