Is that it lads? Is that what you guys call debate? Not once did any of you actually present something like a credible retort. merely one line rhetoric. It seems atheists are empty shells, for having purged TRUTH out of your reasoning you have nothing left, emptiness. Let this be a lesson to anybody contemplating atheism. I will take my leave now fellows, for Itr seems ny God was right, not to offer pearls to swine.
Originally posted by james o'hanlonok you keep claiming that the first atom needs to have been created, yet you have ignored the fact that god needs creation. claiming that "he has always been" is a scoot past the truth. to maintain that position is stupid and ultimately proves that you are making excuses. now i agree with templares it is much more sensible to say that the universe has always existed instead of an all powerful being.
Is that it lads? Is that what you guys call debate? Not once did any of you actually present something like a credible retort. merely one line rhetoric. It seems atheists are empty shells, for having purged TRUTH out of your reasoning you have nothing left, emptiness. Let this be a lesson to anybody contemplating atheism. I will take my leave now fellows, for Itr seems ny God was right, not to offer pearls to swine.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Is that it lads? Is that what you guys call debate? Not once did any of you actually present something like a credible retort. merely one line rhetoric. It seems atheists are empty shells, for having purged TRUTH out of your reasoning you have nothing left, emptiness. Let this be a lesson to anybody contemplating atheism. I will take my leave now fellows, for Itr seems ny God was right, not to offer pearls to swine.
I'm waiting for you to go first, but you have not put forth an argument in favor of geocenticism. All you have done is insult atheists, and make ill-informed claims about science that you have not supported with evidence.
At last, direct questions to reply to. First about God. We can know by reason that God exists but cannot prove it. That is a statement of fact known for centuries. Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas gave us 'proofs' of reason and these 'proofs' satisfied billions of theists throughout time. The acceptance of such reasoning comes from within and is not necessarily taught. This is why all preimative races without outside teaching on earth have been found as theists. On can of course reject such reasoning that convinced others. This is what the modern atheist must do. Thus it is futile to argue a matter that really has two sides. Ultimately it is a matter of FAITH and that is how God wants it. Either way, one minute after our deaths we will know for sure.
That God 'always' exists has of course to be taught. we know it now because God revealed it. It is the universe that exists in time, not God. Christians believe God, in the person of Christ, came into time. All of us when we die shall pass out of time into that eternity. In your case only then will you believe.
Now to the tie-breaker. QUOTE "now I agree with Templares it is much more sensible to say the universe has always existed instead of an all powerful being."
Right then. Do you two accept the LAWS of science. I see you have faith in theories of science so we will presume you do accept the laws. Now what is the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Answer: that everything is in a process of decay. Now by everything it means everything, from that tin roof to that furthest star. Now if everything is in a process of decay then the universe cannot have been here forever or it would have burned out by now and left everything ZERO matter. Yes we would not exist. But the universe is visibly young, yes/ Therefore according to the first two laws of thermodynamics that every scientists alive accepts, we accept, the universe must have had a beginning and been created not so long ago.
Now the second reply asks me to put forward an argument in favour of geocentricism. Do I interpret this question literally and answer that the first argument for geocentrism is that it is the universe we see with our eyes. Am I to read more into it and answer The Airy experiment (1838) or the Mitchelson and Morely (1887) experiment. I am however glad you used the words 'in favour' for that is all that science can do, examine data that 'favours' one model over the other. Now if you do not know the circumstances that led to the Airy experiment I will try to explain them. Briefly, it arose out of the discovery of stellar aberration. this observation led man to see that if he lined up a star relative to the earth it would make a small circle over one year. This circle was INTERPRETED by the Copernicans as a 'proof' for heliocentricism. But as any first year science student would tell you - if he or she were allowed to think at university - that all stellar aberration (1838) proved was an apparent movement between earth and the stars exists. Whether it is the star moving relative to the earth or the earth moving relative to the earth we did not know. Now look up your textbooks and you will find stellar aberration ALWAYS portrayed as PROOF for a moving earth. That of course is in the heliocentric propaganda world that was imposed on us by the Copernicans, but there exists alongside a real world in which it was known that stellar aberration had not actually been verified. Now the astronomers and physicists of the nineteenth century knew of a test that could determine if it was the earth moving relative to the star or if it was the star moving relative to the earth. It was a simple test using two telescopes pointing for a year at the one star. One telescope was filled with water and the other normal. The person who conducted it would have confirmed heliocentricism and gone down in history as the first person to actually prove the earth orbits the earth. What a prize, yes? History records that it was not until 1871 that they admitted a physicist called Airy had conducted the test and it showed the EARTH DID NOT MOVE RELATIVE TO THE STAR.
Now here was a logical empirical test that showed a geocentric world. It did not PROVE one as something else could have caused the aberration in the first place.
Thus an argument in favour of geocentrism.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
At last, direct questions to reply to. First about God. We can know by reason that God exists but cannot prove it. That is a statement of fact known for centuries. Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas gave us 'proofs' of reason and these 'proofs' satisfied billions of theists throughout time. The acceptance of such reasoning comes from within and is not necessarily taught. This is why all primitive races without outside teaching on earth have been found as theists.
This is an incorrect statement. Most primitive races without outside teaching on Earth worship some kind of god. Belief structures that do not incorporate a god are very rare.
Also, no human can understand God. Therefore any thing a human says about God, and that includes you and I, are inherently wrong.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
On can of course reject such reasoning that convinced others. This is what the modern atheist must do. Thus it is futile to argue a matter that really has two sides. Ultimately it is a matter of FAITH and that is how God wants it. Either way, one minute after our deaths we will know for sure.
Are you talking about circular reasoning?
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
That God 'always' exists has of course to be taught. we know it now because God revealed it. It is the universe that exists in time, not God. Christians believe God, in the person of Christ, came into time. All of us when we die shall pass out of time into that eternity. In your case only then will you believe.
Which way would you point if you were to point to god?
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Now to the tie-breaker. QUOTE "now I agree with Templares it is much more sensible to say the universe has always existed instead of an all powerful being."
Right then. Do you two accept the LAWS of science. I see you have faith in theories of science so we will presume you do accept the laws. Now what is the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Answer: that everything is in a process of decay.
For your information:
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
Entropy is a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work.[3]
It is a measure of the randomness of molecules in a system and is central to the second law of thermodynamics and the combined law of thermodynamics, which deal with physical processes and whether they occur spontaneously. Spontaneous changes, in isolated systems, occur with an increase in entropy. Spontaneous changes tend to smooth out differences in temperature, pressure, density, and chemical potential that may exist in a system, and entropy is thus a measure of how far this smoothing-out process has progressed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Now by everything it means everything, from that tin roof to that furthest star.
It didn’t say everything, it said: “the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.”
You seem to have forgotten about isolated systems and equilibrium. There are some places in the universe that are increasing in entropy and some systems that are decreasing. We believe generally, the universe is increasing in entropy, but we used to think that the expansion of the universe was slowing down, and then we find that it is speeding up. We don’t really know if entropy is increasing in the universe.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Now if everything is in a process of decay then the universe cannot have been here forever or it would have burned out by now and left everything ZERO matter.
That is true, however, the universe does not require a creator. Nothingness is unstable. The universe erupted from an instability in nothingness.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Yes we would not exist. But the universe is visibly young, yes/
No. The universe is visibly very ancient. The universe is up to 13.5 billion years old.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Therefore according to the first two laws of thermodynamics that every scientists alive accepts, we accept, the universe must have had a beginning and been created not so long ago.
Incorrect conclusion; see above.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Now the second reply asks me to put forward an argument in favour of geocentricism. Do I interpret this question literally and answer that the first argument for geocentrism is that it is the universe we see with our eyes. Am I to read more into it and answer The Airy experiment (1838) or the Mitchelson and Morely (1887) experiment. I am however glad you used the words 'in favour' for that is all that science can do, examine data that 'favours' one model over the other. Now if you do not know the circumstances that led to the Airy experiment I will try to explain them. Briefly, it arose out of the discovery of stellar aberration. this observation led man to see that if he lined up a star relative to the earth it would make a small circle over one year. This circle was INTERPRETED by the Copernicans as a 'proof' for heliocentricism. But as any first year science student would tell you - if he or she were allowed to think at university - that all stellar aberration (1838) proved was an apparent movement between earth and the stars exists. Whether it is the star moving relative to the earth or the earth moving relative to the earth we did not know. Now look up your textbooks and you will find stellar aberration ALWAYS portrayed as PROOF for a moving earth. That of course is in the heliocentric propaganda world that was imposed on us by the Copernicans, but there exists alongside a real world in which it was known that stellar aberration had not actually been verified. Now the astronomers and physicists of the nineteenth century knew of a test that could determine if it was the earth moving relative to the star or if it was the star moving relative to the earth. It was a simple test using two telescopes pointing for a year at the one star. One telescope was filled with water and the other normal. The person who conducted it would have confirmed heliocentricism and gone down in history as the first person to actually prove the earth orbits the earth. What a prize, yes? History records that it was not until 1871 that they admitted a physicist called Airy had conducted the test and it showed the EARTH DID NOT MOVE RELATIVE TO THE STAR.
Now here was a logical empirical test that showed a geocentric world. It did not PROVE one as something else could have caused the aberration in the first place.Thus an argument in favour of geocentrism.
I didn’t know about the Airy experiment so I looked it up. There is very little out there on it so I will have to go to the collage and look up some science papers on it. All I did find was an abstract that suggested that the Airy experiment could not have been measured by the type of equipment that existed in 1838. I wonder if any one has tried to repeat the experiment.
At last, direct questions to reply to. First about God. We can know by reason that God exists but cannot prove it. That is a statement of fact known for centuries. Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas gave us 'proofs' of reason and these 'proofs' satisfied billions of theists throughout time. The acceptance of such reasoning comes from within and is not necessarily taught. This is why all preimative races without outside teaching on earth have been found as theists. On can of course reject such reasoning that convinced others. This is what the modern atheist must do. Thus it is futile to argue a matter that really has two sides. Ultimately it is a matter of FAITH and that is how God wants it. Either way, one minute after our deaths we will know for sure. [QUOTE]the reasoning was flawed. people were uneducated. mostly the ones who beleived were already theists with their beleif based in faith and not facts to begin with. no such thing comes from WITHIN. people, with their limited intellects, try to find reasons for what they see arounf them. when they can not come up with physical ones{largely due to lack of knowledge}, they create metaphysical ones. its the desire to explain, the desire to not be alone and the desire to not fade off into non existance and be protected against the things we have no power over that gives rise to such beleifs, not an actual inherent knowledge in the divine. in the end, evidence trumps faith.
[QUOTE]
That God 'always' exists has of course to be taught. we know it now because God revealed it. It is the universe that exists in time, not God. Christians believe God, in the person of Christ, came into time. All of us when we die shall pass out of time into that eternity. In your case only then will you believe.
you say it now because you read it in a book which claimed itself that it was revealed by a god, which has not only been proven to be inconcistant and self contradictory, but plain wrong in many cases. also, there in more to "existance" than this universe alone, or the 4 dimensions that we live in.
[QUOT]
Now to the tie-breaker. QUOTE "now I agree with Templares it is much more sensible to say the universe has always existed instead of an all powerful being."
Right then. Do you two accept the LAWS of science. I see you have faith in theories of science so we will presume you do accept the laws. Now what is the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Answer: that everything is in a process of decay. Now by everything it means everything, from that tin roof to that furthest star. Now if everything is in a process of decay then the universe cannot have been here forever or it would have burned out by now and left everything ZERO matter. Yes we would not exist. But the universe is visibly young, yes/ Therefore according to the first two laws of thermodynamics that every scientists alive accepts, we accept, the universe must have had a beginning and been created not so long ago.
[/QUOTE]
wrong. everything is in a process of moving towards equilibrium. i.e. all random movement of particles/structures is in a process of {through randomness} establishing a uniform concistant whole where energy and mass is distributed in a uniform fashion throughout. also, this ultimate state is just like absolute zero temperature. its an exponential function and therefore can never truly be reached in finite time. furthermore, you are again confusing "existance" with the "universe" around us. this universe is part of a bigger whole. it began{from all we know} at a finite point in time from a small part of ANOTHER existance. hence, it has existed in one form or another forever, even though right now we can not fully understand its form before the big bang. theories of superstring etc theorise that it came from another dimension/universe due to en implosion of the interaction of two strings. also, the other universes{multiverse} theory is supported both by quantum phenomenon and by the time dilation phenomenon of reletivity.
Now the second reply asks me to put forward an argument in favour of geocentricism. Do I interpret this question literally and answer that the first argument for geocentrism is that it is the universe we see with our eyes. Am I to read more into it and answer The Airy experiment (1838) or the Mitchelson and Morely (1887) experiment. I am however glad you used the words 'in favour' for that is all that science can do, examine data that 'favours' one model over the other. Now if you do not know the circumstances that led to the Airy experiment I will try to explain them. Briefly, it arose out of the discovery of stellar aberration. this observation led man to see that if he lined up a star relative to the earth it would make a small circle over one year. This circle was INTERPRETED by the Copernicans as a 'proof' for heliocentricism. But as any first year science student would tell you - if he or she were allowed to think at university - that all stellar aberration (1838) proved was an apparent movement between earth and the stars exists. Whether it is the star moving relative to the earth or the earth moving relative to the earth we did not know. Now look up your textbooks and you will find stellar aberration ALWAYS portrayed as PROOF for a moving earth. That of course is in the heliocentric propaganda world that was imposed on us by the Copernicans, but there exists alongside a real world in which it was known that stellar aberration had not actually been verified. Now the astronomers and physicists of the nineteenth century knew of a test that could determine if it was the earth moving relative to the star or if it was the star moving relative to the earth. It was a simple test using two telescopes pointing for a year at the one star. One telescope was filled with water and the other normal. The person who conducted it would have confirmed heliocentricism and gone down in history as the first person to actually prove the earth orbits the earth. What a prize, yes? History records that it was not until 1871 that they admitted a physicist called Airy had conducted the test and it showed the EARTH DID NOT MOVE RELATIVE TO THE STAR.
Now here was a logical empirical test that showed a geocentric world. It did not PROVE one as something else could have caused the aberration in the first place.Thus an argument in favour of geocentrism. [/B]
go back and actually READ the arguments against transinfinitum. if the earth is stationary than the movement of stars in orbits creates such incredible speeds that they are far beyond that of light speed. the fact that centrifugal acceleration makes us weight less at the equated {measured} RELETIVE to earth proves that the earth is spinning and not the stars. all other anomolous questions about FTLS travel have also been answered before. just take a look. your arguments are nothing but circular logic void of reasoning.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Great stuff lads, I’ve learned a lot from this little venture. My but haven’t I got up the nose of that Templer fellow (Surely an atheist should know that people will identify him with the Catholic Templars of the Crusades. Maybe it is time to change names. How about Chip instead?), see him rant on. When one rejects the opinion of a Professor of quantum maths about a subject he has spent eight years studying, doesn’t this show us something about our fellow commentator.
Blah-blah-blah. Dont give a sh!t about your brother's opinion. The best way to sound smart is to actually debate your position. You dont need to give useless trivia that most of us here already know.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Most of all I’ve learned something about atheists as distinct from atheism. First and foremost I see you guys are ANTI-CATHOLIC. Well, as one of you said ‘join the queue’. What amazes me is that if Catholicism is a man-invented religion with no truth in it, why have the most powerful organisations on earth tried for 2000 years to undermine and destroy it?
Bwahahaha. You could try and paint a persecuted picture for the Catholic church but no one will deny that it has a long sordid history of spreading fear and doing persecutions themselves.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
It seems to me that if there is nothing to Christianity a lot of people have put a lot of time into trying to suppress something that has no substance. It would be like me gathering a group around me to fight those who believe fairies exist. No sirs, the very fact that you guys try so hard to convince yourselves and others that Christianity (not Islam, or Buddhism etc) has no substance shows it has something you fear. If not then you are putting yourselves into the foolish category and whatever else I do not believe you are fools.
Stupid Christian persecution complex.
Just to be clear, we are debating the merits of the Geocentric theory. We are *NOT* trying to bring down your religion. We are discussing cosmology here; heliocentrism vs. geocentrism and not atheism vs. Christianity (or Islam or Buddhism) regardless of what youre thinking.
Take the advice from your fellow Christians at the site i posted in my previous post. The Bible is neither heliocentric nor geocentric because the concept wasnt addressed at all. Celestial motions are a theologically UNIMPORTANT point. The Catholic Church made a mistake in the past by combining Ptolemy's geocentric theory with their own dogma and for the most part they have moved on and redeemed themselves from this. Its just that there are certain segments among the faithful like you who are still living in the Middle Ages.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
I also see you guys have an answer for everything. You are good at invention. Earlier I said that you cannot explain your own origins that you say was a Big Bang. I asked where your original atom came from and how can an atom explode and create SPACE. Explain how SPACE was ‘created’ by your first atom? I couldn’t believe it when one of you guys actually attempted to explain the origin of that atom and that none of you others challenged him. Did you all agree with it? Were you glad one of you had an answer that looked like a coherent intelligible believable answer? Do atheists not adhere to the first law of empirical science, nothing can come from nothing and something cannot disappear into nothing. Now the first atom has to come from somewhere. Why even theistic-evolutionism (I am not one of them) has an answer to that - ex nihilo by God. You atheists have to grovel around trying to invent an answer but you cannot find one that can claim to be scientific.
First, you are guilty of assuming that science is as STATIC as your religious beliefs. You assume that what science knows today is the SUM TOTAL OF EVERYTHING there is to know about the natural world and that there wouldnt be anymore scientific breakthroughs forthcoming, therefore everything that COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED TODAY, like the origin of the Universe, is explained as an act of God.
Formation of the universe from NOTHING need not violate conservation of energy (and matter). The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero. This is just the first step in explaining the origin of the Universe. Remember rainbows; for the longest time people thought its a mystical bridge from the gods, until science prove it otherwise. In time, science will explain everything.
Second, saying that the Universe is created ex nihilo by God is NOT an explanation because there is no objective evidence supporting it other than the subjective Bible which requires teh misleading blind faith for it to be true. The Hindu god Brahma created the Universe ex nihilo and the proof is in the Vedas. So did the Christian god created the Universe or Brahma?
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Anyway. Back to the subject matter [Geocentricism – Catholic propaganda?]I now realise the futility of ‘arguing’ with atheists. You guys cannot be objective for as I said before you only have one option, heliocentricity. All other human beings have in fact two options, geocentricity or heliocentricity. The reason for the latter’s choice is because man has not the ability to determine with certainty if the sun orbits the earth or the earth orbits the sun therefore we have two options. Given this fact only a FOOL would try to persuade others that science CAN show one or the other to be the truth of it.
Only stupid fundamentalists like yourself believe that geocentricity is actually a viable alternative to heliocentricity (within the context of the solar system).
Atheists, christian scientists and all other human beings believe in heliocentricity and DISMISS geocentricity because its backed up by solid, objective evidence. Ive said this before, geocentricity doesnt work because it VIOLATES the law of gravity. Its not a matter of choice.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Given man lives on the earth and experiences a geocentric universe, and that all his calculations of eclipses, comets etc., {even spaceflight} are done geocentrically, it is not a great mystery WHY the vast majority of mankind for thousands of years before Christ were geocentrists until the Seventeenth century. So it is not true to say that geocentricism is Catholic propaganda. Note I have fully complied with the proposition above. I do not have to engage in any ‘scientific’ combat. Now if someone opens up a new site or forum (which I cannot do, being blog illiterate) and calls it [Heliocentricism – Atheistic Propaganda?] I will support the proposition and demonstrate it using the findings of science. So, go to it lads.
Again, you have an oversimplified view of the world and the cosmos. You should keep in mind that our experiences in everyday life are poor preparation for the extreme and bizarre conditions one encounters in cosmology. Geocentricity is NOT limited to Christianity but its wide scale adoption in Western civilization is because of the erroneous teachings of the Church. Pre-17th century, people in the Western world dont have the tools nor the freedom to go up against existing beliefs, to explore their surroundings.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
When one rejects the opinion of a Professor of quantum maths about a subject he has spent eight years studying, doesn’t this show us something about our fellow commentator.
Every hobo living in his cardboard box knows that theories in this quantum physics are set in space, not stone.
Let me ask you this:
if I become a professor of "quantum maths" as you put it, and study religion for eight years, does that qualify me to undermine the opinion of the other thousands of physicist, astronomers, mathematicians and even theologians that say earth isn't the center of the universe?
Sweet. I know what field I'm going into!
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
At last, direct questions to reply to. First about God. We can know by reason that God exists but cannot prove it. That is a statement of fact known for centuries. Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas gave us 'proofs' of reason and these 'proofs' satisfied billions of theists throughout time. The acceptance of such reasoning comes from within and is not necessarily taught. This is why all preimative races without outside teaching on earth have been found as theists. On can of course reject such reasoning that convinced others. This is what the modern atheist must do. Thus it is futile to argue a matter that really has two sides. Ultimately it is a matter of FAITH and that is how God wants it. Either way, one minute after our deaths we will know for sure.That God 'always' exists has of course to be taught. we know it now because God revealed it. It is the universe that exists in time, not God. Christians believe God, in the person of Christ, came into time.
All of us when we die shall pass out of time into that eternity. In your case only then will you believe.
Thomas of Aquinas' reason (which he got from the Greeks) for the Christian god's existence is FLAWED. All things have a cause and the chain of causality could be traced back to someone who is exempt from the chain of causality which is the Christian god. This is a bullsh!t reason or proof for the Christian God's existence because its a Circular argument.
Before you describe the Christian god "as exempt from the chain of causality", that something must be first be proven to EXIST and since Christian god's existence is the very THING IN QUESTION here, we cant use such ASSUMPTiONs for it's existence. Why? Because for such phrases to be true and valid in our debate, it entails that the Christian god's existance has already been proven. We are getting ahead of ourselves in our debate about Christian god's existence.
Its like saying Santa Claus exist because because he has a magical sleigh . . . . how could the assumption of "having a magical sleigh" serve as proof that Santa Claus exist? **** that! how do you know that Santa Claus have a magical sleigh given that NO ONE has seen Santa for real before? If Santa have been proven to have a magical sleigh, we wouldnt even be debating its existence in the first place!
In early times, humans have been using myths and superstitions to explain the UNKNOWN. Thats why religious myths and superstitions exist everywhere you go. Thats why we think "we know" god. Fear of the unknown and the need to make sense of his surrounding is what drives humans to become theists.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Now to the tie-breaker. QUOTE "now I agree with Templares it is much more sensible to say the universe has always existed instead of an all powerful being."
Right then. Do you two accept the LAWS of science. I see you have faith in theories of science so we will presume you do accept the laws. Now what is the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Answer: that everything is in a process of decay. Now by everything it means everything, from that tin roof to that furthest star. Now if everything is in a process of decay then the universe cannot have been here forever or it would have burned out by now and left everything ZERO matter. Yes we would not exist. But the universe is visibly young, yes/ Therefore according to the first two laws of thermodynamics that every scientists alive accepts, we accept, the universe must have had a beginning and been created not so long ago.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html
1. The second law of thermodynamics applies universally, but, as everyone can see, that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down. The second law allows local decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere. The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, order from disorder happens all the time (creation of stars forone).
2. The maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant, but because the universe is expanding, its maximum entropy is ever increasing, giving ever more room for order to form .
3. Disorder and entropy are not the same. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy. There are no laws about things tending to "break down."
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Now the second reply asks me to put forward an argument in favour of geocentricism. Do I interpret this question literally and answer that the first argument for geocentrism is that it is the universe we see with our eyes. Am I to read more into it and answer The Airy experiment (1838) or the Mitchelson and Morely (1887) experiment. I am however glad you used the words 'in favour' for that is all that science can do, examine data that 'favours' one model over the other. Now if you do not know the circumstances that led to the Airy experiment I will try to explain them. Briefly, it arose out of the discovery of stellar aberration. this observation led man to see that if he lined up a star relative to the earth it would make a small circle over one year. This circle was INTERPRETED by the Copernicans as a 'proof' for heliocentricism. But as any first year science student would tell you - if he or she were allowed to think at university - that all stellar aberration (1838) proved was an apparent movement between earth and the stars exists. Whether it is the star moving relative to the earth or the earth moving relative to the earth we did not know. Now look up your textbooks and you will find stellar aberration ALWAYS portrayed as PROOF for a moving earth. That of course is in the heliocentric propaganda world that was imposed on us by the Copernicans, but there exists alongside a real world in which it was known that stellar aberration had not actually been verified. Now the astronomers and physicists of the nineteenth century knew of a test that could determine if it was the earth moving relative to the star or if it was the star moving relative to the earth. It was a simple test using two telescopes pointing for a year at the one star. One telescope was filled with water and the other normal. The person who conducted it would have confirmed heliocentricism and gone down in history as the first person to actually prove the earth orbits the earth. What a prize, yes? History records that it was not until 1871 that they admitted a physicist called Airy had conducted the test and it showed the EARTH DID NOT MOVE RELATIVE TO THE STAR. Now here was a logical empirical test that showed a geocentric world. It did not PROVE one as something else could have caused the aberration in the first place.Thus an argument in favour of geocentrism.
First off, the Airy and Mitchelson-something experiment are both failed and discredited experiments because they both contradict gravitational laws. I told you to debunk gravity first before you could prove geocentrism.
I just want to put out again that your Catholic faith is hindering you from thinking rationally which is why you and your ilk are dredging up old and discredited theories that could be reinterpreted and used to prop up your twisted religious beliefs.
Good day friends. I have a lot to read above. I will take it in stages. first above (SH) I see I am accused of making a false statement about theism. as it was I who argued that all races deduct theism from inside their intellect how can I be accused of making a false statement if I said what you agree to.
Now to the 2ns Law of Thermodynamics. It took me about two minutes to get this off the page devoted to the "nd Law. I paste the following: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.2 Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe
Now if you deny the above is true and thereby argue against my conclusion based on it, then there is no point in going on. Will sombody rule as to who is right about the "nd Law. Then I will move on to the other replies>
Originally posted by james o'hanlonThe 2nd law says that the entropy increases. Yes. What is your conclusion from that?
Good day friends. I have a lot to read above. I will take it in stages. first above (SH) I see I am accused of making a false statement about theism. as it was I who argued that all races deduct theism from inside their intellect how can I be accused of making a false statement if I said what you agree to.Now to the 2ns Law of Thermodynamics. It took me about two minutes to get this off the page devoted to the "nd Law. I paste the following: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.2 Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe
Now if you deny the above is true and thereby argue against my conclusion based on it, then there is no point in going on. Will sombody rule as to who is right about the "nd Law. Then I will move on to the other replies>