AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Serendipity

form_srcid: Serendipity

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: Serendipity

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Serendipity%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2007/01/21 07:05:34, Link
Author: Serendipity
I suppose the deal of $250,000 if anyone can prove to Hovind that evolution is true, is off, huh?

Date: 2007/01/21 07:11:51, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 09 2007,13:31)
Quote (k.e @ Jan. 09 2007,12:16)
Go the Blacks*

*NZ's the All Blacks ...the world's best rugby team. :)

Bah Humbug! Probably true ATM. Not to long ago the "Sprinbocks" where the BEST. It might become true again. England was the best team recently but you antipodeans are responsive. Let's see.

Tri Nations - All Blacks sit on top. Then Australia then the Springbok's. I'm sure the Springbok's will regain their former glory.

I'm from New Zealand.

Date: 2007/01/21 07:20:31, Link
Author: Serendipity
How common to take something out of context. Granted the equation designates "intelligence" but not deital. In fact from the equation (Drake's that is) it is easy to see that "intelligence" is a reference to any beings like us. Though after reading some ID stuff, I question human intelligence.

Date: 2007/01/23 00:11:40, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,23:44)
It's called serendipity!

You called?

Suffice to say is there any evidence for Intelligent Design?

Date: 2007/01/23 07:46:59, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2007,04:10)
P.S. Serendipity, based on experience of Avocationist thus far, no we are not going to see any evidence of ID. All we are going to get from him/her/it is a lot of sanctimonious abuse, claims of "independent thinking" (when what Avocationist is doing is manifestly neither independent or thinking), a large dose of intellectual dishonesty all coupled with the usual hand waving, lies, lack of understanding and bullshit. Of course I am extremely happy to be proven wrong about this (those like Avocationist never get this part) but what proving me wrong requires is actually knowing what they are talking about and being intellectually deft and honest enough to form a coherent argument (another thing they don't get). Based on 14/15 years of dealing with creationists on a nearly daily basis, my bet would not be an optimistic one. I live in hope of being proven wrong about that though, it did happen a couple of times, less than 1% of the total though. Oh well.

Hello, Louis.

I could perhaps go into a long diatribe with supported psychological evidence as to why people adopt a persona in order to communicate in chat, not necessarily being able to reconcile succinctly their chat persona to their "actual" persona - that would be a different thread altogether.

Upon reading some of Avocationist's posts, suffice to say they are articulate and eloquent.. but how should one say.. their science "sucks". I was glad to see that they admitted that science and maths they were not. That was a welcomed snippet of honesty. Because, I have never seen entropy  described in quite that way. Nor is it a philosophical term nor up for metaphorical interpretation. It is a mathematical principle. It is not disorganisation. That's implying that it was once in an organised state. Entropy is whatever the equation defines it to be. This does not mean a philosophical restatement - it means "mathematics"

Louis, I have not been dealing with creationists and ID'ers as long as you and I commend your steadfast dedication.  I've had 9 years exposure to an assortment of these citizens. With a lack of intellectual integrity, and a lack of substantive evidence FOR their generalised paradigm of either a creator or intelligent designer, I dare say that for most parts (and speaking personally) they have become a clique. At most, an abomination to the world of Academia. So excuse me if I do not wait with baited breath. I shall be waiting with absolute cynicism. Adieu.


Date: 2007/01/23 14:06:12, Link
Author: Serendipity
Hello, Louis.

Ooooh oooooh! Yes please.

[Gollum from LOTR like voice but really from H2G2]

A man interested in my diatribe  :O  This could be promising... or it could be serendipity *chortles*

I for one have just about enough time to be me, being someone else as well is a practical impossibility. After all, who would look after my fish?

We all at some stage adopt a persona. Yes *all* of us. According to Labelling Theory we adopt these persona's to perform a specific role. Often these roles are positive, sometimes negative, sometimes psychiatric - that being that physiologically/psychiatrically we have a disposition towards persona's.. such as MP or Schizophrenia. Cybernetics is actually no different except more people have a tendency towards experimentation of a varity of persona's that they can adopt. In a sense this complies with Jungian persona's. This is also, all connected with communication. I suppose I could give a description relating to this thread.

A creationist begins communicating - often articulately and placidly. They will structurally present why they feel they are right in their given paradigm. Then that paradigm is challenged. The creationist will then adopt a martyr persona - the sadly misunderstood. Of course its due to people not being able to grasp what they are saying. They then become the "teachers". When then requested to support their claims with evidence, they are suddenly the "warrior".. steadfastly pushing ahead, secure in the knowledge that their teaching will miraculously convince people of their stance. When again requested to support their statements and supply evidence, they are suddenly the "persecuted" lost in a world of "blind people".. those blind to their vision. When still asked to support their claims, they become the "aggressive bull". Refusing to budge, reasserting their positions.

A variety of persona's are adopted during that description.

I just don't like liars. Especially liars who are trying to subvert science. Apart from that, many/most people you'll encounter here have been at this far longer then I, and far more seriously.

I used to come here months ago, and like Sir Toejam, just changed my name. My anger is towards the misinformation that creationists spread (yes, often lies) in relation to science. Science however, can withstand the barrage, my concern is those individuals and groups who are naive enough to adopt that misinformation and at a later stage when being hammered by those learned in sciences, when they are corrected - the original people/s that fed them this misinformation are often long gone and take no accountability. It annoys me.

I'll join you in a distinct lack of optimism and a healthy dose of realism and scepticism. I'll leave the cynicism to you if you don't mind, but I think we can both indulge in a deep vein of sarcasm at the appropriate moment.

Diogenes is fading into the distance.. however sarcasm is often a result of cynicism.. Diogenes as a slave once told the King to stand before him, when the King asked why, Diogenes said it was to block out the sun which was blinding him.

I wonder what we'll have next.

Another persona, more than likely *smirks*


Date: 2007/01/23 14:30:42, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 23 2007,08:52)

Hello, Mike PSS.

Here's my quick and dirty (although factually correct) answer to avocationist about Entropy and "disorganizing force" on the LUCA thread.

Nicely written, factual and correct. I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be).


Date: 2007/01/23 15:54:14, Link
Author: Serendipity
Hi Avocationist.

The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking. what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about.

Often when one comes under scrutiny or challenges made, it is perceived as hostility. After-all, no one likes being wrong, no one likes a direct challenge if they're not expecting it. However, your visualisation skills are very umm.. visual.

do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell?

That can be easily done and I remember being asked to do such a thing in both chat and in class.

All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.

Hello Avocation. I actually lack the time, and am doing this from work and during a coffee break.

It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.

I think "rage" is the improper terminology. Try skepticism. In my case, cynicism.

Serendipity, is that your real name?  Well, what do you know. Avocationist is not my real name either. What the he11 did you think I meant by persona? I don't treat people any differently online than I do anywhere else.

I would love to claim that "Serendipity" is a cacographical neologism which I am responsible for, but alas, I am probably sauntering over plagiarism even trying. Actually I was responding to Louis concerning persona - cybernetic psychology and in particular the various faces of individuals online has been a project I have been working on for a number of years. The only person I know on this list which I can say anything about persona or otherwise is the man that I have met face to face, even shared a bed with. To much information sure, but accurate enough.

Date: 2007/01/23 18:18:46, Link
Author: Serendipity
I cleared clients to be able to sit down and enjoy my lunch and read this dialogue (and probably play a game or two on Yahoo).

What is the supportive evidence for Intelligent Design?

Date: 2007/01/23 23:41:17, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 23 2007,20:59)

Hello, Avocationist.

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,16:22)
Last but not least, here is an example of just one uncalled for remark that shows relentless negativity and prejudice aforehand:
I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be).
Has it occurred to anyone here that I've spent hours on this, and that I have not yet even gotten to the real questions, and furthermore, why in the world would I refute his discussion about the meaning of thermodynamics? There was not anything to refute.

Entropy, dear - a state variable of thermodynamics. There is nothing to refute - that is why I said "as should be". What Mike wrote in the other thread was accurate. It was not a misrepresentation nor a restating of what entropy *could be*. So of course you had NOTHING to refute. That was the point of my statement. You would actually have to have MORE than a few hours knowledge of thermodynamics.


Date: 2007/01/24 05:26:38, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,23:48)

My dictionary has about 5 definitions of entropy, including the general winding down of the universe. This is a common type of usage. What was wrong with my using it?

So you know the significant difference between mechanical, chemical, statistical, quantum, informational entropy (ect)? Entropy is defined by its equation. It is a quantitative measure of a system based on the probability of a set of results <insert equations here>. Entropy IS a mathematical variable, often misused based on semantical definitions (usually metaphorical) to serve purposes it was never designed to serve. It's not rocket science - though rocket science employs it.


Date: 2007/01/24 05:42:12, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (creeky belly @ Jan. 24 2007,00:36)

Hello, Belleh!

The entropy of a system is the natural logarithm of the number of states. It turns the total states from a multiplicative quantity (6x10) into an additive quanitity ( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10) ). The total number of states can be calculated from classical and quantum mechanics. I won't go into the details here (relates to something called phase volume), since it doesn't have much bearing on the point I'm trying to make.

Or V[P]= -logbP measuring the values of two probable space.

which you might think violates the second law, but since B is not in thermal equilibrium with A, this is perfectly legal.

"Violation" is easily misused (often by those who are using it for the purpose it was never designed for). An increased amount of disorder would render a low entropic reading. Lesser equilibrium, low entropy. Less complex, higher entropy.


PS: Say hi to Harps for me ;)

Date: 2007/01/24 08:31:11, Link
Author: Serendipity
The Intelligent Design Movement is based largely upon its promoters who use their abilities to construct an argument which appears to be full-proof and simplistic that it gives those who adopt it the misconception that it must be factual.

However, the argument is based upon the world-view of the promoter with the assumption that others will share that world-view. However that world-view does not correspond with naturalism that applies science. Alas, this does not stop ID'ers from adopting a naturalistic approach to try and support a supernatural proposition.

Dembski's bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Applying his specified complexity equation of a=10^-150; .. X is complex if P(X)<a [ Dembski, W. (2001). No Free Lunch. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. pp. 18-22. ] Dembski argues this stochastic formalism (nondeterminism) equation where X is complex based on naturalistic probability cannot logically comply with Darwinism mechanisms. However he's assuming that all naturalistic processes are accounted for. I could logically apply Godel to his system of axioms rendering it null and void but then thats just too easy. ID never meant for this to be easy - to look easy, sure - but to be easy, not. Which leads to my point: applying an equation based on perceived complexity (negating that he redefines complexity itself) Dembski is able to offer what appears to be a valid argument that complex systems appear not to be accounted for using standard mechanisms. However, what he is doing is changing the structure of those standard mechanisms to fit his equation.

What this inevitably does is woo the less prudent and less skeptical into believing that the argument is valid (lest I again refer to Godel). What this inevitably does is create the AFDave's and Avocationists into supporting half cocked ideas because "it looked good in print". It supported their paradigm therefore its worthy of being accepted - yet unworthy of being fully scrutinised.

Now before I am accused of being a bully and allowing for others to feel victimised, I will state this for ID.

If an intelligent designer does exist it is possibility within the best interest of humanity to have this substantiated. It is in the best interest of humanity because it allows for a sense of immortality, death merely become a transitional process as opposed to a conclusion of a process. Therefore if a logical argument can be given for intelligent design then in all likelihood it will be accepted. But until then, I am subjected to mediocre philosophers with a simpletons grasp of science attempting to posit rigmorale to a person who has studied indepth - and I find that insulting.


Date: 2007/01/24 11:05:03, Link
Author: Serendipity
I am going to make individual assignments to the people here.

You want them before or after you answer what has been asked of you since this thread began?

A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

I gave a mathematical (albeit layman) critique of Dembski's usage of his own mathematical formula in application to the complexity of flagellum. Does it need to be expanded more for your benefit?

And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity.

So far your persona has been the "victim" the "informed teacher" the "ordinary guy" now the "lawyer". Before you ask, this is what I have to deduce from clients everyday.

Motives: To get you to elaborate on Intelligent Design - why this thread was originally started.

Character: Totally emotive requirement - merely the topic is what is needed. Discussions can get lost in "how could you say that about me? What kind of beast are you?" diatribe. So it's actually NOT important unless it ADDS to the ORIGINAL discussion.

Sanity: A legal terminology which has no meaning to a discussion board.

So... moving right along.. what evidence is there for Intelligent Design?


Date: 2007/01/24 12:19:10, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 24 2007,11:11)
The natural world doesn't care whether its behaviour makes sense to you, or to anybody else.  It just keeps on doing what it's doing, without even pausing to consider whether you like it or not.

Well said and couldn't of been said more precisely.

Date: 2007/01/24 12:23:06, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 24 2007,11:54)

Re "If an intelligent designer does exist it is possibility within the best interest of humanity to have this substantiated. It is in the best interest of humanity because it allows for a sense of immortality, death merely become a transitional process as opposed to a conclusion of a process."

I don't see how the second sentence there follows, since an intelligent designer wouldn't necessarily care if we had an afterlife or not.



Thats why I was particular in the selection of the words I used. Its not in the designers best interest, but in humanities.

Serendipty goes to work.

Date: 2007/01/24 20:14:05, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,12:40)

A standard technique with creationists (you're very welcome to come and view that very technique in chat, live - Yahoo: Religion and Beliefs: Religion 1 Chat) is to start answering questions with questions. So you actually push the onus off being accountable, onto others - which you have done - rather successfully. I critiqued Dembski's mathematical formula (please go back and reread). In the process of doing that, you now wish to be educated? Something else I find insulting.

To use YOUR technique: if you can't answer "what is the proof for intelligent design" then how about being honest and giving UP?

Date: 2007/01/25 03:21:05, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (creeky belly @ Jan. 24 2007,11:46)
I was simply making the point that subsystems that are not in thermal equilibrium can experience a decrease in entropy. dS/dt for the entire isolated system, which can be expressed as the sum of the entropy of all of the subsystems, must necessarily be positive or 0. Disorder here is the sense that the number of states of the system reaches a maximum at thermal equilibrium. In the case of a gas at a pressure separated by wall with a vacuum, the number of states initially is much smaller than after the divider has been lifted and the system has been allowed to relax into thermal eq. The system naturally picks the state with highest entropy, which will be a state in which the gas particles are distributed evenly in the entire box. It is an irreversible process (since the entropy changes), and therefore must be a state of high disorder as I've defined it.

These same systems could experience reverse isocaloric/adiabatics - making an isentropic process. Which of course causes no change in entropy.

Sorry its taken so long to reply to this: I was reading back over the thread and picked it up.


Date: 2007/01/25 03:24:47, Link
Author: Serendipity
If it is from you, then it means you find the arguments of Denton, Dembski, Behe, Meyer insultingly simplistic.

I find having to continuously educate creationists because they refuse to substantiate their positions and reverse the proceedings to have others do their homework for them - insulting.


Date: 2007/01/25 03:31:05, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 24 2007,14:36)
Avocationist: I'd also like to politely ask that if you have specific disagreements with what I posted, that you'd at least hold off a bit on those and instead focus on PRECISELY what evidence from ID you find so compelling?
I'm hoping for something a bit more substantive than arguments from incredulity and "because I said so." Arguments that actually have a bit of science in them are preferred in science, I should think. Thanks.

Science would help a lot in this discussion. The cynic in me however asks "what's the chances of that happening?"


Date: 2007/01/25 03:36:41, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 24 2007,22:39)
Short answer: nothing in entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution.

All biological processes apply thermodynamics. I'll perhaps repeat that.. in bold.. all biological processes apply thermodynamics. Changes to organisms - the measure of its state: first law. The changes within that state: second law. The human body ingesting food and converting it to energy: first and second law. So I totally agree with your statement.

Date: 2007/01/25 03:54:40, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,00:47)

I gave a mathematical (albeit layman) critique of Dembski's usage of his own mathematical formula in application to the complexity of flagellum. Does it need to be expanded more for your benefit?
I'll have to reread it. You know I don't do math and I can't remember if yours was over my head. I have read a few of Dembski's papers and liked them, but I shy away from his books because of the math arguments.

I thank you very much for that comment. No, I actually didn't know you don't do maths well. So I will try and formulate it into something non mathematical (if possible: remembering Dembski is a mathematician) while having a cup of coffee.

~musing over a cup~

Date: 2007/01/25 08:47:02, Link
Author: Serendipity

Dembski's proposition was concerning bacterial flagellum - escherichia coli (the genome e coli dna of 4.6-4.7 million base pairs representated of 400 genes). Dembski states in his book (No Free Lunch) that applying Darwinian mechanism then the bacterium flagellum evolved through Darwinian selection through a bacterium consisting of 0 flagellum, and for this to have occurred, they would have to be assembled and directed as opposed to chance modification. So utilising Behe's irreducible complexity that specific condtions rendered specific actions within the flagellum, then it would have to be specified. In order for such a complex mechanism to have such specification, then it ought to have been intelligently designed. (That's as simple as I can make his argument). The rotary mechanism of the flagellum is specified (Dembski's overall argument of design).

What about (using Behe's irreducible complexity) other functions of the flagellum? Such as the e coli genome and base pairs? Is the flagellum's specification merely reliant upon the rotary itself? Well umm NO. If we take the blueprint o a flagellum (e coli genome/dna molecular function) can it be stripped from the flagellum (referring to the other subsystems of the flagellum)? It can't. So is using Behe's irreducibly complex systemisation to create his specified complex system, valid in this argument? No. Because it is applying variables where there are none.

In a nutshell: Dembski takes into consideration the rotary of the bacterium, disjointly and rather casually ignoring its subsystems to create a system based on redefinition of scientific terminology to make things "fit".


Date: 2007/01/26 07:12:30, Link
Author: Serendipity
If systems or items tend toward equilibrium, then that ought to be a part of what we see, regardless of how deeply we understand its workings and the mathematics thereof. I think entropy is not only so defined as you state. This is in wide common usage, no doubt for that reason. How am I arguing against scientific principles when I am just wondering how they work? And how in the he11 does this bring us to God of the gaps? Your assumptions are showing. I have explained three times that that is not what I'm groping toward.

We see it in our very bodies (for a description). Over time our bodies lack the disposition to process as it once does. Our conversion for energy and agility is reduced over time (sometimes called the aging process).

Entropy *is* mathematical. It is meaningless away from its formula. If you try and describe entropy to a engineer, a quantum physicist or a biologist, while there will be strong similarities, because of the way each application of entropy is applied (mathematically) among the various fields, the sum won't always be the same.


Date: 2007/01/26 07:22:14, Link
Author: Serendipity
I just had a small debate in Yahoo Chat with a long time known (in Yahoo Chat) creationist/intelligent design promoter. Perhaps if a creationist can view what other creationists attempt to do, they will be able to better peruse their arguments before posting.

1:37:43 AM  crashtested_dummy: sex and evolution doesnt mix
1:39:13 AM  crashtested_dummy: its closer to the truth than evolutionists try purport
1:39:46 AM  crashtested_dummy: jo tell them they cannot have sex in evoluyion
1:39:59 AM  crashtested_dummy: im sure you have researched by now lol
1:40:25 AM  Fractatious: Then you need to read Dr. Rices' "bad genes good genes through sex"
1:40:34 AM  Fractatious: But you've been told this many times Cary.
1:41:28 AM  crashtested_dummy: but they can postulate the beginnings of the universe
1:41:55 AM  crashtested_dummy: but not how any  mode of reproduction evolved
1:41:56 AM  Fractatious: Abiogenesis is not relevant to the mechanism of evolution.
1:42:01 AM  Fractatious: You have also been told that many times.
1:42:21 AM  Fractatious: Cary, don't start.
1:42:30 AM  crashtested_dummy: im talking of all the modes of reproduction
1:42:58 AM  Fractatious: Yes and the modes of reproduction and procreation can be dealt with biologically without the necessity of cosmology.
1:43:00 AM  crashtested_dummy: all evolving supposedly at seperate times on the supposed evolutionary tree
1:43:21 AM  crashtested_dummy: jo
1:43:36 AM  crashtested_dummy: they cant explain how any evolved
1:43:52 AM  Fractatious: You are not wanting to know evolution you are wanting to know abiogenesis.
1:44:10 AM  Fractatious: Which you have been taught about for like 7 years.
1:44:30 AM  crashtested_dummy: ABIO is the beginning of life
1:44:57 AM  crashtested_dummy: im talking about beginnings of any mode of  sex reproduction
1:45:04 AM  Fractatious: Cary: Abiogenesis occurred. That's obvious. How it occurred is up for debate. Evolution is an ongoing process. Its a mechanism.
1:45:42 AM  Fractatious: "Beginnings of any mode of sex reproduction" incorporates both abiogenesis and biogenesis.
1:45:47 AM  crashtested_dummy: how cme NONE Can be explained
1:46:01 AM  crashtested_dummy: THINK JO
1:46:09 AM  crashtested_dummy: you are asmart girl
1:46:30 AM  crashtested_dummy: JO
1:46:45 AM  Fractatious: Cary: Stop being insulting. First you confuse the terms. Then restate your position. Then ask impossible questions. Science is not solidified on the exact mechanism of biogenesis therefore does not pretend to have one.
1:47:12 AM  crashtested_dummy: my point is,..................
1:47:19 AM  Fractatious: You have NO point.
1:47:32 AM  Fractatious: Because you are introducing extraordinary fallacies.
1:47:37 AM  crashtested_dummy: they can explain the beginnings of the universe...............
1:47:55 AM  crashtested_dummy: but not how any of the modes of reproduction evolved
1:47:58 AM  crashtested_dummy: WHY
1:48:16 AM  crashtested_dummy: because sex cannot evolve viat evolution
1:48:32 AM  crashtested_dummy: in cannot be made sense of
1:48:42 AM  crashtested_dummy: it is not Rational
1:49:13 AM  crashtested_dummy: thats why they cannot explain how the forms odf sex evolved
1:49:36 AM  crashtested_dummy: jo
1:49:49 AM  Fractatious: You've argued this moot point for years, Cary.
1:50:05 AM  crashtested_dummy: they evolved their modes of reproduction seperately do you agree on that
1:50:43 AM  Fractatious: Cary: You stated earlier that it can't be known. So why would I agree to you suddenly knowing?
1:51:01 AM  crashtested_dummy: maybe its moot to you but i think its quite POIGNANT
1:51:13 AM  Fractatious: It's not going to get you laid.
1:51:25 AM  Fractatious: I'm serious.
1:51:34 AM  crashtested_dummy: it cannot be logically explained
1:51:44 AM  crashtested_dummy: cannot be RATIONALIZED..............
1:51:51 AM  crashtested_dummy: so what is SEX................
1:51:59 AM  crashtested_dummy: its a MIRACLE
1:52:07 AM  Fractatious: Good. So if there is no logical or rational explanation - then this discussion is moot.
1:52:12 AM  crashtested_dummy: you atheists believe in Miracles lol
1:52:22 AM  crashtested_dummy: not so
1:52:36 AM  Fractatious: Yes so. The only other alternative is an illogical and non rational explanation.

Date: 2007/01/26 08:40:01, Link
Author: Serendipity
Quote (improvius @ Jan. 26 2007,08:33)
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 26 2007,01:34)
Darn it Mike,

If systems or items tend toward equilibrium, then that ought to be a part of what we see, regardless of how deeply we understand its workings and the mathematics thereof. I think entropy is not only so defined as you state. This is in wide common usage, no doubt for that reason. How am I arguing against scientific principles when I am just wondering how they work?

Think about my earlier question.  We see equilibrium only in very isolated systems.  It's easy enough to demonstrate in the lab.  But when you look at the real world, you'll see all kinds of forces constantly at work.  Even if you were to remove every living organism from the planet, you'd still have energy being transfered from lightning, wind, rain, sunlight, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.  As you can see, we have no shortage of natural forces to prevent planetary equilibrium.

Well said. Saying that - what is the argument for Intelligent Design?

Date: 2007/01/29 06:30:15, Link
Author: Serendipity
Hello, Avocationist.

I never did have any 'argument' regarding the second law.

It would require the equation (maths).

My interest in the second law has nothing to do with the ID debate, never did, it was a side issue that struck me at the time, largely due to a book I'm reading on a different topic.

If you don't mind my asking, what book is that? I remember how excited i got reading Shannon's Entropy.

Entropy is not only defined as a variable, but as a process and a result.

Entropy is meaningless outside of the equation thus making it a variable. It remains a variable due to process. Even its result is a variable. For example: entropy and chemistry (as was mentioned earlier by Creeky) would render a different mathematical application, to say Entropy and Information Theory (again, Shannon), or Entropy and Quantum Mechanics, or Entropy and Classical Thermodynamics. In classical Clausius Thermodynamics, Entropy is representative of S based on heat (Q) and temperature (T) which is applicable (S that is) for systems/states in thermodynamical equilibrium. However, if applied to statistical mechanics then entropy is equal to the probability of a particle in a microstate, compared to the macrostate of its system, added to determine all of the particles in that system. Defining its entropic measure using Boltzmann's constant rendering an arbitrary result (based on a probability of 0 and/or 1). While I can understand a need to apply reductionism to a simple "word" that actual word "entropy" is representative of a myriad of mathematical applications, where outside that application, is meaningless. Thus you have pseudophilosophers then utilise standard definitions and jigsaw together something that pulls away from the maths of it - making it USELESS for anything than philosophical jargon.

How can you say that we cannot discuss entropy unless we have the ability to plug in the actual numerical values?

Read above. I have no idea how much clearer it can be made for you. If you wish to discuss entropy outside of maths, then thats your prerogative (totally) but it is a meaningless, obselete cause because it means having to redefine its application, thus its entire meaning.

Do the laws of physics only work if we have learnt to understand and quantify them?

The Laws of Physics work regardless of our understanding them or not. For those that take the time to understand them - it makes things easier. For those that don't, it makes it harder for those who do who are presented by those who don't but wish to give them meaning without understanding.

I find it VERY odd that people keep thinking I'm worried that the SLOT prevents evolution. I do realize that has been done by creationists, but how many times do I have to make myself clear, and if you guys don't listen well to that, why should I expect you to listen to what else I say?

Besides stating previously that all biological systems apply thermodynamics there really isn't an argument per se. But its an interesting conversation to have outside of "creationism" if I must say so myself.



Date: 2007/01/30 06:32:04, Link
Author: Serendipity
Other dimensions are not supernatural. They are very much part of your reality. I personally think the subquantum, sub-planck-length may be a divide into another, smaller dimension. That you can't perceive it means little. Can you hear a dog whistle? Can you see xrays?

This reminded me of Ronald Pearsons "psychokinesis" where he attempted to break down a quantum field beyond its wave particle duality to incorporate minute quanta-quanta mechanics, being psychic energy hehe.

Anyway, heading towards a more reductionist view (it seems) how would Planck and Classical Quantum (Gauge Field) be divided into smaller microstats?