Originally posted by james o'hanlon
lads, we are getting nowhere with this. I quote the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics from a random website on the 2nd Law and you guys reject it. This tells me that atheists are more desperate that I ever imagined. One of you put it this way: "If what you say is true, then we could never recycle or make new things from old."
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
Here I am pointing out the relationship of the 2nd law with FOREVER and I get a ten year relationship back. OK let me bring it down to this. Our sun is burning out, yes? Well in time it will (2nd Law at its best) and you guys with it.
Tsk.Tsk.
The sun DID NOT started out its life as a high entropy star, rather as low entropy gas and is not a closed system in itself but is part of the closed system of the Universe. The second law allows LOCAL decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere and vice versa, meaning that the sun's stellar evolution (low to high to low entropy again) is offset by corresponding entropy changes in other parts in the Universe.
Comprende, grampa?
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Now the irony of it all is that here I find you guys rejecting the final consequences of a LAW of nature, and defending with all your atheistic faith something that is NOT a law - UNIVERSAL GRAVITY.Universal gravity is an invention of the masonic Royal Society of London, a formula they handed to Isaac Newton. It is a theory invented to "prove" heliocentricism. In the first editions of Principia Newton did not call them LAWS. That came later when the rest of the heliocentric fraudsters called them laws. A THEORY OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION is NOT a LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION. Now I do not accept theories as TRUTH. You guys can and argue all you like, but for me no thanks.
Psst. Let me tell you a secret. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is already REPLACED by Einstein's special relativity especially when it comes to celestial motions.
Just because that the word "Law" is attached on Newton's work doesnt mean that its etched forever in stone. Again,you are guilty of assuming that science is as STATIC as your religious beliefs. Scientific explanations are always improving and those improvements are backed by solid, objective evidence.
Unlike the previous crude and baseless explanations from the Catholic church who base their them from dead pagan Greeks mishmashing it with a certain 2000 year old book with pretensions of being holy.
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
I think I will exit now with one final statement. The nature of the universe is such that it is impossible for man to determine with certainty whether the world is geocentric or heliocentric. This TRUTH has been known for centuries and no sane scientists or philosopher can deny this fact. Now if neither model can be proved by the empirical method then neither can the physics (or causes of movements) be known with certainty. Now whereas geocentricism was the preferred model until the eighteenth century, heliocentrism has been around as a scientific model AND A RELIGION since man first made records of his beliefs. So, in fact the RELIGION was heliocentricism and not geocentrism.So, what prompted the Copernican revolution? It was the heliocentricism of hermetism. It arrived into Europe in the fifteenth century and spread like wildfire. One of its greatest advocats was Gio Bruno who went all over Europe preaching this for this OLD RELIGION. Thereafter the followers of this ancient religion began to devise a physics for it. To my knowledge no one tried to devise a physics for geocentrism. All physics theories therefore are heliocentric orientated. In time their theories were presented as LAWS and the "preferred" model became the heliocentric one and in time a scientific DOGMA.
But then came those two physics tests (the Airy experiment and the Mitchelson & Morely experiment) that gave geocentric results. The history of the theories that they used to get the earth moving again after the above experiment results shows that these guys were desperate and they had to pervert the science of physics to get their heliocentric fraud up and running again.
For me, a Christian, I believe God knows the true order of the cosmos because He created it. He revealed it in the Bible and His Church defined and declared this to be geocentric.
In 1741 Churchmen did a U-turn. The Church has always claimed divine guidance. Since 1741 churchmen deny the Church of 1616 was divinely guided. The Church was then divided against itself. This led to Modernism and now Rome's scientific beliefs are no different to the Atheists, believing in Heliocentrism, evolution, relativity, big bangism etc.
Thus is a brief history of G v H. G is a matter of Catholic faith. If my faith is true, no true science can ever prove G wrong. Having researched the so-called "proofs" for Heliocentricism and examined them very carefully I now know that their "proofs" are all hoaxes and frauds, plausabilities yes, but not certainties, yet they are promulgated as proven. Moreover they never produced any empirical rebuttals of the Airy and M&M conclusion - that the earth does not move. Now all the rhetoric of my fellow "debaters" do not amount to one iota of proof for their H or for their so-called falsifications of G.
Basically youve just told us that you are retarded.
Newton's and Copernicus' works are backed by objective and testable proofs, mathematical and experimental. Conspiracy or not, Church backed or not, they have greater explanatory power than the previously Church-supported Aristotelian physics or Kepler's geocentric theory which is why the former two were eventually accepted and the latter two discredited.
Newton's Law of Gravity replaced Aristotle's stupid Proper Motion to explain why objects fall to the Earth (all objects are made of earth and water which is why they fall down because its their "proper motion"😉 . This is what the Church supported back then. You really want us to go back to the Middle ages do you? The same Proper Motion that defined only four elements (fire, water, air and earth) in direct contradiction to modern chemistry?
Originally posted by james o'hanlon
That then is my position.
Good bye my friends, I am off fishing and shall never return.
Come back! We need a senile, old chew toy to balance the 13yr old trolls.