Summations Only

Why do you feel the need to label it science, while at the same time decrying the scientific method? You have mocked "secular" science in the following posts in this thread alone: Message 28
Message 47
Message 54
Message 58
Message 130
Message 175Why not just call it what it is? Contrary to Buz belief, science in it's very nature IS secular. What you are doing would be deemed, IMO, "creation science". Again: why the appeal to call what you are doing science when it is obvious you have no intention on actually doing or respecting science? Do you really think anyone buys into your delusion that you are doing science?Don't worry, I don't expect an actual response since you didn't actually respond to me pointing out your lack of ability to distinguish between 2 dimensions and 3.....

LinkCase closed.

Because it is science; just not totally secularist in nature. It involves some aspects of the secularistic science method as well as corroborative scientific evidence of the managing entity. Hooah, you might get more responses if you would take a lesson from Straggler, et al. Learn some lessons as to how to respond to messages respectfully and with sensible substance. Note how good spirited and having substance his messages, for the most part, are compared to yours. As Jesus suggested, remove the beam from your own eye before complaining of the sliver in another's.

Buz, please cite some references for us, from appropriate peer-reviewed journals, where science does anything that is not "totally secularist in nature."And please, leave the creationist websites out of this. They lie.

Note, carefully, in context, that word within. of your quote of me.I agree. The entropy of the entire Universe never decreases. It just happens within the closed system.If some of the pressure in a tire (existing in the Universe) is released, equalization is effected relative to the inside of the tire and the outside of it. If, by work, the tire is re-inflated, a reversal of pressure is effected relative to the inside and outside of it.The managing entity and the tire, in a sense, are analogous, relative to entropy, both existing within the Universe.

Science, by it's very definition, is secular. What you are attempting to do is apologetics, not science. So again: why the appeal to science, because, as I pointed out (and as you have proven in your lengthy tenure here): you have no respect for what science is or what it can do, yet you try and label your batshittery as science at every turn. Buz, you're like the crazy cat lady from down the road. You are not worthy of respect. The only reason I request a response is to point out that you don't have one for something so simple as differentiating between 2d and 3d. I don't give two fucks what you think of my replies to you or whether or not you actually reply. I engage you for the lurkers in the event that they are dumb enough to be bamboozled by your snake oil.So again, I don't expect a reply. But I do expect you to duck and dodge and not address such simple matters as the difference between 2d and 3d. Oh, and I also expect a 90 something year old man to cry and piss and moan about fuck words like you've never heard them before.

Could we have some predictions of the Buzsaw model? For example what is the predicted red shift of distance galaxies. That is, why in your model are the light spectra of some galaxies red-shifted?

If the entropy of the entire universe only ever increases but never deceases then a universe which has existed for eternity would, necessarily, be in a state of maximum entropy.How could it possibly be otherwise?

Hi Son. Thanks for weighing in on this debate. I am doing some reading up and getting thoughts together for responses to this and your previous message. Please bear with me for a forth-coming response to these. My time on the computer is very limited.

Let's back up. Where did I say the entropy of the entire universe only ever increases? Is that what you're implying, that I said that, or are you simply repeating your position which I have effectively countered?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the second law of thermodynamics, are you now admitting that your bullshit model violates the second law of thermodynamics?

Oh!, no worries Buz, whenever you're ready is fine, so take your time.

You haven't said that. But the second law of thermodynamics does say that. That is the problem with your model. It contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. LinkYour model demands decreases in entropy of the universe. Thus your model violates the second law of thermodynamics.Case closed. Again.

Your link, relative to the 2nd law begins thus:

quote:

---

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system

---

Notice that the tendency of entropy is to increase until equilibrium is reached. That is the tendency. Tendency does not require inevitability necessarily. That tendency can be reversed via open systems within the Universe, thus prolonging the state of equilibrium.The Buzsaw Biblical Universe model has the source of the energy of the system being the managing entity, i.e. Jehovah, capable, within the system to apply work so as to eternally prolong a state of equilibrium.There is ample corroborative observable evidence supportive to the hypothesis that this entity exists, thus, the EvC evolution vs creation debate as to which is more thermodynamically compatible, the BB evolution model or the Buzsaw Biblical model.Both models have unknowns. Neither has absolute proof. Nobody has observed the genesis of the Universe or of life. We have vastly more observable physical evidence of claims in the Biblical record than we do of the BB and biogenesis of life.

quote:

---

There is dispute over whether or not an expanding universe can approach maximal entropy; it has been proposed that in an expanding universe, the value of maximum entropy increases faster than the universe gains entropy, causing the universe to move progressively further away from heat death.[citation needed] (See Ludwig Boltzmann#The Second Law as a law of disorder)

---

The above is just one example of disputes about entropy, etc. No it doesn't. It calls for decreases within the system capable of management via work, compatible with the 2nd law and observable evidence within the system.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

Your link, relative to the 2nd law begins thus:

​

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system

---

Precisely. Ergo, the entropy of the universe, being an isolated physical system, must necessarily increase. I've given the derivation of the second law here multiple times. Surely you remember how to derive it from first principles, yes?Your insistence that somehow the entropy of the universe decreases is a direct violation of the second law.

quote:

---

Notice that the tendency of entropy is to increase until equilibrium is reached.

---

You don't know what the word "tendency" means, do you? It doesn't mean that sometimes it'll increase and sometimes it'll decrease. Instead, it means that local variations may see a decrease in entropy (such as when ice freezes), but the entire system taken as a whole must see an increase.You do recall the primer on how to derive the second law from first principles, yes? And the follow-up to it regarding Gibbs Free Energy, yes?

quote:

---

Tendency does not require inevitability necessarily.

---

I rest my case. You don't know what "tendency" means. Let me give you a hint: That's exactly what it means. The inevitable result of the entropy of a closed system is that it will be non-negative. It is theoretically possible to achieve a zero-state, but that will only happen at the heat-death of the universe. In all real-world scenarios, entropy always increases.Now, that doesn't stop there from being local decreases in entropy. As Gibbs Free Energy shows us, if there is sufficient enthalpy (you do remember what "enthalpy" is, yes?), then reactions can be spontaneous in directions that decrease entropy. However, as the first law points out, everything's gotta go somewhere and the decrease in entropy here must necessary coincide with an equivalent-or-greater increase in entropy somewhere else.

quote:

---

That tendency can be reversed via open systems within the Universe, thus prolonging the state of equilibrium.

---

My god, so much wrong in a single sentence.First, the universe isn't open. That's the entire point.Second, open systems within the universe are irrelevant. The earth is an open system. It's why we see entropy decreases all the time. The entire basis of photosynthesis depends upon it. There's this gigantic ball of fusion happening in the sky that is pouring energy upon the earth; energy that can be used for reaction which, due to Gibbs Free Energy, are spontaneous even though they decrease entropy.That's because the entropic increase of the sun more than overwhelms any decrease in entropy the earth might see.But eventually, the sun's going to give out and the earth will no longer have any of those reactions take place because there won't be any more energy coming in (or more accurately, not enough to drive the reactions). The system will close and entropy will proceed toward maximum.And then there's that "prolong the state of equilibrium" nonsense. You do understand that reactions happen precisely because the system is not in a state of equilibrium, right? Now, it is true that at equilibrium, it isn't like nothing is happening at all. It's just that for every forward reaction, there is a reverse reaction. If you were to take a jar and fill it halfway with water, seal it, and keep it at constant temperature and pressure, eventually the empty space would fill with water vapor and that amount would be at equilibrium. Now, this doesn't mean that there are no molecules of water ever being liberated from the liquid portion and going to the gaseous state. Instead, it's that for every molecule of water that is liberated from the liquid state, another molecule is captured.But here's the thing: The universe isn't at equilibrium. Not by a long shot. This pretense you have of "prolonging the state of equilibrium" is nonsense. If your model is based upon a prolonged state of equilibrium, we already know it is a complete failure because the existence of the universe is nothing but a vast example of what happens when things are far from equilibrium.

quote:

---

The Buzsaw Biblical Universe model has the source of the energy of the system being the managing entity, i.e. Jehovah, capable, within the system to apply work so as to eternally prolong a state of equilibrium.

---

And thus is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.This is in contrast to current cosmological models of the universe which are in complete accordance with the second law.If you wish to claim otherwise, it is your responsibility to show where. We can't read your mind.

quote:

---

Both models have unknowns.

---

Irrelevant. The claim you are making is that your model, which has been shown time and time again to violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics, is more in alignment with thermodynamics than current models of cosmogenesis. So far, you have yet to provide any examples of where they do.

quote:

---

Neither has absolute proof.

---

That isn't how science works. Now, if you're suggesting that there is an exception to the first and second laws of thermodynamics, we're all ears, but you're going to have to come forward with the explanations. You're the one making the claims. We cannot read your mind.

quote:

---

Nobody has observed the genesis of the Universe or of life.

---

Why do you say that? Surely you're not about to pull a Hamm and whine, "Were you there?" Of course we weren't there.But the universe was. And it left behind the signs of what happened. All we have to do is look at it. It's why WMAP and PLANCK were so successful.

quote:

---

We have vastly more observable physical evidence of claims in the Biblical record than we do of the BB and biogenesis of life.

---

Huh? How did we get to biogenesis? I thought we were talking about the universe. You do know that the origin of life is completely compatible with all methods of cosmogenesis you care to name, yes? And vice versa, too: All methods of cosmogenesis are completely compatible with all methods of biogenesis you care to name.That said, there is nothing but physical evidence of a big bang. That's why we have the current models of cosmogenesis that we have. All you have to do is look at the red shift and you can see it directly.

quote:

---

The above is just one example of disputes about entropy, etc.

---

Incorrect. It is not a dispute at all. At least, not in the way you're presenting it to be. That is, you're taking "dispute" to be something along the lines of proof that the entire system is completely flawed and needs to be discarded. For example, you'd take two mathematicians arguing over whether or not the six-millionth digit of pi is a 2 as evidence that pi just might be an integer.It is an interesting question about how a system that expands faster than the contents within it can reach equilibrium can ever reach equilibrium. This doesn't change the way entropy works. The second law is not violated by this nor is it changed in any way. It simply recognizes that the system itself is dynamic.Here's a question to see if you understand what you read:What is the Boltzmann description of entropy? No, don't look it up. And no, "a law of disorder" is not sufficient an explanation. I'm asking you to give us the equation for statistical entropy. And if you don't know what it is or haven't even heard of it until now, then you are quote-mining.

quote:

---

It calls for decreases within the system capable of management via work

---

And thus violating the first law since everything's gotta go somewhere. That work doesn't just spring into existence.And since you are demanding universal decreases rather than local ones, you're violating the second law, too.You need to start showing your work.