Summations Only

OK. But what energy transfers were undertaken to form that tree and how efficient are they? The second law of thermodynamics tells us that they will never be 100% efficient and that any decrease in entropy apparent in the tree will thus be more than outweighed by the increases in entropy involved in the formation of that tree. Entropy only ever increases. This is what the 2nd LoT tells us. This what we have observed. Without exception. It is an increase in "complexity and order" on Earth at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. In this case entropy has decreased on Earth at the expense of an even greater increase in the entropy of the Sun or, more generally, the universe.That is what the second law of thermodynamics tells us must be the case. ANY decrease in entropy locally must result in an increase in entropy within the closed system as a whole. Net entropy only ever increases. Never decreases. ds > 0.This is what the 2nd LoT tells us. This what we have observed without exception. This is what Buz evidently does not understand.

Or are you just posting to attack "evos". If you have something to support Buz let her fly. Alas, obviously you don't, but the "evos" must be wrong because they are "evos". Right?If you read what he wrote, you will see he knows JAck sit about the science.

(1) Sure, he's got the right to theorize it. He's got the right to theorize that he's a giant purple aardvark called Jeremy Q. Yetifondler. But not to do so without disagreement.(2) What people are objecting to is not that he claims that this prime mover overrides the LoTs, but that he also claims that it is compatible with them. Clearly he can't have it both ways. Things that break the laws of nature aren't compatible with them.Edited by Dr Adequate, : 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.

This goes two ways, as I see it:1: if threads like this start (regardless of who the OP is) and no one stands in opposition, people like Buz claim victory and onlookers will see it as no one being able to refute him.or2: He gets copious amounts of responses (as creationists tend to garner) because we on the science side of things have a tendency to have the correct information out there and the OP (buz, in this case and now apparently you) will see these amount of responses as a victory.I suppose there is a third reason that straggler touched on: this is a debate site and Buz is bullheaded so he continues on with topics even after he is shown to be oh-so-wrong, thus giving members something fun to do. Target practice, if you will.For a religion that claims it's followers should be humble or meek, you lot are extremely arrogant.

Once again Buz succeeded in posting no evidence in support of yet another of his crazy ideas.

Can someone explain to me why if Buz is trying to claim his idea obeys the LoTs, he's trying to find ways to get round them or rewrite them to suit. Surely if his idea obeys the LoTs there is no need for any of that?

In summation: this thread is a perfect example of Buz's arrogance and ignorance.

I predict that this thread will go down in the annals of EvC history being one that gets used by Buz as an example of how he bested EvC's brightest, especially cavediver, and how not one of our many evo secularists could refute his "hypothesis", thus claiming victory. This has also been foretold by prophet Chuck77, who is also seemingly claiming victory on Buz's behalf.But what this thread really showed us is how creationists so frequently attempt to call upon science to show they are correct, but abhor science when it shows them to be not only wrong, but oh so utterly and incomprehensibly wrong. We have also witnessed how arrogance gets in the way of proper science, since one can never conduct proper science if one can never admit being wrong or have a willingness to learn.

Supportive evidence, cited in many threads for the existence of the Biblically described infinite god of the Bible, Jehovah, is indicative to the infinite existence of the Universe, in which Jehovah and his realm have existed somewhere in the cosmos of the Universe.This is one viable reason that the Buzsaw Biblical Infinite Universe is more compatible to the laws of thermodynamics than that of Cavediver, et al.The three laws of thermodynamics can be applied in various ways. The two commonly applications are the classical and the statistical. The classical has more to do with heat transfer via entropy whereas the statistical is a more quantified, microscopic and mechanical.Such terms as tendency, probability theory, etc, apply. Though scientific terms like tendency and probability implicate that certain results assumed, being the most likely, as I understand it, the results are not necessarily imperial.The three laws assume randomness in the system when they are applied. As I understand them, nothing in the laws state that randomness must apply.Nothing in the laws emphatically states that the system must be random. Work, intelligent engineering are possible within the closed system.Though randomness is assumed, nothing that I am aware of in the three laws specifies what type or amount of energy must exist within the system, so long as the net energy of a system remains the same.The total energy of the Buzsaw system is intelligently engineered, the intelligent energetic entity of the system being the source of the system's energy, managing it. This unique engineering within the system allows for intelligent management of the entropy of the system. The entity, A is the intelligent energy source. B is the entity's surroundings. The intelligent energy source, A, has the ability to manage the total energy of the system, via work in B, the surrounding area. When work is done, entropy is increased.A, the intelligent entity, has the ability to decrease the entropy of the system by engineering recovered energy from B, the surrounding area. This energy, perhaps may be radiated heat and light emanating from the surrounding area, i.e. cosmos of the system and perhaps from living things within the system. According to the Biblical record, the entity's surrounding area includes a throne room, too bright and glorious to comprehend, etc.The Genesis record states that after work was done by Jehovah, A, the energy source, he rested. This rest time is indicative af an example of entropy decrease in the system. A will always contain more energy than B, by design.OTOH, the conventional singularity & BB finite temporal Universe allegedly began with an alleged expansion of spacetime from T=0, i.e. the singularity. Space & time, energy, heat, expansion had a beginning from some unexplainable T=zero singularityThe spontaneous expansion ensued from that point of a chaotic unorganized submicroscopic bit to expand into all of the expanse, energy, matter, complexity and order observed presently.That energy allegedly had a T=zero factor would render the conventional incompatible with 1LoT.
.
What is observed in the cosmos is that galaxies, stars, planets, etc are in transition. Stars live and they die. Bodies with the cosmos are ever changing.YEC creationists and BB proponents who's ideology includes a temporal system are incompatible with the LoTs.YEC (Young Earth Creationists) have a two-fold problem, being that of LoTs and that Jehovah, according to the Biblical record is an eternal entity, living withing the cosmos of the system and having hosts of angelic and other beings around him. For the life of me I cannot understand how they arrive at a temporal Universe. Many, if not most believe that the Universe was created a few thousand years ago, having the appearance of age. These are my beloved brothers and sisters in Christ, but oh, so deluded.Time and space are infinite. The Universe is infinite. I see this as a paradox, in that Jehovah, would be the same creator and designer forever.Every system has it's unknowns. This paradox is the Buzsaw system's unknown. Yet this paradox would not violate 1LoT.Space is boundless and static. Space's only property is area in which something may exist.What is not observable is the size of the Universe. All we know is what the furtherest reaches of our instruments allow for. What we are observing in the observable area of the Universe is an expansion. This is Biblical. The cosmos of our visible area is stated to be an expanse.What is unknown is how large observable area B of my system is and how long the expansion of our area has been. The Bible states that eventually some portion of B will be rolled up like a scroll implying a contraction in our visible are of B, after which new heavens and a new earth will be created.Likely this phenomena will pertain to the Milky Way Galaxy or even just our Solar System. In either case it would be indicative of phenomena observed in the system.This is indicative of non-uniformity in the system's B.By and large, the Buzsaw Infinite Universe better satisfies the thermodynamic laws of science than the conventional Cavediver, et al version, particularly pertaining to the problem of the T=0 relative to 1LoT. No matter how you cut it, that is an impossibility, void of magic.The emergence of chaos into order and complexity over the millinia as would be assumed relative conventional science ToE, etc, runs counter to what is observed in reality. It defies logic. It runs counter to the common definition of entropy which better defines what we observe in known history and the here and now. Edited by Buzsaw, : correct a word

These two sentences are mutually contradictory. That would be the second law. When work is done, some of the energy must be converted to "lower" forms of energy such as heat. Look, the laws of thermodynamics don't allow an exception for the intelligent any more than the law of gravity has an exception for the good-looking. And yet actual physicists see no incompatibility. Perhaps you should think about why, in between contemplating the reason why you can't show us any actual working. Again, actual physicists think you're wrong. And indeed, you are obviously wrong. When I do a jigsaw, for example, the jigsaw goes from chaos to order, but that is not because I can do miracles, it's because the laws of thermodynamics don't say what you think they do. The formation of a crystal from a solute doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics. The self-assembly of the tobacco mosaic virus doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics. The development of a human from a zygote doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics. If they did, it wouldn't be considered a law.

No matter how often you say it, when we are discussing Laws of Thermodynamics; entropy ≠ disorder.Words can have multiple meanings in English. But we know that you know this.What you want to believe has no affect on reality.

Buz you have obviously been operating under the naive misapprehension that the second law of thermodynamics is nothing more than a vague inclination in nature for things to get a bit disorganised in the absence of anything to tidy things up.This thread, if nothing else, should cause you to question your understanding of the 2nd LoT. This is a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics. A system that converts energy without any increase in entropy is 100% efficient. A system that can actually decrease total entropy is necessarily > 100% efficient. Ask yourself this Buz - How efficient is your designer?

Nothing in the LoTs specifies what may exist within the system, including an intelligent working entity.That applications of the law may assume randomness does not mandate that the laws require randomness.

How efficient is your intelligent working entity? "Assume".......?If you think there are observable events which decrease entropy rather than increase it please name one.

quote:

---

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

---