Summations Only

The problem is that you don't know how science works and the admins need to keep things clear. If he had let you put this into science, newcomers would have thought that people here don't know how science works, it has nothing to do with admins being afraid. We can still debate there, it's just that here you don't need to show evidence or keep the discussion focused (something you wouldn't have done anyway). We know by experience that you wouldn't respect the science forum rules anyway.Having Cavediver discuss physics with you would be like putting a good chess player against someone who doesn't know the rules of chess, it would be pointless. Cavediver wouldn't win this debate since there would be no debates, just 2 people talking past each others.

Parts of science is the use of evidence and falsification, you not using those mean you're not doing science plain and simple. If guys like you knew more than scientists, how come the nuclear plants, aircraft and latest computers don't come from churches?Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Actually, I think the word "tendency" is sometime used for entropy because there's a small probability that for a short period of time, in a small closed system, the entropy could decrease. Entropy is about probability, it's just that over a long period of time in a big closed space, the law of great numbers will make an increase in entropy inevitable. If I'm incorrect, someone who knows more about it could correct me.
Otherwise, what you said is correct.

Thanks for reminding me of that. What I meant is that there's still a (very) low probability that for an instant, entropy decreases in small system (the probability being lower the larger the system considered). The way I understand it, the probability of such a thing happening even on a macrocospic scale is never 0 but it's so low it isn't taken into account for practical purposes. However, because there's still an infetisimal chance, you see the word "tendency" being used to be more accurate even though it could be misleading to someone scientifically illiterate.

The subject is about whether your model or the Big Bang model agrees with the LOTs. Given that you have said your model requires for entropy to not increase contrary to what the 2nd LOT states, would you agree to say that at least your model disagrees with the LOTs? Keep in mind that according to 2nd LOT, there is NO way for entropy to decrease even with work or whatever else.More generally, I never understood why you ever tried to make it seem as if science agrees with your views. You obviously think God's revelation is superior to science so why do you care about what science says? It seems to me that you are trying to usurp science's successes.

The problem is what the 2lot doesn't allow for is a global decrease in entropy though. If a designer work within a closed system (like the Universe) and is also part of it, then whatever the intelligent designer does, the entropy will increase. Why do you want science to agree with you? It's obvious you think religion is superior to science so there's no need for you to misrepresent science so that it agrees with you.

How about you participate so he's not 8vs1? The problem is that many creationists I've seen, he doesn't understand basic sciences that's why I was trying to correct him. It's not a debate, it's us trying to teach lurkers (not Buzzsaw since he's not able to understand it) what science is about.

How is that a reply to my message? i didn't say that a change within the system would not affect the net of the whole system. i just said that your universe disagreed with the 2Lot. This law says that entropy only ever increases, your "model" says it isn't the case, doesn't it mean that you disagree with the 2LoT?Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Well, in case you missed the OP, he's arguing that his theory is in accordance with the current scientific laws. It's not about whether his theory is true and mainstream science is false, but whether his theory agree with the 3LoTs. To me, it seems obvious that a model that proposes an universe where increasing entropy can be offset by a designer disagrees with a law (the 2nd LoT) that states that entropy cannot decrease.

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.