quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Wow, are the God-Botherers still spitting up their stupidity?

You can always tell when a woman who has gotten through life taking advantage of men who want her cunt begins to lose desirability. That kid took its toll didn't it sweet. Pretty much lost the only real skill you had. Sorry dear.

That is an extremely low blow there, Nnanji. Truly inhumane.

Actually what is the low blow is a cock tease taking advantage of drunk men all her life and believing it makes her special.

Characterize her any way you wish. Doesn't nullify the comments you just made regarding her and the baby girl she lost.

Didn't know she lost the child but that doesn't make it so she can be a bitch. Let her go take it out on her drunks. Her emotions are not my concern. If she wants to play here, she'll have to reap what she sows.

If you were paying attention to her posts in this thread, and it seems like you were for you to comment on them, then you would know.

And how is being a bar waitress taking advantage of drunks? Adult men choosing to go somewhere and spend their money how they please is an indication oj her character? Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Sad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


ORIGINAL: vincentML

Allow me to make this correction.

quote:

but as the universe expands its organization is decreasing. Particles, stars, galaxies, etc., are further away from each other, and some postulate the universe will one day die a death of maximum entropy. High disorder and low heat.

quote:

In Darwin's Theory, as much as I can make of it, evolution has no driving mechanism, although living organisms do absorb energy, they become highly organized. My own conclusion then is that the evolution of life as Darwin described it is rather passive, serendipitous, and fortuitous. To assign a driving mechanism to Darwin would be to engage in teleological thinking, which lies at the root of Judeo-Christian Dogma. Darwin proposes no particular reason for the purpose of life. His thesis is not teleological. Life is just happenstance.

Entropy has two components: heat and disorder. As heat is lost and an object becomes disorganized its entropy rapidly increases. A stick of dynamite would be an obvious example. As it explodes it gives off a great deal of heat and becomes highly disorganized. High entropy, as Mr Trump might tweet, would be BAD.

As the universe evolves its galaxies becomes highly disorganized, further apart, and energy is lost, entropy increases.

As life evolves it becomes more organized and takes in energy, so has lower entropy. The evolution of living things and the evolution of the universe are opposite, contrasting events.

The evolution of the universe may have a driving mechanism; the evolution of life may not have a driving mechanism.

There is probably an easier way to say that . . . ..lol!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
I choose to believe that life is a form of energy and follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which, then, would mean it has a driving mechanism. I additionally believe some day we'll have the ability to measure life just as Spok did on Star Track with the ships sensors and his tricorder. I often wonder why people who get all sciency without having taken science classes think the energy of life somehow doesn't conform to the laws of energy.

quote:

Are you now, after being a little bitch going to do a poor me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

She has contributed nothing to these threads or to life in general.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

And she has clearly pissed you right the fuck off by repeatedly sinking every ship you and the other Christian apologists have launched.
Sucks to be you loser-boy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

She has contributed nothing to these threads or to life in general.

And you have? Seriously, the superiority complex of cons like yourself never fails to make me sick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


ORIGINAL: vincentML

Allow me to make this correction.

quote:

but as the universe expands its organization is decreasing. Particles, stars, galaxies, etc., are further away from each other, and some postulate the universe will one day die a death of maximum entropy. High disorder and low heat.

quote:

In Darwin's Theory, as much as I can make of it, evolution has no driving mechanism, although living organisms do absorb energy, they become highly organized. My own conclusion then is that the evolution of life as Darwin described it is rather passive, serendipitous, and fortuitous. To assign a driving mechanism to Darwin would be to engage in teleological thinking, which lies at the root of Judeo-Christian Dogma. Darwin proposes no particular reason for the purpose of life. His thesis is not teleological. Life is just happenstance.

Entropy has two components: heat and disorder. As heat is lost and an object becomes disorganized its entropy rapidly increases. A stick of dynamite would be an obvious example. As it explodes it gives off a great deal of heat and becomes highly disorganized. High entropy, as Mr Trump might tweet, would be BAD.

As the universe evolves its galaxies becomes highly disorganized, further apart, and energy is lost, entropy increases.

As life evolves it becomes more organized and takes in energy, so has lower entropy. The evolution of living things and the evolution of the universe are opposite, contrasting events.

The evolution of the universe may have a driving mechanism; the evolution of life may not have a driving mechanism.

There is probably an easier way to say that . . . ..lol!

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says all of the energy in the universe is constant, you can neither create nor destroy energy, you may only change its form. (I believe it's the 2nd law, it's been years)(Of course the famous equation demonstrating that is E=mc^2 where energy and matter are the same thing but different forms). So heat is one form of energy yes. I choose to believe that life is a form of energy and follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which, then, would mean it has a driving mechanism. I additionally believe some day we'll have the ability to measure life just as Spok did on Star Track with the ships sensors and his tricorder. I often wonder why people who get all sciency without having taken science classes think the energy of life somehow doesn't conform to the laws of energy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


ORIGINAL: vincentML

Allow me to make this correction.

quote:

but as the universe expands its organization is decreasing. Particles, stars, galaxies, etc., are further away from each other, and some postulate the universe will one day die a death of maximum entropy. High disorder and low heat.

quote:

In Darwin's Theory, as much as I can make of it, evolution has no driving mechanism, although living organisms do absorb energy, they become highly organized. My own conclusion then is that the evolution of life as Darwin described it is rather passive, serendipitous, and fortuitous. To assign a driving mechanism to Darwin would be to engage in teleological thinking, which lies at the root of Judeo-Christian Dogma. Darwin proposes no particular reason for the purpose of life. His thesis is not teleological. Life is just happenstance.

Entropy has two components: heat and disorder. As heat is lost and an object becomes disorganized its entropy rapidly increases. A stick of dynamite would be an obvious example. As it explodes it gives off a great deal of heat and becomes highly disorganized. High entropy, as Mr Trump might tweet, would be BAD.

As the universe evolves its galaxies becomes highly disorganized, further apart, and energy is lost, entropy increases.

As life evolves it becomes more organized and takes in energy, so has lower entropy. The evolution of living things and the evolution of the universe are opposite, contrasting events.

The evolution of the universe may have a driving mechanism; the evolution of life may not have a driving mechanism.

There is probably an easier way to say that . . . ..lol!

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says all of the energy in the universe is constant, you can neither create nor destroy energy, you may only change its form. (I believe it's the 2nd law, it's been years)(Of course the famous equation demonstrating that is E=mc^2 where energy and matter are the same thing but different forms). So heat is one form of energy yes. I choose to believe that life is a form of energy and follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which, then, would mean it has a driving mechanism. I additionally believe some day we'll have the ability to measure life just as Spok did on Star Track with the ships sensors and his tricorder. I often wonder why people who get all sciency without having taken science classes think the energy of life somehow doesn't conform to the laws of energy.

I fear you are wrong, N, The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds that a closed system will attain maximum ENTROPY. Energy is just one component of ENTROPY.

quote:



The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. For example, turning on a light would seem to produce energy; however, it is electrical energy that is converted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


ORIGINAL: vincentML

Allow me to make this correction.

quote:

but as the universe expands its organization is decreasing. Particles, stars, galaxies, etc., are further away from each other, and some postulate the universe will one day die a death of maximum entropy. High disorder and low heat.

quote:

In Darwin's Theory, as much as I can make of it, evolution has no driving mechanism, although living organisms do absorb energy, they become highly organized. My own conclusion then is that the evolution of life as Darwin described it is rather passive, serendipitous, and fortuitous. To assign a driving mechanism to Darwin would be to engage in teleological thinking, which lies at the root of Judeo-Christian Dogma. Darwin proposes no particular reason for the purpose of life. His thesis is not teleological. Life is just happenstance.

Entropy has two components: heat and disorder. As heat is lost and an object becomes disorganized its entropy rapidly increases. A stick of dynamite would be an obvious example. As it explodes it gives off a great deal of heat and becomes highly disorganized. High entropy, as Mr Trump might tweet, would be BAD.

As the universe evolves its galaxies becomes highly disorganized, further apart, and energy is lost, entropy increases.

As life evolves it becomes more organized and takes in energy, so has lower entropy. The evolution of living things and the evolution of the universe are opposite, contrasting events.

The evolution of the universe may have a driving mechanism; the evolution of life may not have a driving mechanism.

There is probably an easier way to say that . . . ..lol!

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says all of the energy in the universe is constant, you can neither create nor destroy energy, you may only change its form. (I believe it's the 2nd law, it's been years)(Of course the famous equation demonstrating that is E=mc^2 where energy and matter are the same thing but different forms). So heat is one form of energy yes. I choose to believe that life is a form of energy and follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which, then, would mean it has a driving mechanism. I additionally believe some day we'll have the ability to measure life just as Spok did on Star Track with the ships sensors and his tricorder. I often wonder why people who get all sciency without having taken science classes think the energy of life somehow doesn't conform to the laws of energy.

I fear you are wrong, N, The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds that a closed system will attain maximum ENTROPY. Energy is just one component of ENTROPY.

quote:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says all of the energy in the universe is constant, you can neither create nor destroy energy, you may only change its form. (I believe it's the 2nd law, it's been years)(Of course the famous equation demonstrating that is E=mc^2 where energy and matter are the same thing but different forms). So heat is one form of energy yes. I choose to believe that life is a form of energy and follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which, then, would mean it has a driving mechanism. I additionally believe some day we'll have the ability to measure life just as Spok did on Star Track with the ships sensors and his tricorder. I often wonder why people who get all sciency without having taken science classes think the energy of life somehow doesn't conform to the laws of energy.

quote:

Everything is just energy. To me, the exclusion of "life" from the system of energy is silly. Not saying you are anyone else is silly doing it. I just personally see it as silly. Then applying the "1st" law of thermodynamics to life, again, to me, means that life doesn't just switch off at death. The energy of life changes form at death. Religion is just an attempt to describe that energy change. Whether or not you believe in any particular religion doesn't matter to the energy change. It will follow the law regardless of your belief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Are you now, after being a little bitch going to do a poor me?

You have a reading issue, don't you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says all of the energy in the universe is constant, you can neither create nor destroy energy, you may only change its form. (I believe it's the 2nd law, it's been years)(Of course the famous equation demonstrating that is E=mc^2 where energy and matter are the same thing but different forms). So heat is one form of energy yes. I choose to believe that life is a form of energy and follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which, then, would mean it has a driving mechanism. I additionally believe some day we'll have the ability to measure life just as Spok did on Star Track with the ships sensors and his tricorder. I often wonder why people who get all sciency without having taken science classes think the energy of life somehow doesn't conform to the laws of energy.

I fear you are wrong, N, The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds that a closed system will attain maximum ENTROPY. Energy is just one component of ENTROPY.

quote:

Everything is just energy. To me, the exclusion of "life" from the system of energy is silly. Not saying you are anyone else is silly doing it. I just personally see it as silly. Then applying the "1st" law of thermodynamics to life, again, to me, means that life doesn't just switch off at death. The energy of life changes form at death. Religion is just an attempt to describe that energy change. Whether or not you believe in any particular religion doesn't matter to the energy change. It will follow the law regardless of your belief.

Let’s look at what you did here, N. At the very top you discussed the second law of thermodynamics. And then you switched to the first law of thermodynamics. In the first instance you’re talking about ENTROPY, and in the second instance you’re talking about ENERGY.

Let’s get this straight as it pertains to living systems versus evolution of living systems. A living system is not a closed system. It is an open system. Energy is taken in and energy is given out. Have you ever touched a corpse? Of course, you realized quickly that it has very little apparent energy. When the individual died he gave up his energy to his surroundings. Why did he do that? Because the living thing is not a closed system it is opened to its environment. Evolution on the other hand is an ongoing process. As new life is formed the individual body takes in energy from its surroundings and when it dies it gives out energy to its surroundings. However when the living body decays and, if you leave it alone, it disintegrates; it is fulfilling the second law of thermodynamics by becoming greatly disorganized. It has therefore fulfilled both components of entropy, greater disorganization and lower temperature. So until the last person dies you’re right the first law of thermodynamics survives. Energy and matter are interchanged. But entropy is not fulfilled. So, which do you wish to apply?

Religious people have come up with a fudge factor. They call it the soul. There was even a movie, if I remember correctly, the name of it was 7 ½ g or 7 1/2 ounces, whichever, it provided for the evacuation of the soul from the body when the body was dead.

I don’t see where there is a driving force to move the process of evolution. It just happens due to the coincidence of energy and chemicals near to one another. And it will keep on happening until the last living thing is no longer living.

So, replying to your final summation, when a single living thing dies, yes it gives up its energy, or most of it, because as long as there are still organic chemicals that haven’t deteriorated there is energy locked in the bonds of those chemicals. Eventually, as those chemicals, like carbohydrates and fats and proteins deteriorate and break down into their component elements, carbon, hydrogen, whatever, they still will be retaining some energy. Finally all that energy will go into the soil, or into the air.

I don’t see how any of this supports religious belief. Either you believe in the supernatural or you don’t believe in the supernatural, in my opinion. If you are a believer in God, then so be it, you need not have to look to physical laws to explain a supernatural being. Seems to me you are exerting too much effort in order to justify your belief. Maybe you should have a look at that need you have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says all of the energy in the universe is constant, you can neither create nor destroy energy, you may only change its form. (I believe it's the 2nd law, it's been years)(Of course the famous equation demonstrating that is E=mc^2 where energy and matter are the same thing but different forms). So heat is one form of energy yes. I choose to believe that life is a form of energy and follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which, then, would mean it has a driving mechanism. I additionally believe some day we'll have the ability to measure life just as Spok did on Star Track with the ships sensors and his tricorder. I often wonder why people who get all sciency without having taken science classes think the energy of life somehow doesn't conform to the laws of energy.

I fear you are wrong, N, The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds that a closed system will attain maximum ENTROPY. Energy is just one component of ENTROPY.

quote:

Everything is just energy. To me, the exclusion of "life" from the system of energy is silly. Not saying you are anyone else is silly doing it. I just personally see it as silly. Then applying the "1st" law of thermodynamics to life, again, to me, means that life doesn't just switch off at death. The energy of life changes form at death. Religion is just an attempt to describe that energy change. Whether or not you believe in any particular religion doesn't matter to the energy change. It will follow the law regardless of your belief.

Let’s look at what you did here, N. At the very top you discussed the second law of thermodynamics. And then you switched to the first law of thermodynamics. In the first instance you’re talking about ENTROPY, and in the second instance you’re talking about ENERGY.

Let’s get this straight as it pertains to living systems versus evolution of living systems. A living system is not a closed system. It is an open system. Energy is taken in and energy is given out. Have you ever touched a corpse? Of course, you realized quickly that it has very little apparent energy. When the individual died he gave up his energy to his surroundings. Why did he do that? Because the living thing is not a closed system it is opened to its environment. Evolution on the other hand is an ongoing process. As new life is formed the individual body takes in energy from its surroundings and when it dies it gives out energy to its surroundings. However when the living body decays and, if you leave it alone, it disintegrates; it is fulfilling the second law of thermodynamics by becoming greatly disorganized. It has therefore fulfilled both components of entropy, greater disorganization and lower temperature. So until the last person dies you’re right the first law of thermodynamics survives. Energy and matter are interchanged. But entropy is not fulfilled. So, which do you wish to apply?

Religious people have come up with a fudge factor. They call it the soul. There was even a movie, if I remember correctly, the name of it was 7 ½ g or 7 1/2 ounces, whichever, it provided for the evacuation of the soul from the body when the body was dead.

I don’t see where there is a driving force to move the process of evolution. It just happens due to the coincidence of energy and chemicals near to one another. And it will keep on happening until the last living thing is no longer living.

So, replying to your final summation, when a single living thing dies, yes it gives up its energy, or most of it, because as long as there are still organic chemicals that haven’t deteriorated there is energy locked in the bonds of those chemicals. Eventually, as those chemicals, like carbohydrates and fats and proteins deteriorate and break down into their component elements, carbon, hydrogen, whatever, they still will be retaining some energy. Finally all that energy will go into the soil, or into the air.

I don’t see how any of this supports religious belief. Either you believe in the supernatural or you don’t believe in the supernatural, in my opinion. If you are a believer in God, then so be it, you need not have to look to physical laws to explain a supernatural being. Seems to me you are exerting too much effort in order to justify your belief. Maybe you should have a look at that need you have.

Before I read more than your first sentence, let me say I always discussed the same thing but misremembered which number law it was. I pulled that number from a forty year memory and only being one off was pretty good...except I think there's only three.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says all of the energy in the universe is constant, you can neither create nor destroy energy, you may only change its form. (I believe it's the 2nd law, it's been years)(Of course the famous equation demonstrating that is E=mc^2 where energy and matter are the same thing but different forms). So heat is one form of energy yes. I choose to believe that life is a form of energy and follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which, then, would mean it has a driving mechanism. I additionally believe some day we'll have the ability to measure life just as Spok did on Star Track with the ships sensors and his tricorder. I often wonder why people who get all sciency without having taken science classes think the energy of life somehow doesn't conform to the laws of energy.

I fear you are wrong, N, The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds that a closed system will attain maximum ENTROPY. Energy is just one component of ENTROPY.

quote:

Everything is just energy. To me, the exclusion of "life" from the system of energy is silly. Not saying you are anyone else is silly doing it. I just personally see it as silly. Then applying the "1st" law of thermodynamics to life, again, to me, means that life doesn't just switch off at death. The energy of life changes form at death. Religion is just an attempt to describe that energy change. Whether or not you believe in any particular religion doesn't matter to the energy change. It will follow the law regardless of your belief.

Let’s look at what you did here, N. At the very top you discussed the second law of thermodynamics. And then you switched to the first law of thermodynamics. In the first instance you’re talking about ENTROPY, and in the second instance you’re talking about ENERGY.

Let’s get this straight as it pertains to living systems versus evolution of living systems. A living system is not a closed system. It is an open system. Energy is taken in and energy is given out. Have you ever touched a corpse? Of course, you realized quickly that it has very little apparent energy. When the individual died he gave up his energy to his surroundings. Why did he do that? Because the living thing is not a closed system it is opened to its environment. Evolution on the other hand is an ongoing process. As new life is formed the individual body takes in energy from its surroundings and when it dies it gives out energy to its surroundings. However when the living body decays and, if you leave it alone, it disintegrates; it is fulfilling the second law of thermodynamics by becoming greatly disorganized. It has therefore fulfilled both components of entropy, greater disorganization and lower temperature. So until the last person dies you’re right the first law of thermodynamics survives. Energy and matter are interchanged. But entropy is not fulfilled. So, which do you wish to apply?

Religious people have come up with a fudge factor. They call it the soul. There was even a movie, if I remember correctly, the name of it was 7 ½ g or 7 1/2 ounces, whichever, it provided for the evacuation of the soul from the body when the body was dead.

I don’t see where there is a driving force to move the process of evolution. It just happens due to the coincidence of energy and chemicals near to one another. And it will keep on happening until the last living thing is no longer living.

So, replying to your final summation, when a single living thing dies, yes it gives up its energy, or most of it, because as long as there are still organic chemicals that haven’t deteriorated there is energy locked in the bonds of those chemicals. Eventually, as those chemicals, like carbohydrates and fats and proteins deteriorate and break down into their component elements, carbon, hydrogen, whatever, they still will be retaining some energy. Finally all that energy will go into the soil, or into the air.

I don’t see how any of this supports religious belief. Either you believe in the supernatural or you don’t believe in the supernatural, in my opinion. If you are a believer in God, then so be it, you need not have to look to physical laws to explain a supernatural being. Seems to me you are exerting too much effort in order to justify your belief. Maybe you should have a look at that need you have.