Summations Only

Well, I'd like to say that I'm honoured that an EvC thread is named after me, but unfortunately, looking at the content, I'd rather have been left out of it!Buzsaw's Infinite ID Universe is a complete mash-up of badly-understood science and half-baked theology. There's not much more than can be said, other than that the interference by the intelligent designer is blatently at odds with the laws of thermodyanmics.The so-called "Cavediver's Temporal Non-ID Universe" is simply the standard Big Bang cosmology. Buz has two main objections, both of which are based on wholly erroneous ideas about the Big Bang cosmology:1) The Big Bang breaks the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.Of course it does not. To break the 1LoT, you need a time T1 at which you can categorically state that the total energy is E1, and a time T2 at which the total energy is E2, where E1=/=E2. Glossing over the usual problems of defining a coherent defintion of energy in General Relativity, no such times can be found.2) The observed order in the Universe cannot possibly come from the chaos of the Big Bang, given the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.And of course it can - simply because the Big Bang, far from being chaotic, is actually the most ordered (i.e. lowest entropy) point in the Universe. Entropy has then increased ever since. Small scale decreases in entropy are always countered by larger scale increases in entropy, such that overall entropy always increases.So we can see that the Big Bang in no way violates the laws of thermodynamics, unlike Buz's designer.I hereby declare victory in a thread in which I have barely participated. Hurrah Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

1) Infinite energy breaks thermodynamics. In fact infinite energy gives a perpetual motion machine. Any theory which assumes infinite energy is inconsistent with thermodynamics.2) The net entropy of our universe is increasing.3) Given that we have only a finite amount of energy our universe can only go on as it is for a finite period of time before all the energy in it becomes unavailable to do work - heat death.Buz's only answer to this is to assume that his intelligent designer CAN break the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Of course, because the 2nd law rules out any net decrease in entropy, this simply means that the entropy of the surroundings increases by at least as much as the entropy of the system decreases. Only by violating the 2nd law (whether by assuming a perpetual motion machine or simply assuming that a net decrease in entropy is possible) can Buz escape the inevitability of a finite past for the universe as we know it.So, Buz's universe definitely violates the 2nd law.Standard physics on the other hand requires no such violations, nor has Buz raised a reasonable argument that it does. It does not assume any increase in energy or decrease in entropy since the singularity. Whether there even was a "before" the singularity is still an open question - so there is no need to assume that the singularity itself represents a violation of either law either (such a violation would require a prior state - if there is none, there can be no violation).So, as has been obvious for a long time, the universe as depicted by standard physics is compatible with the 3 laws of thermodynamics - and Buz's infinite universe is not.

As originator of this interesting, provocative and informative thread, I wish to express my gratitude to all of the participants, bar none even you, Hooah I've learned a lot from it pertaining to science in general and of my own misconceptions regarding some aspects of the 3Lots.I had hoped that Cavediver would have weighed in in time for me to respond. Perhaps another opportunity will arise for that.I wish all of you Christians a very blessed Christmas and all a happy and safe holiday season.

The problem with this thread is that the topic started didn't seem to understand what the 2nd LoT meant. I could understand if Buzsaw was deluded enough to think his pet theory was true or in any way scientific. Most have always known his grasp of science was poor. The problem is that he insisted his model agreed with the 2nd LoT while explicitely arguing that the 2nd LoT was false. Not only does it prove that his grasp of science is poor, it also shows how poor his understanding of English is.
Given that ICANt posted barely anything related to the OP from Buzsaw'side , the "debate" was more about people trying to teach Buzsaw than actual debate. Chuck77's replies actually made sense and his most of his first replies were about the OP, the problem was that they didn't support Buzsaw's side and Buzsaw didn't respond to them so that didn't help having much of a debate.Edited by Son, : No reason given.